WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

US military aid for Ukraine for first time includes Black Hornet spy drone

The U.S. Department of Defense announced $400 million in additional security assistance for Ukraine on Tuesday, including air defense missiles, armored vehicles and small drones, as Ukraine's counteroffensive against Russia grinds on.

The new aid package, which was first reported by Reuters, will include for the first time U.S. furnished Black Hornet surveillance drones made by Teledyne FLIR Defense, part of Teledyne Technologies.

The Norwegian-built Hornet is being used in Ukraine through donations by the British and Norwegian governments, the company said. FLIR Unmanned Aerial Systems was awarded a $93 million contract in April to provide the small reconnaissance drones to the U.S. Army.

In addition, the weapons aid package includes munitions for Patriot air defense systems and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASMS), Stinger anti-aircraft systems, more ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers and a variety of other missiles and rockets.

The assistance is funded using Presidential Drawdown Authority, or PDA, which authorizes the president to quickly transfer articles and services from U.S. stocks without congressional approval during an emergency. The material will come from U.S. excess inventory.

This is the 43rd security assistance package approved by the United States for Ukraine. More than $43 billion in U.S. military aid has been provided since Russia's invasion in 2022.

Commenting on the aid announcement, Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted Russia's attacks on Ukraine ports and Ukrainian infrastructure since withdrawing from the Black Sea Grain Initiative last week.

"Russia could end this war at any time by withdrawing its forces from Ukraine and stopping its brutal attacks against Ukraine's cities and people. Until it does, the United States and our allies and partners will stand united with Ukraine, for as long as it takes," Blinken said in a statement.

The Black Sea grain deal was brokered by the United Nations and Turkey a year ago to combat a global food crisis worsened by Russia's invasion. Ukraine and Russia are both leading grain exporters.

Russia, whose invasion of Ukraine has resulted in the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions of civilians, denounced the new U.S. package.

"The actions by Washington ... are beyond morality and common sense," Russia's ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov said in a post on the embassy's Telegram messaging app.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Britain said on Tuesday it had information indicating Russia's military might start targeting civilian shipping in the Black Sea, while the European Union pledged to help Ukraine export almost all its farm produce via rail and road.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russian forces liberate Sergeyevka community in Krasny Liman area

Russian forces liberated the settlement of Sergeyevka in the Krasny Liman area over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, Defense Ministry Spokesman Lieutenant-General Igor Konashenkov reported on Tuesday.

"In the course of successful counter-attack operations by units of the 15th motor rifle brigade under the skilled command of Lieutenant-Colonel Builov, the settlement of Sergeyevka was liberated," the spokesman said.

In the area of the Serebryansky forest, Russian forces moved 1.5 km into the depth of the Ukrainian army’s defensive lines and their total advance in the Krasny Liman area equaled 4 km. In addition, Russian forces repulsed four Ukrainian attacks in that direction over the past 24 hours, the spokesman said.

"The enemy’s losses amounted to 190 Ukrainian personnel, six armored combat vehicles, five pickup trucks, two D-20 howitzers, one D-30 gun, two Gvozdika motorized artillery systems and a US-manufactured AN/TPQ-50 counter-battery radar station," he said.

In the Krasny Liman direction, Russian forces neutralized a Ukrainian subversive and reconnaissance group and also "destroyed ammunition depots of the Ukrainian army’s 44th motorized infantry brigade and 100th territorial defense brigade," the general reported.

Reuters/Tass

A central premise of neoclassical economics is that the consequences of the decisions of market participants can be known in advance and quantified as risk-adjusted estimates. As John Kay and Mervyn King showed in their 2020 book, Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making Beyond the Numbers, such probabilistic reasoning has a long history. As applied in economics, it has operationalized the concept of “expected utility” – the desideratum that rational economic agents are defined to be maximizing.

As the author of a major analysis of the stock market sponsored by the British government (Kay) and a former governor of the Bank of England (King), both men are well equipped to examine the complex interaction between financial markets and markets for “real” things (goods, services, labor, patents, and so forth). In doing so, they have challenged the statistical methodologies and ontological assumptions that lead economists to regard the future as measurable and manageable.

Managing Expectations

From John Maynard Keynes at the University of Cambridge 90 years ago through Robert Lucas at the University of Chicago in the mid-twentieth century, economists have placed expectations at the core of market dynamics. But they differ on how expectations are formed. Are the data we observe the outcome of processes that are as “stationary” as physical laws, like those determining the properties of light and gravity? Or do the social processes that animate markets render future outcomes radically uncertain?

For a long generation starting in the 1970s, Lucas and his colleagues dominated economic theory, giving rise to different strands of Chicago School economics. While the Efficient Market Hypothesis asserted that prices in financial markets incorporate all relevant information, the Real Business Cycle Theory of New Classical Economics held that the macroeconomy is a self-equilibrating system whose markets are both efficient and complete. The system may be subject to external shocks, but it is not amenable to fiscal or monetary management.

This assumption of complete markets implies that we can overcome our ignorance of the future. It suggests that we could, at any moment, write contracts to insure ourselves against all the infinite possible future states of the world. But since perfect, complete markets obviously do not exist, the Chicago School’s Rational Expectations Hypothesis (REH) proposes that market participants will guide their forward-looking decisions by reference to a (generally implicit) model of how, on average, the world works and will continue to work. As a result, expectations will be tamed and aligned with efficient market equilibria.

For their part, Kay and King look further back to the pre-REH period, when Frank Knight and then Keynes correctly showed that our ignorance of future outcomes is inescapable. As Keynes famously put it in 1937:

“By ‘uncertain knowledge’ … I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known from what is merely probable. … The sense in which I am using the term is that in which the prospect of a European war is uncertain, or the price of copper and the rate of interest twenty years hence, or the obsolescence of a new invention, or the position of private wealth owners in the social system in 1970. About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know.”

The shockingly unanticipated Global Financial Crisis of 2008 brought this insight back to the fore.

The renewed relevance of Keynes’ economics reflected its core teaching: a monetary market economy cannot be relied on to generate full employment. This lesson emerged from the central position Keynes gave to the fragility of the expectations on which investment decisions are made. In 2008, investment expectations were smashed: such a massive market failure called for equally massive offsetting interventions by state institutions. Even Lucas conceded that, “Everyone is a Keynesian in a foxhole.” As Kay and King write:

“The advances in economic theory lauded by Lucas did not prevent a major downturn in the world economy, nor did they give policymakers the tools they required to deal with that downturn. The models he described assumed a stable and unchanging structure of the economy and could not cope with unique events that derived from the essential non-stationarity of a market economy.”

As the discipline of economics has evolved since the shock of 2008, Keynes’ theoretical stance with respect to inescapable uncertainty versus manageable risk is gradually being recognized to be as relevant as the policy prescriptions derived from his macroeconomics.

The central question remains: Where can we find guidelines for mitigating the consequences of radical uncertainty? What basis is there for purposive action in the face of “We simply do not know”?

I see three paths forward. The first two are defensive, and the third is proactive. All three reject an exclusive focus on efficiency in the allocation of resources. Thus, they stand outside what remains the dominant paradigm of mainstream economics.

Cash and Control

The first path is “cash and control.” This represents a toolset for hedging uncertainty in my own professional domain of venture capital, but its uses have been broadly recognized across the spectrum of financial institutions and markets.

I first came to appreciate radical uncertainty as an aspiring venture capitalist some 40 years ago. I had been prepared for what I would encounter while earning my doctorate in economics at Cambridge, under the supervision of Richard Kahn, Keynes leading student and intellectual executor.

As I recount in Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy, I learned a hard lesson when I led my VC firm’s investment in an emergent life-sciences company, Bethesda Research Laboratories (BRL). Owing to failures of management by the founders, as well as failures of governance by other investors and directors, I was forced to launch an operation to save our investment. Despite all the due diligence we had done to understand the company’s technology and potential markets, we discovered that we had invested in ignorance.

Reflecting on the experience decades later, I asked: “Could we … have hedged against our necessary ignorance?” The answer was yes, but if and only if markets were complete and we could have purchased precisely those kinds of securities that would have paid off in the unique situation in which we had found ourselves. However, as Kay and King document in exhaustive detail, markets can never be complete. So, with the benefit of hindsight, I improvised a retrospective hedge that later became the basis for my strategy of cash and control.

At the micro level of the VC investor, cash and control means that, when bad things happen, you will have unequivocal access to the cash you need to buy the time needed to understand the problem, and sufficient control to change the parameters of the situation. In the case of BRL, my partners and I had privileged access to more than enough cash from our institutional-investor clients (whose investment we were powerfully motivated to protect). But to obtain full control of the company, we had to use that access to prevail against other VCs and the founders – an arduous exercise.

The availability of cash and control is obviously context-specific. During the recent Unicorn Bubble, which had been inflated by years of ultra-loose monetary policies, cash was so abundantly available to entrepreneurs that maintaining control had become almost impossible. The balance of power had shifted to founders, many of whom secured entrenched control through ownership of super-voting shares.

This dual-class stock structure had jumped from the world of family-controlled media companies to Silicon Valley, starting with Google’s first venture funding in 1999. That deal was blessed by the two leading VCs of their generation: John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins and Mike Moritz of Sequoia Capital. In the years that followed, every entrepreneur aspired to the status of Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Most notably, Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, followed directly in their footsteps.

The cost of accepting these terms was soon dramatized through public battles – at the board level and in the courts – to force out founders at Uber and WeWork. And now that the normalization of monetary policy has ended the Unicorn Bubble, cash and control again stands as a relevant guide for venture capitalists.

Market Power and Mercantilism

Beyond the world of startups, in the heart of the corporate economy, one major source of control is market power, or what the investor Warren Buffett famously described as a company’s “moat.” As he explained at Berkshire Hathaway’s 1995 annual meeting:

“What we’re trying to find is a business that, for one reason or another – it can be because it’s the low-cost producer in some area, it can be because it has a natural franchise because of surface capabilities, it could be because of its position in the consumers’ mind, it can be because of a technological advantage, or any kind of reason at all – that it has this moat around it.”

Since then, a substantial body of academic literature has emerged to theorize and quantify the observable increase in market power across industries, especially in the United States. Market power – and the monopoly rents that follow – confers an ability to self-insure at scale. Hence, the four most successful companies in the world, each backed by venture capitalists in their early years, tend to hold massive amounts of cash and short-term marketable securities. As of March 31, 2023, Alphabet’s (Google) holdings were $115 billion, Amazon’s were $69 billion, Apple’s were $56 billion (plus $110 billion in marketable long-term securities), and Microsoft’s were $104 billion.

Having accepted radical technological uncertainty in the development of novel products and services, along with radical commercial uncertainty about whether there were customers for their innovations, these companies have refused to accept any financial uncertainty.

The same pursuit of strategic financial autonomy also led Jamie Dimon to construct the “fortress balance sheet” that gave JPMorgan – perhaps alone among global banks – the means to survive the 2008 global financial crisis without emergency government assistance. Similarly, East Asian countries responded to the destruction wrought by the International Monetary Fund in the late 1990s by adopting aggressively mercantilist policies. By boosting current-account surpluses and reserves, they achieved cash and control, and thus robust financial security.

There is a good reason why such policies are called “protectionist” – whether they are implemented by means of an undervalued currency or through legislated tariffs and subsidies. They certainly serve the economic interests of those who export at the expense of the mass of consumers (who in turn suffer at the margin from the adverse shift in the terms of trade). At the extreme, they threaten to unleash the sort of trade wars that contributed to the Great Depression.

But the rhetoric of free trade masks the pragmatic political economy of international commerce. As Friedrich List observed 180 years ago, “Any power which by means of a protective policy has attained a position of manufacturing and commercial supremacy can (after she has obtained it) revert with advantage to a policy of free trade.” One is reminded, here, of Great Britain in 1846 or the US in 1945.

Holding cash reserves that are excessive in normal times and pursuing policies that will generate such reserves over time are both deviations from the efficient ideal. As economists have grappled with the reality of incomplete markets, self-insurance with uncommitted cash has increasingly been recognized as “rational,” though it comes with a visible cost.

Investing in Resilience

That brings us to the second path: investing in resilience by strategically allocating more capital than optimally efficient production chains would seem to require. Kay and King themselves emphasize the necessary trade-off between efficiency and resilience.

The Covid-19 pandemic laid bare the fragility of extended supply chains. Production networks that were optimized to minimize the deployment of working capital quickly collapsed as efficiency was revealed to be the enemy of resilience. And this happened just 12 years after the global financial crisis demonstrated that the efficient allocation of capital in the banking sector had radically reduced the financial system’s resilience.

Resilience in the banking system requires levels of capital that are excessive when measured against “normal” financial conditions, just as resilience in production systems turns on the maintenance of buffer stocks and alternative sources. In either case, the time series of data that define what is “normal” and what constitutes a statistically quantifiable deviation are misleading guides to unforeseeable shocks – the Fukushima tsunami, the Covid-19 pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and so forth – that can stress the system beyond its capacity.

Working capital represents a firm’s investments in inventories and in the accounts receivable owed by customers who have not yet paid for their purchases. Firms do not control the level of their receivables, but they can decide to self-insure by holding more inventories than historical trends suggest are required to support current and planned levels of production. The necessary reduction in the realized return on capital is the price of this insurance. 

That said, contrarian behavior also can be punished. In financial markets, the literature on “the limits of arbitrage” has shown how liquidity on the right-hand side of an investor’s balance sheet (where the liabilities that finance asset holdings are listed) enable bank runs and constrain how long a manager can bet against the market. Berkshire Hathaway’s structure as a closed-end fund meant that Buffett could choose to sit out the great tech bubble of the 1990s without any risk of losing his funding base. The growth in private equity in recent decades has vastly expanded Buffett’s model.

The typical firm may not have this luxury. If its contrarian behavior reduces short-term financial performance, it could invite the attention of activist hedge funds or a determined acquirer. For the operating firm as for the investment manager, the crucial question is: “How long can you afford to be wrong?” Acquisition by private equity offers corporate managers insulation from such threats, at the expense of definitively transferring control to the new owners.

Toward a New Mesoeconomics

Taking production-network fragility seriously opens the door to a strategic extension of the economics discipline. From the classical economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo through the marginalist economists of the late nineteenth century, whose mathematics paved the way for modern neoclassical economics, the discipline has been practiced as a bimodal subject.

While microeconomics addresses the behavior of individual agents (firms, consumers, workers, investors), macroeconomics addresses the behavior of aggregates (as measured by gross national product, gross domestic product, national income, and so forth). But the space between has largely been neglected.

Against the grain, there are two great economists who concerned themselves with this intermediate domain. One was the Soviet-American Nobel laureate Wassily Leontief, who constructed the first input-output tables to illustrate the flow of goods from primary resources to final output.

Today, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis produces national input-output tables on an annual basis, but these are necessarily static and backward-looking. They report on the changed structure of the economy, but they do not provide the theoretical framework and empirical information necessary to understand how shocks propagate through the system and how the economic attributes of different sectors interact dynamically.

Then there was the Italian economist Luigi Pasinetti, whose Structural Economic Dynamics sought to illuminate how the distinctive elasticities of demand and supply, with respect to price and income (along with industry-specific productivity growth), could animate a model economy. But Pasinetti’s work was purely conceptual, lacking both the data and the relevant mathematical tools to be operationalized.

Now that the digitalization of economic life and the availability of relevant computational resources have made operationalizing mesoeconomics possible, an international team of economists with a hub at Cambridge is picking up where Pasinetti left off. By looking out to the frontier of firm entry and exit and financial dependencies between market participants, this wide-ranging research program incorporates both theoretical and empirical advances in the analysis of networks.

Mesoeconomics promises to deliver guidelines for identifying and evaluating potential points of failure and channels of propagation, calling attention to where investing in resilience is likely to be more necessary and effective. The relevance of this approach is underscored by ongoing debates about the causes, nature, and alternative responses to inflation. Is it primarily the consequence of too much macroeconomic demand stimulus or of sector-specific supply shocks? How can we parse the complex interactions between shocks on both the demand and supply sides of the economy?

An alternative, comparably strategic use case is mapping the dependencies entailed by industrial-policy initiatives. For example, any effort to reconstruct a high-tech manufacturing base in the US will encounter many bottlenecks, and the responses to these will generate feedbacks that can mitigate the downstream consequences. Applied mesoeconomics can help anticipate where enabling co-investments should be targeted.

Of course, even when the network externalities of a complex, dynamic production system are visible, their evolution will be influenced by reflexive interactions and significant innovations along the supply chain. The outcome of these forces will necessarily remain uncertain. But the fact remains: it is both appropriate and necessary to maintain working capital above what one would need in a hypothetical, optimally efficient production system.

Experimentation and Innovation

The third path forward begins by recognizing that innovation, by definition, confronts radical uncertainty. As I wrote in Doing Capitalism:

“The innovation economy begins with discovery and culminates in speculation. Over some 250 years, economic growth has been driven by successive processes of trial and error and error and error: upstream exercises in research and invention and downstream experiments in the new economic space opened by innovation. Each of these activities necessarily generates much waste along the way: dead-end research programs, useless inventions and failed commercial ventures.”

If the lowest-risk, most efficient allocation of capital dominates, the necessarily costly process of experimentation will not be undertaken. Nor will innovations with transformative potential be realized.

Experiments are how we map the contours of the unknown. In the VC world, every startup is an experiment, and most fail. Competition in the market economy liquidates the failures and confirms the winners. Without such “Schumpeterian waste,” the persistent, cumulative upward drift in productivity and living standards would not occur.

When scientific discovery supplanted mechanical tinkering as the basis for productive innovation in the late nineteenth century, the necessary research funding came from the giant corporations spawned by the Second Industrial Revolution (which gave us railroads, electrification, and mass production). Whether they owed their market positions to formal agreements with the federal government (AT&T), patent monopolies (RCA and Xerox), or a combination of innovative research and commercial dominance (DuPont and IBM), the leading corporate laboratories could afford to invest upstream in the basic science from which commercially significant technological innovations might evolve.

By allocating their monopoly profits to scientific research and development, these corporations extended their market power while also serving a larger, social purpose. But their market positions proved transient. Within the space of a generation, the monopoly profits available for funding R&D came under growing pressure, and the great tech companies of the post-World War II era succumbed to the forces of Schumpeterian creative destruction and federal antitrust enforcement.

Moreover, this trend was reinforced by the pressure to maximize shareholder value. Following a 1982 regulatory change, companies were allowed to reward shareholders through stock buybacks, which became a compelling alternative to investing surplus cash flows in radically uncertain experimentation.

Speculation and the State

The post-war era was also when the US state emerged as the dominant source of R&D funding. While the Department of Defense laid the groundwork for what would become the digital revolution, the National Institutes of Health played a similar role for biotechnology. By the 1980s, a professional VC industry had emerged to dance on the platforms created by the US state.

Long before the creation of the National Venture Capital Association, financial speculation had provided the funding for developing and deploying transformational technologies at scale – from the canals and railroads of the First Industrial Revolution through the era of electrification during the “roaring” 1920s. More recently, the tech/internet/dot-com bubble of the late 1990s not only funded the physical infrastructure of the internet; it also financed a vast array of experiments in what to do with digital and network technologies. Among the offshoots of these experiments were early e-commerce and social-media platforms.

Then, the prolonged period of “unconventional” monetary policies (in response to the 2008 financial crisis and then the Covid-19 pandemic) sponsored the Unicorn Bubble. Again, a wide variety of experiments gained funding: some, like machine learning, hold transformational economic potential (for better or worse); others, like instant delivery start-ups, seem destined for the scrap heap of history if they fail to finance their operations from the services they sell rather than from the speculative securities for which there are no longer buyers.

The magnitude of this latest bubble is apparent in the extreme reach of some experiments whose potential success will not come until after the lifetimes of the committed VC funds – as in the case of quantum computing or fusion energy. But when financial speculation is the source of funding for innovation, some investors will win by selling into the bubble before they know whether an experiment has succeeded.

The public sector can also pursue speculative bets on innovation and with greater long-term continuity. Program managers at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are recruited from the private sector for fixed terms, and then empowered to fund projects to address some of the armed forces’ specific needs. With market risk eliminated, DARPA can fund extremely challenging technical experiments. A key to its historical successhas been its mandate to accept failure as a necessary concomitant of experimentation. That success serves as a compelling model for funding the innovations needed to respond effectively to climate change.

In all these contexts, an excessive focus on efficiency in the allocation of resources is the enemy of innovation, and sometimes the enemy of a firm’s survival. The reality of radical uncertainty inverts Cassius’s assertion: The fault, indeed, is in our stars. We are condemned to meet the future as best we can, without any hope of ever finding an optimal path forward. Against the efficient failure, let us value the effective (and necessarily wasteful) success.

Project Syndicate

The inner dialogue running through the minds of the most remarkable people.

Ever wondered why certain people appear so confident and assured of their path to success? They seem downright happy -- like they know exactly where they're headed.

Additionally, their success may come from being able to manage conflictwith ease when trouble comes their way; truth is, they're simply more emotionally intelligent than most.

While we have to acknowledge that we're all on different paths with different personality types pursuing different goals, one thing remains constant: the most successful people think differently.

Their daily thoughts help to influence their actions, words, decisions, and ultimate goals. Consider some of the inner dialogue of the most successful people:

1. 'I need to ask for help.'

There's a false belief that successful people don't, or shouldn't, ask for help or advice from others, especially their employees. After all, they're already successful, so they don't really need help, right? On the contrary, researchhas linked people who ask for advice to being perceived as more competent than they are, which is a huge draw if you're a leader of people. The most effective leaders I have studied and coached are emotionally present and ask for help when it's needed. By being real, humble, and emotionally honest -- and giving team members permission to be the same -- teams connect and collaborate better. That's a recipe for good business outcomes.

2. 'I have to focus on the smaller goals to get to that one big goal.'

Successful people focus on achieving those smaller goals to hit their big audacious goals. To hit your own big goal this year and avoid getting overwhelmed or discouraged in the process, do what they do: Focus on knocking one small chunk down at a time, then move on to the next one. As you break the big goal down into smaller chunks, each of those chunks should have its own deadlines. For example, if your big goal is one that will take many months or the whole year to reach, take action now by setting realistic target dates to reach your objectives in the immediate future. In other words, find something you can do this week to begin taking some type of action now for next week or next month. If the overarching goal is to save money, make a budget this week for the following week. If it's to lose weight, develop a plan to commit to losing two pounds the following week.

3. 'If I don't face my fear head-on things will only get worse.'

President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." It's this fear that paralyzes you before you make that super important call, walk on stage for a keynote the first time, or introduce yourself to the girl of your dreams. The anticipation of fear kicks in and you turn to Jell-o. But after you pull it off, you realize you're not in danger and things actually get much better. The solution? Train your brain to accept that there's no threat will help you to switch off the fear response. You'll soon realize that it's the fear of fear that you fear, nothing else. And that will eventually become easy to manage.

4. 'Why am I feeling this angry?'

Emotional intelligence is a strength of many successful people. They realize the reason for their anger may run deeper than what they're experiencing on the surface. They probe, process, do a deep dive, and ask themselves, "What's really beneath my anger?" By stepping back and looking at root causes, you'll soon realize that your anger is really a reaction to whatever is disturbing you, usually something unresolved at the bottom of your pile -- feelings of anxiety, worry, fear of failure, etc. These are the primary emotions you need to deal with as you contemplate how to make payroll when cash isn't flowing. Anger is always the trigger and a secondary emotion. So what's really bugging you? Get honest with yourself after some processing. Then tell yourself with brutal honesty, "The real reason I'm really angry is ... "

5. 'What am I accountable for here?'

Accountability is often demanded from others but rarely from ourselves. It's why accountability tends to get overused and misinterpreted. Instead, it's being responsible, taking ownership of something (good or bad), and communicating honestly with transparency.

6. 'How can I understand this person better?'

The best way to strengthen relationships at work is through more communication, especially with your ears. Successful people intentionally spend more time with their colleagues and customers to learn more about them -- their personal lives, their interests, their goals. This takes the skillful art and science of active listening. You do so by listening intently, with the other person's needs in mind. You listen to the other person's story, searching conversations for depth, meaning, and understanding. The upside for you? You may identify opportunities for deeper connections, business or personal pursuits aligned with mutual interests, and, if you're a manager, opportunities for your employees to contribute more to other projects.

7. 'I need to be willing to listen to feedback on this issue.'

Many successful people choose to cut themselves off from listening, growing, and developing self-awareness--for fear of what they'll hear. It's extremely hard being exposed to ideas, opinions, and constructive feedback from others when you've been operating in an ego system for so long. On the other hand, people who actively listen to various perspectives are the ones who are open, humble, and accountable. They find the facts in order to respond appropriately to serve the needs of others.

8. 'I have to learn this so I can make myself better.'

Successful people are lifelong learners; they never stop learning, and never assume they know everything. That's why they show interest in basking in the wisdom of others. This is what initiates the best conversations -- learning about what other people do, how they do it, why they do it. People love to talk about themselves, and successful people are smart enough to let them! They are the type of people who show up with the humble gesture of "I want to learn from you."

Inc

Groanings occasioned by the removal of the fuel subsidy grew louder on Monday as the  Nigerian Labour Congress said it was ready to fight the economic pains and hardship caused by the Federal Government’s decision.

Also, university workers under the aegis of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities, the University of Lagos chapter of the  Academic Staff Union of Universities, Congress of University Academics and protesting members of the Edo Civil Society Organisations lamented the subsidy removal and it attendant pains. The varsity unions decried the situation, saying the subsidy was ’unintelligently removed.’

National Assistant Secretary, NLC, Chris Onyeka, said the Central Working Committee of the congress would hold an important meeting today and take a position.

He said all issues around the suffering of the masses because of the recent price hike in PMS price would be addressed at the meeting.

“We are going to give the Federal Government an ultimatum. We have given them enough leverage to take care of Nigerians and make amends, but they have refused to make amends. Let them prepare themselves because we are preparing. We are ready to fight back,” he said,

Meanwhile, the Trade Union Congress has faulted plans to allow state governments to roll out palliatives to citizens to cushion the effects of the hardships caused by the removal of fuel subsidy.

President Bola Tinubu had during his inaugural address on May 29 announced the end of the fuel subsidy regime which instantly shut up the pump price of Premium Motor Spirit popularly known as petrol from N165 per litre to N540. The product currently sells for between N568 and N617 per litre.

Speaking on the economic pains brought about by the fuel hikes, National President, Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities, Ibrahim Mohammed, in an interview with our correspondent on Monday, explained that no specific progress had been recorded since the fuel subsidy was removed, adding that Nigerians were in anguish and distraught.

He noted, “The government removed the subsidy very unintelligently; now that they have removed the subsidy, nothing has changed except that people can’t feed, we can’t pay our children’s school fees, and people are committing suicide.

“We lamented the way the government handled this idea of subsidy removal; we welcome the removal if that will be the solution to Nigeria’s problems. But the government is not strategic with the removal, you have thrown people into anguish, into the wild forest and people are scampering.”

Elaborating on the impact of the fuel price hike on university workers and students, he said, “Most university campuses are located on the outskirts and people have to commute 15km to 20 km. How can work be done when a full tank can no longer last a week?”

He lamented that the government had yet to settle four months’ salary, stressing that none of its promises had been fulfilled.

Mohammed added, “Salary not reviewed and other promises made by the past government are not being fulfilled. They are owing us four months’ salary; the revitalisation funds have not been paid.

“If they feel the plight of Nigerians and of university staff, they will fulfil all their promises and meet up with the commitment of Earned Allowance and review salaries so that people can face their jobs. All civil servants have been exposed to hardship, so how can they stop corruption?”

Also speaking, Chairman, ASUU, University of Lagos chapter, Kayode Adebayo, revealed that due to the fuel subsidy removal, living in Nigeria was now tough for lecturers as it was for every Nigerian.

He called on the government to galvanise the system and put smiles on the faces of the citizens.

Adebayo added, “All lecturers are paid peanuts; this was part of the reasons we fought against the government about the 2009 agreement. We tried to negotiate; no need to pretend, the situation is still the same. Just as it is tough for ordinary Nigerians, so it is tough for us too.

“Government is responsible for the security of the citizens. The citizen welfare has been compromised. The government needs to put a smile on the faces of Nigerians. Nigerian citizens are hardworking and understanding and that is why we say Nigerians are the most docile people in the world.

“The government needs to look at the plight of the citizens. We have what it takes to build a country that everybody will be proud of, not people who will finish (graduate) here and be looking abroad for greener pastures.”

He also said that the Federal Government was indebted to ASUU, saying it had refused to settle the seven and a half month’s salary incurred when the union members went on a strike last year.

Adedeji Oyenuga of the Department of Sociology, Lagos State University, Ojo, said, “I have been spending more, a lot more. For my children’s car, I bought N7,000 (fuel) per week. The first increment made it N15,000 per week, but now, I do N18,000 per week with no guarantee that it would last the week. I used to fill my car tank with between N12,000 and N13,500 fuel. It rose to about N40,000, but is now N50,000.”

In Benin City, Edo State, citizens took to the streets on Monday to protest the increasing hardships imposed by the fuel subsidy withdrawal which had led to sharp hikes in fuel pump prices as well as an increase in prices of goods and services.

But expressing concern over the planned rollout of palliatives by the states to cushion the subsidy removal, the Trade Union Congress said it did trust state governors to manage the process well.

He was speaking against the backdrop of plans by the National Economic Council comprising 36 state governors and Vice President Kashim Shettima to allow state governments to implement the cash transfer programme for N12million Nigerians using state-generated social registers.

Addressing journalists in Abuja on Monday, TUC President, Festus Osifo, stated that the governors had not been specific about what they intended to do.

He said, “The Nigerians Governors Forum invited us for meetings and we made our case known to them. There is nothing specific about the palliative,  they said each state should go back and look at what they could do. There is nothing concrete, there is nothing we can hold them accountable for.

“If you are coming out to say each state should pay a certain amount of money as wage award or each state should give some categories of workers tax relief, we can hold you accountable on that and not say each state should go and do according to their purse. That is not it. What they must bring to the table must be specific and measurable and must be done transparently.’’

Continuing, he noted, “For us, anything called palliative must be things we can verify and not something that you will promise us and at the end of the day you will not implement. We all remember during Covid-19 when palliatives were in warehouses and people were dying on the streets.

“We do not trust the process. The Governors’ Forum should do better. They are talking about mass transits, how many are they bringing up, let them tell us and we will empower our state councils to follow up.“

Condemning the hike in tuition fees, he cautioned the government against any policy that could render workers’ salaries useless.

He added that the student loan, which according to him had stringent provisions,  should not be a yardstick to increase tuition fees.

Osifo said, “Also, we understand that our tertiary institutions are in a sorry state. We call on the government to be mindful of policies that would erode the take-home pay of Nigerian workers by introducing all manners of tuition fees from the Unity Schools to tertiary institutions.

‘’We understand there is a student loan but if you look at the provision of the law, students of any household where the parents are earning the N30,000 minimum wage cannot qualify for it. It clearly shows they are not willing to give the loan to anybody. There are other stringent conditions attached to it. For us,  this should not be a yardstick to start increasing fees drastically.“

Osifo further rejected the proposed 7.5 per cent Value Added Tax on diesel, adding that affiliate unions had been placed on alert to monitor the activities of the government in that regard.

He said, “We also say no to the proposed 7.5 per cent VAT on AGO. It has been deregulated and the market forces are what determine the price. Today, if you introduce the VAT on AGO,  we should be ready that this similar VAT will be introduced to PMS.

“As of today,  they are listening but we have communicated with some of our affiliates that are directly responsible for this to continuously monitor if the government wants to introduce this through the backdoor.”

He also called on the government to ensure that the planned increase in electricity tariff does not see the light of day.

He warned that Nigerians’ endurance level was getting to the limit, advising the government to be mindful of the timing of some of its policies.

“You will be adding salt to people’s injuries if you increase the electricity tariff. Nigerians’ endurance level is getting to the limit. It may get to a point that Nigerians would not be able to take this anymore.  When you are bringing about policies even when the policies are the best, you must look at the timing and how to phase them out for you not to make the citizens suffer,’’ the labour leader cautioned.

While commending the president for suspending the proposed excise duty on telecommunications in the country, he called on the president to scrap it.

He also called on the National Assembly to remove the item from the Finance Act.

Osifo, however, called on the government to come up with policies that would support the country’s exchange rate.

Punch

Civil Society Groups flooded major streets in Benin City, Edo State on Monday, to protest the recent increase in price of petrol and nationwide hardship.

The groups under the aegis of the Edo Civil Society Organisations lamented the high cost of governance exhibited by politicians, at the expense of the poor Nigerians.

According to the groups, the federal government ought to have provided palliatives that would cushion the pangs of fuel subsidy removal before implementing it.

Recall that the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited, last Tuesday, increased the prices of petrol to N617 per litre in Abuja, while other places like Lagos are selling at N550 above.

In his inaugural speech, President Bola Tinubu had declared an end to subsidy of fuel, and this jerked the litre of petrol from N197 to above N500 across the country.

Tinubu, in his bid to ameliorate the sufferings of Nigerians, proposed to give N8,000 to 12 million households for six months, a measure that was suspended after a barrage of criticisms.

Reacting to all of these, the protesters took to the streets in Edo, carrying several placards bearing different captions like ‘FG Fix Our Refineries’, ‘Kill Corruption, not Nigerians’, ‘Poor Nigerians Lives Matter’, ‘We Say No To Constant Increment In PMS’, ‘How Did NNPCL Become Fuel Price Requlator’ ‘N8,000 Palliatives, and ‘What An Insult’ among others.

Nigerians are faced with hardship currently as the increment in the prices of petrol has adversely affected the cost of living including transportation, food, and other goods and services.

Daily Trust

Travellers are expressing their disappointment and frustrations as airfares continue to skyrocket, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to embark on their desired trips. The rising costs, coupled with economic uncertainties, have left many passengers in a state of dismay.

About two weeks after President Bola Tinubu promised to unify the nation’s multiple exchange rates, the apex bank decided to float the naira at the Investor’s and Exporters’ Window of the foreign exchange market. Since then, the naira had fallen from N471/dollar to N867/$.

With this development, Nigerians, particularly, intending international students hoping to resume school in September, had been greatly impacted by the unpredictable fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.

The prices of air tickets had skyrocketed, making it increasingly difficult for Nigerians to travel, especially when compared to neighbouring countries such as Benin and Ghana, where airfares are notably cheaper.

The current policy of floating the Naira had done little to alleviate the situation. As the exchange rate continued to rise, most foreign airlines’ funds were trapped within Nigeria, due to a scarcity of dollars in the market. This scenario created a problematic landscape for Nigerians who depended on reasonably priced flights to go about their business.

In a chat with our correspondent in Abuja, Ade Johnson, a potential traveller, noted that although he had not yet booked his flight, he had noticed a significant increase in prices compared to a few months earlier.

He disclosed that many Nigerians had started exploring alternative options. One popular choice was to travel via the Benin Republic, where airfares were considerably cheaper. Additionally, the proximity of Benin Republic to Lagos, with a travel time of less than an hour, mades it an enticing proposition for cost-conscious travellers.

He said, “Though, I have not booked my flight, prices have gone up compared to what was obtainable some months ago. Lagos to London was around 350k in May for the airline I booked, but the same route goes for 750k or more now.

“The best alternative option is to travel through Benin republic where air tickets are cheaper and it’s less than an hour drive from Lagos.”

Moreover, the Fx situation had created additional challenges for Nigerian students, including increased payment for tuition fees, visa expenses, the International Health Surcharge, and the need to provide proof of funds for maintenance and upkeep.

Previously, Nigerian students utilised Form A for tuition payments, which was pegged at a fixed rate controlled by the Central Bank of Nigeria. However, the current circumstances had altered this arrangement, leading to further financial burdens for students.

Sharing her experience, Success Apiaka, a traveller impacted by the recent increase and fluctuation in foreign currency rates, expressed his frustration with the effect it has had on her travel plans and budget, adding that she was forced to reassess and make significant adjustments to his financial planning to accommodate the unforeseen changes.

Apiaka recounted the challenges she faced, stating, “The recent increase and fluctuation in foreign currency has affected my travelling plans, especially considering the amount I had originally budgeted for the process. I had to go back to my drawing board to replan and find the best way to achieve my travel goal. This meant cutting down on a lot of expenses, including food, clothing, and family-related costs, in order to meet the current exchange rate and make the most of every penny I have.”

Fortunately for Apiaka, being knowledgeable in economics, she anticipated the economic difficulties ahead and took proactive measures to secure her travel plans. She booked her flight as early as May after paying her tuition, having learned from past experiences with using Form A for foreign currency transactions.

“I had to cut down a lot of my expenses in terms of feeding, clothing, family, etc just to ensure I can meet up to the current rate, utilise every single penny that comes my way.

She said the mental stress that came with the entire process, the wait is really not easy, process and all. For the financial aspect, I would say a little because this is something I have been preparing for although not at this current rate but so far I must say the mental stress was quite overwhelming at some point.

Another affected traveller, Aisha Abdullahi told our correspondent that currency fluctuations and the single exchange rate policy were affecting her travel plans, strewing that with her intended budget of N12m, now only yielding 12,000 pounds instead of the expected 24,000 pounds.

Abdullahi had been forced to consider alternative arrangements to make up for the significant financial hurdle, noting that said she had to explore selling off properties and liquidating investments.

She highlights the drastic change in flight prices, with a return ticket now costing between N800,000 to over N1m, compared to the previous rates of N300,000 and above.

“I’m considering flying through Benin Republic, Contonu Airport to be precise but I’m trying to weigh the prons and coins that are involved because moving my things from my base in Abuja down to Lagos means incurring some expenses like paying for excess luggage to Lagos.

“So, I will put all this together and compare it with the air ticket in Cotonou then that would give me a clear picture of what I want and make my decision.”

Punch

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia talks of retaliation after 'Ukrainian drone strike' near Moscow army HQ

Russia spoke of taking harsh retaliatory measures against Ukraine after two drones damaged buildings in Moscow early on Monday, including one close to the Defence Ministry's headquarters, in what it called a brazen act of terror.

Nobody was hurt in the attack, of which a senior Ukrainian official said there would be more, but one drone struck close to the Moscow building where the Russian military holds briefings on what it calls its "special military operation", a symbolic blow which underscored the reach of such drones.

Roads nearby were temporarily closed, windows on the top two floors of an office building struck by a second drone in another Moscow district were blown out, and debris was scattered on the ground, a Reuters reporter who saw the aftermath of the incident said.

"I was asleep and was woken up by a blast, everything started shaking," Polina, a young woman who lives near the high-rise building, told Reuters.

A third "helicopter-type drone" which was not carrying explosives fell on a cemetery in a town outside Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement in which it vowed that all those responsible would be found and punished.

The Kremlin said it would press on with its campaign in Ukraine and meet all the aims of an operation which Kyiv and much of the West say is a brutal war of conquest.

The Moscow drone attack, though not serious in terms of its human cost or damage, was the most high-profile of its kind since two drones reached the Kremlin in May.

A swarm of 17 drones also launched attacks overnight on Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014, the Russian Defence Ministry said, adding it had used anti-drone equipment and air defences to bring them down. The Russian-installed head of Crimea said an ammunition warehouse had been struck and a residential building damaged.

"We regard what happened as yet another use of terrorist methods and intimidation of the civilian population by the military and political leadership of Ukraine," the foreign ministry said of the Moscow and Crimea drone attacks.

"The Russian Federation reserves the right to take harsh retaliatory measures."

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, said Moscow needed to broaden the range of targets it struck in Ukraine, adding what he called high-impact unexpected and unconventional ones.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, whose government rarely comments on attacks inside Russia or on Russian-controlled territory, had on Sunday promised what he called "a retaliation to Russian terrorists for Odesa".

That was a reference to days of deadly Russian missile strikes against targets in the port city which Moscow says are payback for a Ukrainian attack last week on the Crimean Bridge which killed the parents of a 14-year-old girl.

Kyiv said on Monday that a Russian drone attack had destroyed Ukrainian grain warehouses on the Danube River and wounded seven people.

'ACT OF TERRORISM'

"Today at night drones attacked the capital of 'the orcs' and Crimea," said Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, using a derogatory term some Ukrainians use for Russians. "Electronic warfare and air defence are already less able to defend the skies of the occupiers."

Writing on the Telegram messaging app, Fedorov, one of the officials spearheading Ukrainian efforts to create an "army of drones", added: "No matter what happens there will be more of this."

Russia's defence ministry said its forces had used radio-electronic equipment to take out the two Ukrainian drones, forcing them to crash, thereby foiling what it called an attempted "terrorist attack".

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told the RTVI TV channel Ukraine was guilty of what she called "an act of international terrorism".

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said on his Telegram messaging app that two non-residential buildings were struck at around 4 a.m. (0100 GMT), adding there was no serious damage or casualties.

Citing emergency services, Russian state news agencies reported that drone fragments had been found near a building on Komsomolsky Avenue, which runs through Moscow. The site is close to various defence ministry buildings, including some reported to be affiliated to Russia's GRU military intelligence service.

Traffic was temporarily closed on the street as well as on Likhachev Avenue, where a high-rise office building had been damaged, Russian news agencies reported.

Attention is now likely to turn to where the drones were launched from and whether pro-Ukrainian saboteurs inside Russia had a role. After May's drone attack on the Kremlin, U.S. drone experts concluded they might have been launched from inside Russia.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Kiev’s defense chief explains counteroffensive failures

Kiev’s offensive has been lagging behind schedule due to lethal Russian minefields and the lack of air defense weapons, Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov has said. 

“It’s a question of air defense. It’s a question that we have a very long battlefield line also,” Reznikov told CNN in an interview published on Monday. Ukrainian troops were up against a “big quantity of enemies,” he added. 

Reznikov explained that it was “very difficult to break through” vast Russian minefields across the southern front. However, he added that he was “not worried” about the situation on the ground because it was a “misconception that every counteroffensive should be quick.”

The minister’s comments come after President Vladimir Zelensky admitted that offensive operations launched in early June were going “slower than desired.” The much-anticipated push has failed to yield significant territorial gains as Ukrainian armored columns suffered heavy losses while attacking fortified Russian positions. 

During the first two weeks of the offensive, as much as 20% of the weapons deployed by Kiev were damaged or destroyed, according to the Washington Post, which cited US and European officials. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that at least 15 German-made Leopard main battle tanks and over 20 US-supplied Bradley infantry fighting vehicles were knocked out in a single day. Moscow previously warned that the delivery of Western heavy weapons would not change the course of the conflict.

The Russian military began striking targets in the Black Sea port of Odessa last week, in response to an attack on a long bridge that connects Crimea to mainland Russia. CNN reported that Ukraine’s air defenses in Odessa have shown “a significantly lower success rate” compared to their performance in the Kiev area. The Russian Defense Ministry said that it only targeted military sites.

** Russian air defenses destroy 35 Ukrainian drones over past day — top brass

Russian air defense forces intercepted a rocket of the US-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket system and downed 35 Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, Defense Ministry Spokesman Lieutenant-General Igor Konashenkov reported on Monday.

"Air defense capabilities intercepted a rocket of the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system. In addition, they destroyed 35 Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles in areas near the settlements of Kolomyichikha, Kuzyomovka, Topolevka, Kremennaya and Kovalyovka in the Lugansk People’s Republic, Berezovoye and Belogorovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, Zelyony Gai and Pyatikhatki in the Zaporozhye Region, Novaya Kakhovka and Sagi in the Kherson Region," the spokesman said.

Reuters/RT/Tass

Jane is a junior doctor working several extra locum shifts to make ends meet. Burnt out after the pandemic, and struggling with her physical and mental health, she would really like to take unpaid leave, but she cannot afford to do so. Last month, her landlord hiked up her rent, then served her with an eviction notice when she said she couldn’t afford it. She now has to move for the fourth time in three years, and is back in a flat-hunting market where rents are higher everywhere.

She feels trapped, she tells me. Trapped in her job, with her accommodation options diminishing and her time permanently constrained by balancing long work hours with the demands of looking for a home. There is no space for socialising or relaxation, only for a fleeting sleep, from which she wakes up to go back to work, to look at places to live that are almost certainly out of her reach, and to run her numbers again, hoping that an overlooked saving will magically appear.

Behind the strikes, inflation numbers and talk of all the difficult decisions politicians have to make are a multitude of trapped people, their choices shrinking. People in bad relationships who cannot leave because rents and mortgages have gone up so being single is no longer viable. People who would like to have a child, or another child, but cannot afford its care, or who would like to return to work after having a child but the sums just don’t work. People in bad jobs with no security or benefits who cannot quit and look for alternatives because they have no savings to buffer rising costs. The end result is a crisis not just of the economy, but of freedom.

With that crisis, an entire liberal ambition becomes thwarted. We talk of liberalism in grand abstract terms, as the noble heart of an ideal political order that promotes human rights, the rule of law, civil liberties and freedom from religious dogma and prejudice. We hope for it for others, sometimes taking it upon ourselves to bring it to them at gunpoint, evangelical about this finely calibrated system that manages the relationship between citizens and power, so that it never becomes coercive or abusive.

But when economic arrangements themselves become coercive and abusive, then political liberalism can coexist with, and indeed mask, a state of illiberalism and bondage. In the throes of personal challenges, lofty political ideals feel remote and irrelevant. All that people like Jane and others have the time or energy to register is a set of invisible oppressive economic forces that simply must be weathered because they are facts of nature. The result is a sort of ambient autocracy, where personal choices are increasingly dictated by forces that you had no say in creating and have no means of overthrowing.

You can hear the language and logic of this economic dictatorship everywhere. Tony Blair tells us that with an ageing population, a climate crisis, higher debt interest and an economic workforce increasingly constrained in its ability to seek services such as housing and healthcare outside the public sector, we should be ready to not wait for the NHS and use private health providers for minor health matters, and that we should ultimately be “taxing less and spending less”.

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves fixate on “growth” and “enterprise”, reneging on plans to put up income tax on higher incomes and refusing to impose a capital gains tax, so those whose income comes from that pot of earnings pay less tax than those whose money is earned from labour. “Tough decisions” has become Starmer’s mantra, as if the point is the toughness of the decisions, rather than what those tough decisions will achieve.

But, in fairness, it’s an accurate mantra for the state many are in. Things are difficult, tough. Because among those for whom things won’t be tough, enough political, media and economic capital has been generated to sponsor politicians’ austerity, and enable it to be branded as realistic truth telling. This, it strikes me, is not only a political choice, but a reneging on a historical deal, forged in the colossal upheavals of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and revolution in England, the US and Europe.

The trade-off was that we would lose the traditional supports and solaces of rural values and extended families, but become free from their prejudices and patriarchies, and the associated economic and political exploitations of a hierarchical system that was skewed to landowners, rent seekers and those imbued with authority because of where they were born in that hierarchy. Yes, we would be more prosperous, but more crucially we would also be free to choose how to live our lives. “The only freedom which deserves the name,” wrote John Stuart Mill, “is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

That good is now increasingly limited to those who can afford it – who can purchase the liberty to love, leave and leisure, and the right to indulge in creative work and expression. The rest are caught in a halfway house between the old and new worlds.

Bereft of the support and proximity of family and community, people are deprived of the social safety net that was supposed to replace it, increasingly having to fork out funds for childcare, subsidising boomeranging single children and elderly parents while paying tax, or fretting about their fates in a cutthroat housing market and a scandalously underfunded care system. Anything that disturbs this tenuous balance cannot be contemplated, so the shackles to partners, employers and imperfect domestic arrangements grow ever tighter.

I grew up in the old world and saw only its limitations, chafing against it and impatient for some individual autonomy. My mother had four children, working throughout her childbearing years as a school teacher, only able to go back to work because, with each child, a new family member would move in, or move back in, to help. They joined others who lived with us on and off over the years when they needed housing.

My parents were distant but seemed to be broadly content figures, either at work or obscured by a blur of relatives they were constantly entertaining, feeding or cleaning up after in a gaggle of chat, laughter and gossip. The price for that mutual communal facilitation was paid in other ways – a violating lack of privacy and personal space, and a sense that everyone’s lives, in their most private and intimate detail, were the subject of others’ opinions and policing. It was a “gilded cage”, as it is called in Orientalist literature. In hindsight now, and in adulthood and parenthood, having experienced both in the new world, I can see that gilded cages come in many forms. Political freedoms are precious metal, but when they come with economic restraints, they are a shiny enclosure.

The Guardian, UK

Now more than ever, finding passion in your work has become a significant aspect of businesses and a consumer demand. Times are changing, propelled by the Covid-19 Pandemic and the working landscape is seeing the most repercussions.

Employees are more interested in working for a job they love versus sacrificing their personal life for a paycheck. So what does this look like? It starts from the top and trickles throughout the organization. And that's where you, the business owner, come in.

As entrepreneurs, it's our job to create, promote, and foster a positive and healthy work environment - after all, our teams are the backbone of our businesses. But to achieve this level of internal success, leading with a purpose should be at the forefront of your business. 

When I was starting out, "purpose" was one of the last things on my mind. But as I got farther along on my entrepreneurial journey, I realized just how important a single feeling can be for setting my team, and myself, up for success. 

Purpose Equals Success

Outdated and rudimentary beliefs of working to make a living or focusing more on the monetary value than the career are things of the past. Over the years, society has adopted the notion that you should love what you do, despite the title or salary.

And this perspective isn't solely for employees but also employers. Because at the end of the day, you, the leader, are the single entity that motivates or demotivates your team. And an unmotivated team will become an unsuccessful team. 

A purpose is a powerful tool that should be included in business owners' belts and one of the first things they utilize when building their organization. The world is overflowing with businesses.

And one of the best ways to keep a competitive edge and generate a large consumer base is to ensure your company operates with a purpose. Because it not only impacts how your team performs but also how consumers interact with your brand and in this day and age, reputation and credibility are everything. 

Create A Healthy Work-Life Balance

You and your business will be better off if you create space for people and things outside of work. And so will your team. Because on top of gaining a name for yourself and your business, implementing a work-life balance keeps you grounded in all aspects of your life.

But all too frequently, I hear how leaders neglect their personal life due to their careers and nine times out of ten, they've either lost passion for what they do or never had it to begin with. 

When you run your business from a passion standpoint, chances are you'll end up enjoying what you do and even loving it. Yet many leaders don't realize or undervalue the importance of doing so.

Life is a constant balancing act with things like diet, fitness, spending and the elephant in the room – work. You'll eventually feel the ripple effects if you devote too much time to your personal life or exert all your energy into work. And this affects not only your entire organization but also your relationships. 

When you lead with passion, everything else comes naturally. And one thing you're more likely to avoid is burnout. 

Lessen The Chance For Burnout

This type of work-related stress is caused by physical and or emotional exhaustion from feeling overwhelmed, drained and unable to meet the demands of your position.

Pressure can occur in almost every area of your life, especially your work life. But you'll likely avoid this dilemma if you tend to your needs while running your business with a clear purpose. 

As someone who has personally dealt with burnout, it's crucial to clearly define your business's purpose, values and mission to prevent this situation from transpiring.

My advice to aspiring and seasoned entrepreneurs? Consider your why before and during your business operations. The best things in life come from being your authentic self. Trust me, leading with a purpose will guarantee your organization succeeds in whatever way that looks for you. 

Inc

Stocks of the financial services sector led the activity chart of the Nigerian Exchange Limited last week, leading to N1.3tn gain for investors.

Also, the NGX All-Share Index and Market Capitalisation appreciated by 3.89 per cent to close the week at 65,003.39 and N35.395tn respectively.

Consequently, the year-to-date gains of the NGX ASI rose to 26.83 per cent.

A total turnover of 4.182 billion shares worth N99.048bn in 41,446 deals were traded last week by investors on the floor of the exchange, in contrast to a total of 5.246 billion shares valued at N63.417bn that exchanged hands in the preceding week in 57,234 deals.

The Financial services industry (measured by volume) led the activity chart with 3.015 billion shares valued at N36.762bn, traded in 20,079 deals, thus contributing 72.08 per cent and 37.12 per cent to the total equity turnover volume and value.

Oil and gas industry followed with 311.172 million shares worth N2.128bn in 3,473 deals. The third place was the conglomerate industry, with a turnover of 180.518 million shares worth N787.392m in 2,111 deals.

The top three stocks during the past week were United Bank for Africa, FCMB Group Plc, and Japaul Gold & Ventures Plc (measured by volume), as they accounted for 1.727 billion shares worth N18.239bn in 4,707 deals, contributing 41.29 per cent and 18.41 per cent to the total equity turnover volume and value respectively.

Other indices on the NGX finished higher, except for NGX ASeM which depreciated by 0.07 per cent.

A total of 73 equities appreciated during the week under review, higher than 29 equities in the preceding week. 19 equities depreciated, lower than 77 in the preceding week, while 64 equities remained unchanged, higher than the 50 recorded in the preceding week.

Topping the gainers’ table for the review week was John Holt with a 58.01 per cent gain to close at N2.86. Chellarams Plc gained 32.39 per cent to close the week at N2.33. Sterling Financial Holdings Plc gained 27.33 per cent to close at N3.96.

Ecobank Transnational Incorporated gained 27.17 per cent to close at N16.15, and CWG Plc gained 26.38 per cent to close at N2.97 per share.

On the losers’ chart was FTN Cocoa Processor with a 29.08 percentage loss to close at N2.00. Courteville Business Solutions lost 28.09 per cent to close at N0.64. Abbey Mortgage Bank Plc lost 26.32 per cent to close at N1.12.

Linkage Assurance lost 20 per cent of its share value to close at N0.64, and Japaul Gold and Ventures Plc lost 15.15 per cent to close at N0.84.

Meanwhile, analysts at Cowry Assets Management expect the bullish sentiments in the market to continue as companies publish their half-year financial reports, “while equity investors continue taking bets on the market based on the possible outcome of the next monetary policy meeting in the face of portfolio repositioning and the hope tide of impressive H1:2022 corporate earnings.”

Punch