Business people taught, is right? Google founders made it:

Consider some of the institutions that are regularly burdened by that task। Google।org—the philanthropic arm of Google—started a year ago but is still trying to answer this question. At the World Bank’s global ICT grant-giving division, infoDEV, the new director will now need to decide how to move the program in new and continually productive directions. Bilateral agencies like USAID and the ever-innovative IDRC are constantly facing the challenges of how to stay relevant in a rapidly changing field and learn from their past experiences. Even the hoary private foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie have cautiously begun investing in ICT for development, especially focusing on higher education in Africa (witness their Partnership for Higher Education in Africa). Finally, there is always the elephant in the corner of any discussion of corporate philanthropy, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is continually reformulating its sophisticated giving strategies, strategically incorporating an extraordinary financial now from Warren Buffet. No doubt many people have ideas about how best to spend $10 million on IT and international development. But does anyone have a clear sense of best practice that meets all of the desiderata of sustainability, scalability, impact, relevance, collaborative approaches, and egalitarian results?

In the case of ITID, regularly reading dozens of submissions covering a multitude of issues has helped us develop our own views on how we might spend such a lump of money (should anyone offer it to us!). Witnessing a lot of failures and, happily, some successes over the past few years, we unlearned a bunch of certainties we thought we knew and learned one or two new things. Our authors have said, and we agree, that you can’t just drop a computer into a village and expect the simple presence of technology to eliminate local inequality or solve economic or social challenges.
We unlearned that all you need for access to technology is a good wired or wireless connection; you also need skills, money, incentive, international connectivity, and supportive public policy. We unlearned the old chestnut that telecenters are always wonderful; indeed, most don’t survive, and usually collapse because of failures in financial, technical, social, political, or institutional sustainability.

Another big lesson we unlearned, just after the dot-com and telecommunication bubble burst, was the delusional optimistic notion that institutional support for ICT4D would be infinite, robust, and enthusiastic (recall the vaporizing commitments from the Okinawa G8 Summit). Alas, today there are fewer institutions enthusiastically supporting the field or supporting it with the consistency and imagination we saw in the past. Finally, we have learned that if you are donating $10 million, or just $100 for that matter, there is absolutely no single best practice to advance IT for international development. (Indeed, we both have learned this lesson through personal experience with cookie-cutter approaches that have lead to quick failures.) The Holy Grail of best practices only emerges when the question is properly reframed, to wit: Under what circumstances can activity X or Y be considered a best practice in context Z for population A or B? As we move from the cheerleading enthusiasm of the ICT4D roaring 1990s to the reactionary pessimism of the early 2000s—when nothing seemed to work—to the synthetic smart-experimentation stage of today, we can expect the following results and learning’s:
• More attention will need to be paid to capacity building as communities and countries move up
the value chain and require increasingly sophisticated skills to integrate and implement their ICT4D plans.
• South–South sharing of ideas and principles will be necessary.
• Crossing professional and disciplinary barriers will be essential. For example, development specialists can communicate and learn from radio network engineers (and vice versa) without undue signal-to noise ratios.
• We need to continue to nourish a global epistemic community.
• We need to continue to radically rethink what is meant by ICTs in the context of development (i.e., What is a computer? What is a network? What is a phone?).
• We need to continuously refine and improve our theoretical approaches and our practices for monitoring, assessment, evaluation, and feedback. ITID is proud to have provided a place for both learning and unlearning about the ÂȘeld of ICT4D.
As we move forward, we hope the journal will be a platform from which others can learn the discipline’s best practices and will help all of the relevant institutions construct a truly revolutionary donor stratergy.
Courtesey: MIT Journals
This article for people who want to become rich socialist.

Women Business Owners :

Women now control more money and have more employees than the Fortune 500. In addition, we understand the women in business market in a way no man does. This is the moment to seize our advantage and aim directly for the world's fastest growing market.

Other women in business. Despite the fact that women received only 1.6 percent of the $34 billion in venture capital investments from 1991 to 1996, according to statistics Released by the National Foundation of Women Business Owners, women owned firms are the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy, with seven year revenue growth of 132 percent and $3.3 Trillion in purchasing power. Clearly, this market represents a unique opportunity for other women in business. According to IBM, The global women-owned business market is not only significant in size and potential, but it is also distinctive in nature. Women business owners must be aggressively addressed as a unique market segment with tailored communications and marketing strategy. Who better to tailor communications and marketing strategy to women in business than other women who share a deep understanding of the unique challenges women face, particularly other women in business?

Let's take a look for a moment at the sheer size and scope of this market in the U.S. alone:

• Women - Owned Businesses comprised 38% of all businesses, or 9.1 M Companies

• 3.1T in Sales

• 2,700 Women’s Business Associations

• $3.3 Trillion purchasing power

• Purchase 81% of all products and services

• 53% of all purchasing agents

• 50% of all travel

• Spent $50B+ in technology in 1999

• Represent 50% of all Internet Users who spent $3.5 B on technology in 2000

So what is the best way for women to capture the potential of this huge market? Probably one of the best ways is to leverage the power of the net to enter into an online marketplace to showcase your own products and services and to buy or sell products and services from other business women. Bear in mind, small businesses with 50 or fewer employees make up more than 99% of all employers in the U.S. and 50% of the nation1s work force. Most need at least some outsourced services and all need products. E-commerce spending by small businesses is projected to reach $3,750 per business by 2001. As for women-owned businesses, specifically, according to Neilson Media Research, April 1999 Demographics

• Women are the driving force behind the growth of e commerce on the Net 92M Internet users

• Online purchases by women increased 80% in 9 months So, the single, inescapable fact which has presented women with an unleveled playing field for so many years..... the fact that we are women, with different challenges and perceptions in the workplace.... can finally be turned to our advantage, judo style. The men may control bigger companies, but there are more of us, and taken as a group, we now control more money and have more employees than the Fortune 500. In addition, we understand the women in business market in a way no man does, from the gut and from the heart. So this is the moment to seize our advantage and aim directly for the world's fastest growing market: other women in business


US Economy in 2010 an Analysis:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, the Bureau) projections for the U.S. economy during the 2000–10 decade reflect continued growth. Gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to reach $12.8 trillion in chained 1996 dollars by the end of the decade, an increase of $3.6 trillion over the period. Rising by an average annual rate of 3.4 percent, GDP is projected to grow faster than the 3.2-percent annual rate of growth over the preceding 10-year period, from 1990 to 2000. Slower growth of civilian household employment, from 1.3 percent a year during the 1990–2000 period to 1.1 percent from 2000 to 2010, is expected to result in an increase of 16.2 million employees over the latter period, slightly less than the increase of 16.4 million employees between 1990 and 2000. The employment projection is accompanied by an assumed unemployment rate of 4.0 percent in 2010, the same as in 2000. To best understand how these projections relate to the U.S. economy, it is helpful to examine the effects of major economic events that took place over the past four decades.

During the decade of the 1960s, labor productivity grew at an annual average rate of 2.9 percent, spurred by the aerospace program and strong defense-related demand. During the 1970s, labor productivity growth slowed to 1.8 percent annually as businesses struggled to deal with skyrocketing petroleum prices, energy shortages, sharp cutbacks in defense spending, and a deemphasize of aerospace research programs. The 1980s were marked by even slower productivity growth—1.5 percent each year over the decade—as large expenditures by businesses on computers and other technologies seemed to have no impact on the statistics and as significant corporate restructuring (downsizing, contracting out, and so forth) worked through the economy. In the early part of the 1990s, the economy moved into a recession, further muting productivity growth, but the stage was set for the longest sustained recovery in the post-World War II economy. The unemployment rate fell for eight straight years, from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.0 percent in 2000, the lowest reading in 30 years. Although it is difficult to predict whether the tight labor

market of the recent past will persist, the BLS model has assumed an unemployment rate of 4.0 percent in 2010, the same rate as in 2000. (See table 9.) Overall, civilian household employment

is projected to increase by 1.1 percent per year from 2000 to 2010, or 1.62 million persons per year. The result is that more than 16 million employed persons will be added to the economy over the 10-year projection period. Total employment measured on a non farm establishment basis is expected to grow at a rate of 1.4 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 131.8 million to 152.0 million, an increase of 20.2 million jobs. The civilian labor force is projected to grow at a rate of 1.1 percent per year from 2000 to 2010, the same rate of increase as that attained over the preceding 10-year period.

For more information please log on to official site Bureau of Labor Statistics



Wide spectrum of of US Market:


Investors may have come into the week looking for a respite after some trying sessions, but in the end they didn't get much of a breather. In fact, the week started with an M&A bang as word emerged that two European banking powerhouses -- Barclays PLC and ABN Amro Holding NV -- were in exclusive talks about merging to form a global banking giant.

That was just the start, and investors hungry for news on which to trade had plenty to chew on. Tidbits ranged from the Federal Reserves decision to stand pat on interest rates, but change the wording of its policy statement -- to Motorola's renewed warning about future results. There was also news that Blackstone, one of the most private of the private-equity giants, was going to take itself public. The war in Iraq was in the spotlight, as Friday brought word that the country's deputy prime minister had been targeted by insurgents, the Iranian navy seized 15 British sailors in the Gulf and the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill that set a time table to withdraw U.S. troops. U.S. stocks rose for the week, buoyed in part by the Fed's decision to hold rates steady and hint at a softening of its view on future interest-rate hikes. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU) rose 3.1% for the week, while the NASDAQ Composite (.COMP) gained 3.5%. The Standard & Poor's 500 climbed 3.6% to outpace the field.

Our weekend analysis will give you how Home Depot's (HD) new CEO is building support for a renovation of the home-improvement giant; how, for the first time in U.S. history, millions of homeowners are at risk of losing their homes, even though they have steady work; and whether the natural-gas market is ready for a cartel of its own

Mohamed Arif with the help of Christopher Noble


Power of Equity

This is an article about how equity power helps to growth of a company. Example analysis of Indian companies in 1984 which had recor the rapid growth for the past 10 years just grab the articles.

Power of Equity

Unbelievable

but it has happened

Just imagine…

How much can you make in 26 years by just investing Rs.10,000 initially in any of financial instruments ?

Take a wild guess ???

Let us look at the real example…

If you have subscribed in 100 shares of ________ company with a face value of Rs. 100 in 1980…

In 1981 company declared 1:1 bonus = you have 200 shares

In 1985 company declared 1:1 bonus = you have 400 shares

In 1986 company split the share to Rs. 10 = you have 4,000 shares

In 1987 company declared 1:1 bonus = you have 8,000 shares

In 1989 company declared 1:1 bonus = you have 16,000 shares

In 1992 company declared 1:1 bonus = you have 32,000 shares

In 1995 company declared 1:1 bonus = you have 64,000 shares

In 1997 company declared 1:2 bonus = you have 1,92,000 shares

In 1999 company split the share to Rs. 2 = you have 9,60,000 shares

In 2004 company declared 1:2 bonus = you have 28,80,000 shares

In 2005 company declared 1:1 bonus = you have 57,60,000 shares

At the end of 2005…

You have 57,60,000 shares of the company

Any guess about the company ?

(Hint : Its an Indian company)

Any guess about the present valuation ?

The result of ‘Power of Compounding’

Your present valuation is about

Rs. 200 Cr.+

&

The company is ‘WIPRO’

Other such examples…

CIPLA

Investment of Rs. 10,000 in 1979 will fetch Rs. 95 cr.+

INFOSYS

Investment of Rs. 10,000 in 1992 will fetch Rs. 1.5 cr.+

RANBAXY

Investment of Rs. 1000 in 1980 will fetch Rs. 1.9 cr.+

Analysis of Market Summary

Report from Mohamed Arif:
With the help of Marketwatch.com

After the Monday dump lower stocks fought back all week, rising to next resistance at the bottom of the November/December lateral range. It stalled at that point, but it was just waiting on the jobs report to either send it higher or choke off the rally. As it turns out the market pretty much got what it wanted when jobs came in at 97K (100K expected) with an upward revision to December and January. Lower yet higher. Weaker, but stronger as well. In a market still pondering the Fed's next move the dichotomy was nirvana-like.

The overseas markets were lower, but unlike the prior sessions when the US financial markets deferred to foreign direction, US stock futures surged on the jobs report, running 10 to 15 points above fair value. Looked promising, looked as if the jobs report was the juice to continue the rebound move and perhaps deliver a follow through to the Tuesday reversal.

Of course you always have to view a very strong open with skepticism, and the fact that the market has started a correction underlines the need for caution. On top of that the market spent the week rebounding from the spanking it took the prior week, a low volume rebound that indicated fewer and fewer upside participants. With the correction you knew the sellers were going to take a shot at the early bounce. It was just a matter of time.

Deal of TATA Corus' winning History


The Acquisition is proposed to be made by Tata Steel U.K., a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Tata Steel, recently incorporated in the United Kingdom for the purpose of completing the Acquisition. The said Acquisition is proposed to be effected by means of a scheme of arrangement under Section 425 of the (English) Companies Act 1985; subject to High Court of Justice in England and Wales and Corus' shareholders approvals being obtained.

The deal, which creates the world's fifth-largest steelmaker, is India's largest ever foreign takeover and follows Mittal Steel's $31 billion acquisition of rival Arcelor this year.

Sources familiar with the matter said on Oct. 17 Corus's board had given tacit approval to the bid and had given Tata access to its books to firm up the offer. Tata said in a statement it had agreed a deal on Corus pensions, a potential stumbling block to a deal, and would pay 126 million pounds into the firm's pension scheme. Tata said the deal valued Corus at a multiple of about 5.4 times underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) from continuing operations for 2005.

Shares in Corus, which have risen more than 50 per cent this year amid persistent bid talk, fell 1.5 per cent to 471-1/4 p by 0722 GMT. Shares in Tata Steel rose 2.6 per cent to Rs 514.80. "They wanted the company and they have got it. But we have to see how the funding happens and how the integration progresses. One distinction is that EBITDA margins for Tata's are about 40 percent and for Corus is about 7 percent," said Sreesankar, head of research at IL&FS Investsmart, in Mumbai.

Corus, created through the merger of Dutch firm Hoogovens and British Steel in 1999, agreed in March to sell most of its aluminium assets in a deal which analysts said paved the way for the company to take part in steel consolidation.