My letters to the FT!
Someone suggested that I bring both the published and unpublished letters together in a one place - so here they are - 25 in total, 16 published. I think some of the unpublished ones are better than the published ones, but hey!
My process is basically I read the actual paper each morning and something winds me up and I bang out a letter in response. These take between 10 minutes and an hour or so and are fun to do.
It started with no expectation at all they would be published as they are all on disconnected subjects, but I seem to have a reasonable hit rate and its a useful exercise for me to articulate myself, so will keep going!
Letter 16 - July 11th 2024
This was in response to our new Labour Government’s proposed 5 Missions - one of which was ‘to improve the NHS’.
Unpublished - 25th June 2024
One that didn’t make the cut on trustworthiness and trust! As LinkedIn commentators suggested, I was right, but perhaps not good to accuse FT leader writers of not getting the right words!
Your leader ‘The trust deficit in Britain’s damaged politics’ (Tuesday 24th June 2024) makes the common mistake of using the word trust when the correct word is trustworthiness.
The lack of citizen trust in politicians is the result of a trustworthiness deficit in British politics and the casual disregard for integrity shown by those using inside information to make negligible amounts of money betting on the election date ‘yet another example of the erosion of trustworthiness of political ethics.’
In our research on Trust and Governance I was struck by the findings of the 2020 Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report(from the Bennett Inst for Public Policy) which proposed that ‘if satisfaction with democracy is now falling across many of the world’s largest mature and emerging democracies (which included the UK) it is not because citizens’ expectations are excessive or unrealistic, but because democratic institutions are falling short of the outcomes that matter most for their legitimacy.’
‘Restoring stable and effective government’ as you propose must start with rebuilding ‘trustworthiness’. The Labour Party, if it is successful in winning the election, must deliver ‘what matters most’ to citizens everywhere which according to the findings of the research includes ‘probity in office, upholding the rule of law, responsiveness to public concerns, ensuring economic and financial security, and raising living standards for the larger majority of society.’
An interesting list. It is clear to see where successive Conservative governments have failed on all of these counts and so have deservedly lost the trust of UK citizens. Perhaps Labour and the Liberal Democrats could do more to provide clearer evidence of their trustworthiness as a matter of priority in their campaigning and, let’s hope, their approach to governing after July 4th.
Unpublished - 24th May 2024
A bit dull and not very good. Unsurprising and deservedly unpublished, but also true!
We agree with John Thornhill that regulators should ’dig much deeper in the powerful corporate structures that deploy frontier AI models’ (Scarlett Johansson is right: AI companies should be more transparent, May 24th).
Our research into ‘The Addiction Economy’ explores how the world’s most harmful industries are allowed to flourish at the expense of the rest of us. We put 6 sectors under the microscope - cigarettes, alcohol, opioids, gambling, unhealthy and ultra-processed foods and vapes - to uncover lessons for the adoption of new technologies like AI.
We conclude that lack of political challenge to corporate power is at the heart of their success, resulting in huge damage to physical and mental health and the premature death of millions.
The 4 Drivers of The Addiction Economy we identified are plain to see in the business models of many sectors using AI and all are inspired by The Daddy of addictive industries: cigarettes.
The first two drivers, Additive Product Design and Predatory Marketing, exploit human vulnerabilities to design and promote their products beyond the point at which they cause harm - i.e. to addict individuals and society for profit.
The third and most insidious driver is Disinformation. The term ‘AI’ itself is a form of disinformation. This meaningless term was designed by academics and companies mainly for fundraising purposes and is now used to hype the software and as a distraction from harm prevention and regulation.
The 4th driver is the Undermining of Political Action. Lobbying, lack of transparency, threats of litigation and the dominance of large companies in the political process all work to put corporate interests ahead of the public interest.
Bundling digital companies with cigarette companies may seem unfair, but if they are using the same tactics to profit at the expense of individuals and society, we struggle to see the difference.
Letter 15- February 7th 2024
Commentary:
I haven't been inspired to write to the FT recently, but sent this one off on Monday, which was printed 2 days later, in response to Pilita Clark's article "Thank goodness we have reached peak MBA". In it she cites research showing how CEOs with MBAs are worse performers than those without, so the fact that they are declining in popularity is no bad thing.
"...CEOs with an MBA were noticeably worse at sustaining superior performance than the MBA-free ones. MBA graduates were also more likely to expand their companies with acquisitions rather than organic growth, sacrificing earnings and cash flow in the process, yet their own pay rose at a faster rate than that of their counterparts who had outperformed them.
When the two researchers then did an even larger study of 5,000 CEOs, they confirmed that those with an MBA degree operated quite differently to the non-MBA bosses, spending less on R&D, say, and using accounting techniques to flatter their firm’s earnings.
These ploys prompted a swift jump in profits, followed by a decline that led to a bigger fall in their company’s market value compared with outfits run by CEOs without an MBA — whose pay was again less impressive."
The Bath MBA (which strictly was an MSc as we couldn't get an MBA without a finance module) was set up by the late Anita Roddick because she saw the damage that the shareholder value school of business management was causing and wanted business people to think differently.
It was a life changing event for me and many others and we are a thriving and supportive community still, despite the fact that it is now no longer running.
Maybe it's time to revive it with a finance module as mainstream MBA curriculum?
Clark's article here (gift link for three views)
https://on.ft.com/49ugvM1
Letter submitted 5 December 2023 - Unpublished
On AI governance, in response to this article the FT. Sorry Paywall:
https://www.ft.com/content/cbd92347-83cc-41a3-ae48-3927eb866a70
AI is software, which is designed by companies usually, but not always, to make money. The governance problem Yoshua Bengio explores in ‘For trust AI governance, we need to avoid the single point of failure’ (5 Dec) arises because its creators are very excited by technological possibility and not excited enough by real human needs, and there is no governance to steer them differently, early.
Companies and their founders therefore don’t do their due diligence about social and ethical impacts in advance, in case it gets in the way of their technological vision - in OpenAI’s case, “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”. The superiority of AGI to mere humans and its eventual benefit being a given, with adverse effects being glitches to be ironed out in ‘the wild’ as the tech is used. Negative impacts on individuals and society are collateral damage in service of the greater good.
The narrowness of focus is compounded by the incentives embedded in the innovation process. There is no place or incentive to ask the question ‘how will this impact society and should we do at all’? No mechanisms to take seriously the perspectives of those most at risk from the values decisions of powerful individuals, companies or governments; and no way to take preventative action early enough if the answer is ‘no, we shouldn’t do it until we know more’.
The questioning and democratising process he advocates for must happen at all points in the innovation process. Policy and academic research funding currently incentivises technological possibility over human and environmental problem solving. Shareholder value delivers commercial solutions which make money over systemic responses which are complicated. And the overall success model for everyone is GDP which only measures money and growth.
A systemic ‘Pro-Society’ approach, not the current narrow ‘Pro-Innovation’ approach to incentivising innovation and regulation could be designed to foresee and address some of the consequences of technology before deployment; and a responsive approach to early warnings allow regulators to head off those that are missed. Now, after the horse has bolted is as good a time to start as any!
Letter submitted 20th Sep 2023 - unpublished
This one didn’t make the cut on vapes! Perhaps a bit ranty in response to this thoughtless letter I was rather surprised they published:
Catherine Day, London SW4
”A ban on disposable vapes would be nothing more than a quick fix to a complex issue rooted in sociocultural norms (“Bans on disposable vapes bode ill for Big Tobacco”, Opinion, September 15). Right now, disposable vapes are prevalent, but banning them won’t do much to solve the issue of steering children and teenagers away from nicotine. People will continue to explore and experiment with substances, as they have from time immemorial. The pull of disposable vapes is due to two factors: accessibility and attractiveness. Limiting their accessibility by banning them will only lead to illegal sales of poor quality and potentially dangerous products. Making them less attractive — either by raising the price or applying plain packaging as we did with cigarettes — is unlikely to work. A more realistic approach would be to see disposable vapes as temporary. They will eventually fall out of fashion and cease to exist. Young people will continue to seek access to nicotine regardless and if disposable vapes are taken away, the alternative is cigarettes. Better to let market forces take effect and wait for a savvy tobacco company to create a smoking alternative that gets closer to the root of why people smoke. A lot of the pull of smoking and vaping is in the physical act of taking a drag. Disposable vapes that have zero or very little nicotine is one option.”
Hilary’s response
“It is because we let ‘market forces’ create the market for cigarettes, that it would be very stupid to do the same again with vapes. (Letter, Banning disposable vapes is just a quick fix, 20 September).
Vapes are not some ‘temporary’ craze like Pokémon or miniskirts that will fall out of fashion. Young people didn’t ‘seek access to nicotine regardless simply for kicks. The market for vapes, like that of cigarettes, has been deliberately created. Vapes were designed as lifestyle products for recreational use by young people to prop up falling sales of tobacco companies and as a speculative gamble by Chinese manufacturers. As the WHO anti-smoking campaign memorably says, ‘If your product killed 8 million of your customers each year, you’d also target a new generation.”
Nicotine is why people smoke and why so many don’t stop until it kills them. Nicotine is why children and young adults are now finding themselves addicted to vapes. Nicotine is why they won’t just get over it and move on. Emerging health effects from vapes is why in another 20 years governments might kicking be themselves, or being sued, for not acting earlier.
But we agree with your letter writer Catherine Day, that banning disposables is not enough. Refillable vapes now resemble disposables in size, usability and attractiveness. Prices are plummeting, some users see them as tantamount to disposables and the sector will evolve. Treating all type of vape, nicotine pouches and snus like cigarettes may be a good start. But however we do it, we must stop this latest nicotine economy in its tracks with prompt and innovative regulation
Letter 14 - Aug 7th 2023
I was quite surprised they printed this, as there was alot of feedback on this report. Here is the article it refers to:
UK government cuts cost of polluting in latest anti-green move
Letter 13 - Jun 13th 2023
Commentary
Gave the one below another try in relation to a Lex column suggesting that investors had a ‘duty of care’. This seems to me a big deal from the FT. I have started to think about this a bit more for my Pro-Society Innovation and Regulation piece, there is nothing much as far as I can see about duty of care for shareholders themselves. Am investigating further!
Letter submitted - 3rd May 2023 - unpublished
To the letters editor
I couldn’t help but notice that the role and accountability of shareholders is entirely absent from the debate about the responsible development and regulation of AI by your columnist Marietta Schaake (Regulating AI will put companies and governments at loggerheads, Weds 3 May).
She is not alone in this. The seeming lack of even basic due diligence of negative social impacts by venture capitalists, institutional investors and individual shareholders funding new tech is at the core of the problems we face with AI and yet remains bizarrely unscrutinised.
Or am I being too generous in judging them merely incompetent when their behaviour is much more heinous? Perhaps they have done their due diligence, see the potential for harms to individuals and society, but decide that the money to be made is just too tempting, so they will fund them anyway and just dump the stock when the problems become visible and the share price falls?
Either way, it is high time their responsibility for the negative impacts of their investments was subject to greater scrutiny and accountability by regulators, policy makers and society.
Letter 12 - April 11th 2023
Commentary
I had clearly failed with the unpublished letter below, but read another article which got me going for exactly the same reasons, so slimmed it down and took my chance again. My son Joe Woof had done his BA and MA dissertations on exactly the issues the article talked about, and we came up with the term ‘the addiction economy’, which the FT edited out. So we did it together!
Here is the original article - We can’t let companies get away with making consumers sick
It was also a way of airing my new idea of ‘pro-society innovation and regulation’ which I had just thought of stimulated by a UK government White Paper on the ‘Pro-Innovation Regulation for Digital Tech’. Bizarre given what is happening in AI right now, but written by two businesses, so no wonder.
Letter submitted 20th March 2023 - but not published
I sometimes post the letters on LinkedIn after I send them in case they don’t get published. This was very well received on LinkedIn and led to the suggestion I published all the letters, which I now have.
I heartily agree with Rana Foroohar (Why we need to create guardrails for AI, 20th March), but the ‘framework for prudent vigilance’ proposed by the philosophers won’t do the trick. There are currently 167 of such ethical guidelines, most of which could probably prevent the issues we are seeing, if only they were adhered to.
The problem is rooted in three entrenched ideologies which will need confronting before transformative progress can be made.
The first ideology is neoliberal capitalism, which prioritises a right to make money over human rights, environmental sustainability and the good of society as a whole. Damage to individuals and society is actively incentivised by a system which allows companies take the money and leave the externalities for individuals and governments to deal with.
The second is innovation as an ideology. Innovation is now not a simple description - ‘the introduction of new things, ideas, or ways of doing something’ (Oxford English Dictionary), it is an ideology which has come to mean only science and technology products, which it enshrines as intrinsically A Good Thing. Innovation as ideology exhorts that nothing should get in its way and anyone suggesting precaution is a luddite, stuck in a rose-tinted past, anti-science, anti-tech, anti-business and hell bent on making things worse for everyone.
The third ideology is the belief that regulation stifles innovation. This is epitomised by the title and focus of the UK government’s ‘Pro-Innovation Regulation of Digital Technology Review’ (March 2023). Bad regulation stifles innovation. Good regulation shepherds those things, ideas and ways of doing something to inspire and motivate economic, social and environmental benefit and prevent or mitigate their harms.
It is useful to remember that these ideologies are not laws of nature, they are themselves just a collection of ideas and ways of doing things that seemed like a good idea at the time. The good news is that there are plenty of new ideas for how, let’s call it, a ‘Pro-society’ approach to investment, innovation and regulation can be achieved. Now’s a good time to start taking those ideas very seriously. We need innovation in our approach to innovation fast.
Letter 11 - February 27th 2023
This was sparked by a discussion on LinkedIn about the launch of Microsoft’s generative AI software Bard and the earlier launch ChatGPT launch.
The initial Financial Times article it responded to is here
Letter 10 - 25th January 2023
I couldn’t believe they printed this one!
Unpublished letter - 15th December 2022
I was actually really pleased with this one, shame they didn’t agree!
Martin Wolf’s article “The optimists were right and so will be again” could easily have used the excellent reports he cites to make the case ‘The pessimists were right and so will be again’. Of course, as always, there are reasons to be optimistic and reasons to be pessimistic in this data. The binary view, which he identifies, that one or the other must be ‘right’, is part of the problem. We need both optimists and pessimists to see the huge value in each other’s perspective and work together.
This is clear from the three policy areas the UN Development Report proposes. Investment is inherently optimistic about the solutions it is funding; insurance anticipates problems and assumes the worst, while innovation requires a judicious mix of the two. Innovation - the introduction of new things, ideas and ways of doing something (to use the Oxford Dictionary definition) - will shape society for better, and worse, sometimes both at the same time. We need to be optimistic, positive, visionary in how we innovate to help solve the biggest problems of our age. But we need the pessimist beside us, to help us understand the potential negative consequences which might accompany our big ideas, clever things and new ways of doing something; to ensure we effectively manage and mitigate ‘the dangers we ourselves have created’ - a problem Wolf identifies and one which is very clear to see in this digital age innovation has created for us.
Letter 9 - 28 October 2022
In response to good article on Employee Surveillance by Rana Foroohar
Letter 8 - 6th September 2022
In response to two articles on opinions page on same day
Letter 7 - June 13 2022
Commentary
Original column here We should pay less attention to Current Thing-ism
Full letter here:
We should pay more heed to “Current Thing-ism”, not less, as proposed by Jemima Kelly (Opinion, June 9). She, Elon Musk and many others have decided to make it all about the attention deficit of the masses fuelled by the business model of social media.
I have a different perspective. There are so very, very many things to be worried, even outraged about, both new issues and old. I started to list them, but it got too long. Social media is one of the few outlets we have to express our concern.
These outpourings of rage should be respected and listened to, not ridiculed. Neither is it just talk. Many more are giving their time and money to campaign for change, designing new ways of doing things, resigning from toxic companies, protesting on the streets for the issues they care about.
As individuals we have limited power to influence the massive complex problems we all face, and it often feels like those who do have the power are too tied up in their own self-interest to make the effort on our behalf. The worst scenario is we stop caring and stop protesting.
I worry more that the world’s citizens will be so wearied by our impotence and the dismissive attitudes of the powerful that we will give in and let it all wash over us. So, please everyone, support the Current Thing, vocally and in any way you can. It is the only way to change the world for the better and your voice, and your buying power, are the most potent weapons you have.
Letter 6 - 23rd May 2022
Original article here:
Letter 5 - May 4th 2022
Really funny that they published this!
Original letter here:
When answering a survey about the FT I was asked if there was enough content written by women and whether I was more or less likely to comment on articles if I could do so anonymously. This reminded me that, while many FT articles are written by female journalists, the letters page seems to be dominated by men. I wonder if this is due to lower female readership, women’s reluctance to give their opinions, sexism on the part of the letters editor or a mixture of all three. I would be interested to hear the views of all genders.
Mary Shipley, London SW17
——————-
Though, this letter from Andrew Davies of Illinois above mine also gave me pause for thought. Perhaps I'm an underemployed female of a certain age, seeking relevance and not busy enough! 😱 Nah.
"I accept Mary Shipley’s invitation to ponder her question “Why is it there are so few FT letters by women?” (Letters, May 4) If published, this will be my fourth letter in the FT. I identify as a male. I think there is a surplus of men of a certain age that are underemployed and seek relevance in matters of global business and politics. They write letters to maintain a sense of importance. There may be women that fit this description as well but in my experience they, as a group, tend to find better uses for their time."
Letter 4 - - April 19th 2022
Pleased with this> Taken from research for the Irish National Health service (HSE) and paper that I produced at their request that led to the letter is here ‘People are not the problem and deterrence is not the key - lessons from healthcare for everyone’
Camilla Cavendish initial article here As Britons lose faith in the NHS it’s time to demand better care
Initial letter I responded to here: How the NHS handles scandals is the real problem
Unpublished letter - 17th March 2022
Ignoring not just ESG activists, but activists of all types is very risky for business. (Letter Companies ignoring ESG activists risk reputations, 17 March). My last 30 years observing corporate irresponsibility has one fundamental finding: the importance of taking seriously people you, err, don’t take seriously.
Reviews of almost every major disaster, randomly - the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the 2008 Financial Crash, the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill or the current Post Office scandal, all show that someone, somewhere had been drawing attention to an issue, often loudly and for a considerable time. These warnings are ignored because they invariably challenge basic assumptions or come from employees, citizens, civil society groups or academics - people who don’t fit the mould of what important people look like.
Early warnings of problems are gold dust. Best not to wait until activists are hammering on your door, but to proactively seek out those who challenge your assumptions, and take their opinions seriously, early.
Letter 3 - March 8th 2022
The original article is here: Shareholder capitalism works best for society
Letter I responded to is here: Shareholder capitalism is opposite of competitive
Other letter Klaus Schwab WEF Social responsibility is how business becomes a force for good
Unpublished letter - 31st December 2021
I was disappointed by your Trends, risks and people to watch in 2022 article on Friday 31 December, particularly the narrow focus on business risk of the ‘Biggest Regulatory Risk’ section. Could I suggest useful context may be provided next year if your excellent opinion columnists get together to consider a ‘Societal Risks’ section? Your experts will have better suggestions, but for fun from my own perspective: under Pharma, could be ‘That the big Pharma business model and privatisation of health services across the world result in reduced access and worse healthcare for citizens and further spiralling costs on governments.”
Perhaps under Private Capital: ‘That reforms of the system fails and Private Equity remains immune to scrutiny and pressure for ESG change to the continued detriment of society.’ Or Energy: That governments fail to make innovative and concrete plans for energy transition and climate change escalates beyond our ability to prevent global catastrophe.” And perhaps under Tech: ‘That the EU fails to apply their rather basic rules on tech companies and its business model further undermines social cohesion and citizen mental health.” Just a thought.
Letter 2 - December 21 2021
In response to the FT article here Neurotechnology must not treat humans like mice
Unpublished letter - 18 November 2021
After three years research into trust, I concluded that it was like love and happiness - the more doggedly it is pursued for its own sake, the more elusive it may become. Also like love and happiness trust is more likely to stem from turning one’s attention to the good of others, than focusing on personal objectives.
I am inspired by Guy Bargery (Letters, Nov 18th) to add Respect to that list for the same reasons. Regarding empathy, ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’, I find it hubristic and believe one can only reasonably aspire to practice respect – ‘to have due regard for the feelings, wishes or rights of others.’ Which may also inspire trust.
