"We have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand." No, this is not a case of an incompetent flight crew fumbling with the flight controls. It is what John Maynard Keynes wrote in his essay titled "The Great Slump of 1930" published in December of the same year. His observation refers more to economists bungling with the fiscal and monetary controls of the economy.
As plane crashes have sometimes been caused by pilots' errors in the handling of their aircraft in emergencies, economic crises are similarly worsened by economists' faults in their diagnoses of the crises and prescriptions for the recovery.
The failings of the economists can be understood using the recent fatal plane crashes as analogies in unearthing relevant patterns. Both crashes had no survivors; all perished. The first involves a Continental Airlines flight 3407 that went down in Buffalo, New York on February 12, 2009. The second is Air France flight 447 that dived into the Atlantic on May 31, 2009.
In this post we will deal with with the Continental Airlines plane. The aircraft was a new Bombardier Dash 8-Q400. The crash was solely due to the pilot's incompetency. Both the pilot and co-pilot were suffering from sleep-deprived fatigue. To make matters worse, on the landing approach, they were engaged in nonessential conversation, something not allowed under the aviation rules. As a result, they didn't notice that the air speed had dropped exposing the aircraft to a dangerous stall. The control yoke (analogous to the car steering wheel) was shaking, pointing to a stall. The plane's automatic system tried to push the nose down in order to gain air speed and prevent stall. However, probably in panic, the pilot pulled back the control yoke in order to bring the nose back up. But his action worsened the stall, thus dooming the lives of 49 onboard and 1 on the ground.
Many lessons for the current economic crisis can be gleaned from the accident. The crisis was precipitated by the loose monetary policy which was evident from the phenomenal credit growth. The central bankers however were focused on the inflation rate indicator rather than the credit growth indicator to guide their actions. The inflation indicator was not moving because of the excess supply capacity created by the entry of China onto the global economic stage. The boom in commodity and asset (real property) prices didn't translate into high consumer prices except at a very late stage.
The commercial banks' books were also clean as they had been using off balance sheet vehicles to hide the loan growth. Securitisation of the loans was another method that shielded the loans from being reported. The loans appeared on the books of foreign banks and non-bank players: portfolio managers, pension funds, and insurance companies. Like the doomed Continental Airlines plane, the critical indicator was vibrating but the central bankers chose to ignore it, fixing their eyes on the wrong ones instead.
Another useful lesson is the wrong remedy prescribed to cure the ills brought about by the crisis. Just because the plane was stalling shouldn't mean that the pilot must point the nose upwards. The right move would have been to point it lower in order to gain speed and get out of the stall. Similarly, because the crisis was caused by too much money, some economists are recommending cutting spending and constricting money supply. The sure outcome will be an economy in a death spiral, politically bringing down with it a crumbling nation-state. Don't worry about inflation. The money supply is not even stalling, it's collapsing. At this critical juncture, you need plenty of money. Don't even think of inflation; deflation is the killer.
Regardless, printing money and massive government spending provide only a temporary respite. This depression is a foregone conclusion; there's no way out. We have to endure it before the game changer of the next technology wave allows the economy to recover slightly.
Finally, the most important lesson is the incomplete training of most economists. To be really competent, a professional must go through the rigours of crises. Pilots experience them in simulator rides. They have to because hundreds of lives depend on one pilot. In fact, the pilot of the ill-fated Continental Airlines plane was actually not qualified to fly because he had failed 3 simulator tests, known as check rides.
Economists, on the other hand, do not have the luxury of going through the stress tests. Yet they are responsible for the lives of millions of people. Indeed, we are in the midst of being led by those who have, in the words of Keynes, blundered in the control of a delicate machine. The coming economic crash may yet turn out to be very nasty.
Part 2: The Crash of Air France
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Worry not global warming but fear globalisation
Globalisation and global warming have little in common. Or so you might think. Ecologists are as varied in their opinions as economists are among themselves. For example, global warming has been such a controversial issue even among ecologists so much so that we don't know whether the earth is warming up or is going into an Ice Age. Ecologists sit on both sides of the political fence and so their beliefs depend on their political inclinations. Same goes for the economists.
To be sure, global warming has no relevance to economics while globalisation has been much touted by economists of all stripes as a driver of economic growth. Can we learn anything about globalisation from patterns in the field of ecology? Definitely, but we must go back to 250 million years ago towards the end of the Permian period when all major areas of the continental crust coalesced into a single land mass called Pangea, meaning 'all land' in Greek.
The biggest extinction in earth's history occurred during this time. What caused 95 percent of the species to go extinct? As usual, we are wont to ascribe a single cause to any problem. But in life, most dramatic and drastic occurrences are a result of a confluence of factors. The Permian massive upheavals were more likely caused by a multitude of causes. In this case, they all can be boiled down to two: global warming and globalisation. Hence the juxtaposition of both in this post.
Global warming arose during the late Permian because of two geologic activities which took place over thousands of years. The first happened when coal bearing deposits in southern Pangea were uplifted to the surface. The other arose in the Siberian Traps region where volcanic eruption of CO2 and methane released massive quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The outcome of these events resulted in the atmospheric CO2 shooting up to 3,000 parts per million (ppm). In contrast, our present CO2 stands at 390 ppm. It will continue to climb until 2200. Thenceforth the level will slowly drop as we will have depleted out the fossil-fuel carbon.
At its projected peak on a business-as-usual basis, the atmospheric CO2 will rise to 1100 ppm. If measures are taken to reduce the emission rate, the level will crest at 550 ppm. The most likely scenario is that the peak will not exceed the lower estimate given mankind's prodigious capacity for innovation. The two engines driving this energy innovation will be biotechnology and nanotechnology.
How much will the sea level rise with the atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm? National Geographic, September 2004, estimates that at 478 ppm, the sea level will rise by only 4 inches, and that is taking the 1990 sea level as the base. The areas badly affected will only be the submerged South Sea islands. At 550 ppm, most probably, we can expect a sea level rise of only 1 foot.
There certainly will be other severe impacts as glaciers and ice sheets on three critical land areas - mountain regions, Greenland and Antartica - start melting. Most affected are the mountain regions since these glaciers feed major rivers in the Indian sub-continent and China. We can expect serious water issues in the coming decades. But as regards sea level, it won't present an acute problem. For icebergs, their melting doesn't have any impact since floating ice already displaces water of a weight equal to its own.
Within the next 50 years, we can expect new technologies to address the CO2 emissions. We must allow for the passage of time for this to come about. Hastening this process through forced measures, such as limits on carbon emissions will not work and would be a complete waste of time. Likewise, biodiesel, ethanol, carbon sequestration, and hybrid vehicles are only feel-good efforts that siphon money from more beneficial areas.
It is a common human folly to be doom-mongers worrying about non-existent fears. With respect to energy issues, as far back as the 13th century, 500 years before the Industrial Revolution, there had been shortages of wood as fuel for the ironworks. Then they found coal. Similarly, before they struck oil in 1859, they had also worried about coal being depleted. Now they agonised over oil and global warming. What mankind is apprehensive about usually will turn out to be unfounded fears. Instead, what it glosses over are the issues that will pose the most harm to it.
Going back to the Permian extinction, how did the extreme global warming precipitate the process?
Scientific American, October 2006, explains clearly the unfolding of this catastrophe. To begin with, the unleashed CO2 and methane greenhouse warmed both the atmosphere and the oceans. Conditions were arid and vast searing deserts spread across the land. The warm oceans had limited capacity to absorb oxygen because the ocean currents that kept the oceans oxygenated stopped circulating as they got warmer. As a result, bottom dwelling anaerobic bacteria that generated hydrogen sulphide (H2S) thrived. As H2S concentrations built up, they welled up and diffused into the atmosphere. The massive H2S extinguished both lives in the ocean and on land. It also destroyed the ozone layer that shielded life on earth from the UV radiation.
That's only one-half of the story. The other half, on globalisation, is equally interesting. Complementing the single land mass are one vast ocean, the Panthalassa Ocean, and a huge bay, the Tethys Sea. With a conjoined land mass and ocean, it was a free-for-all for the animals and plants. Now they all could roam the entire land or oceans. The shallow offshore water, a rich habitat for life, dwindled as the length of coastlines shrank.
Such conditions initially benefited some but ultimately produced many losers and virtually no winners. The causes can be attributed to the sudden appearance of new species which preyed on the indigenous animals or disrupted their feeding and breeding habitats. But worst of all when species mixed freely is the easy spread of pathogens to species which had not developed suficient immunity to new diseases.
We do not know whether global warming had a greater impact than globalisation in the Permian extinction. But we do know that CO2 ppm in the next 100 to 200 years won't actually reach one sixth of the Permian level of 3,000 ppm. That even without taking into account the coming energy revolution that will make oil a thing that we can live without. Indeed the current economic crisis has reduced the global CO2 emission for 2009 by 2.6 percent.
Given such a scenario, globalisation which has been promoted by almost all economists as a source of economic growth is the real danger unbeknown to its strident advocates. However among economists it is heretical to criticise it because that goes against the teaching of all economics schools. Because of this perverted belief in the benefits of globalisation, many countries have embraced it without realising of its longer-term harmful effects. The harm comes stealthily because initially it beguiles the populace with its temporary economic benefits. The deluded populace embraces it not realising that over time new countries, such as China, adept at manipulating exchange rates, will eat into other countries' lunches.
If we go back to the theory of comparative advantage first promulgated by David Ricardo in 1817, nowhere is it mentioned the applicability of the theory in conditions of surplus capacity. The theory works as long as the demand can consume whatever is being produced. It breaks down when supply exceeds demand as what the world is suffering from now. So now China can produce while the others sit idly by. Certainly, not a recipe for prosperity but for a catastrophe of major proportion. Thus the current crisis which actually is not initiated by the financial meltdown (which happens to be a consequence) but by the surplus supply capacity.
To be sure, global warming has no relevance to economics while globalisation has been much touted by economists of all stripes as a driver of economic growth. Can we learn anything about globalisation from patterns in the field of ecology? Definitely, but we must go back to 250 million years ago towards the end of the Permian period when all major areas of the continental crust coalesced into a single land mass called Pangea, meaning 'all land' in Greek.
The biggest extinction in earth's history occurred during this time. What caused 95 percent of the species to go extinct? As usual, we are wont to ascribe a single cause to any problem. But in life, most dramatic and drastic occurrences are a result of a confluence of factors. The Permian massive upheavals were more likely caused by a multitude of causes. In this case, they all can be boiled down to two: global warming and globalisation. Hence the juxtaposition of both in this post.
Global warming arose during the late Permian because of two geologic activities which took place over thousands of years. The first happened when coal bearing deposits in southern Pangea were uplifted to the surface. The other arose in the Siberian Traps region where volcanic eruption of CO2 and methane released massive quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The outcome of these events resulted in the atmospheric CO2 shooting up to 3,000 parts per million (ppm). In contrast, our present CO2 stands at 390 ppm. It will continue to climb until 2200. Thenceforth the level will slowly drop as we will have depleted out the fossil-fuel carbon.
At its projected peak on a business-as-usual basis, the atmospheric CO2 will rise to 1100 ppm. If measures are taken to reduce the emission rate, the level will crest at 550 ppm. The most likely scenario is that the peak will not exceed the lower estimate given mankind's prodigious capacity for innovation. The two engines driving this energy innovation will be biotechnology and nanotechnology.
How much will the sea level rise with the atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm? National Geographic, September 2004, estimates that at 478 ppm, the sea level will rise by only 4 inches, and that is taking the 1990 sea level as the base. The areas badly affected will only be the submerged South Sea islands. At 550 ppm, most probably, we can expect a sea level rise of only 1 foot.
There certainly will be other severe impacts as glaciers and ice sheets on three critical land areas - mountain regions, Greenland and Antartica - start melting. Most affected are the mountain regions since these glaciers feed major rivers in the Indian sub-continent and China. We can expect serious water issues in the coming decades. But as regards sea level, it won't present an acute problem. For icebergs, their melting doesn't have any impact since floating ice already displaces water of a weight equal to its own.
Within the next 50 years, we can expect new technologies to address the CO2 emissions. We must allow for the passage of time for this to come about. Hastening this process through forced measures, such as limits on carbon emissions will not work and would be a complete waste of time. Likewise, biodiesel, ethanol, carbon sequestration, and hybrid vehicles are only feel-good efforts that siphon money from more beneficial areas.
It is a common human folly to be doom-mongers worrying about non-existent fears. With respect to energy issues, as far back as the 13th century, 500 years before the Industrial Revolution, there had been shortages of wood as fuel for the ironworks. Then they found coal. Similarly, before they struck oil in 1859, they had also worried about coal being depleted. Now they agonised over oil and global warming. What mankind is apprehensive about usually will turn out to be unfounded fears. Instead, what it glosses over are the issues that will pose the most harm to it.
Going back to the Permian extinction, how did the extreme global warming precipitate the process?
Scientific American, October 2006, explains clearly the unfolding of this catastrophe. To begin with, the unleashed CO2 and methane greenhouse warmed both the atmosphere and the oceans. Conditions were arid and vast searing deserts spread across the land. The warm oceans had limited capacity to absorb oxygen because the ocean currents that kept the oceans oxygenated stopped circulating as they got warmer. As a result, bottom dwelling anaerobic bacteria that generated hydrogen sulphide (H2S) thrived. As H2S concentrations built up, they welled up and diffused into the atmosphere. The massive H2S extinguished both lives in the ocean and on land. It also destroyed the ozone layer that shielded life on earth from the UV radiation.
That's only one-half of the story. The other half, on globalisation, is equally interesting. Complementing the single land mass are one vast ocean, the Panthalassa Ocean, and a huge bay, the Tethys Sea. With a conjoined land mass and ocean, it was a free-for-all for the animals and plants. Now they all could roam the entire land or oceans. The shallow offshore water, a rich habitat for life, dwindled as the length of coastlines shrank.
Such conditions initially benefited some but ultimately produced many losers and virtually no winners. The causes can be attributed to the sudden appearance of new species which preyed on the indigenous animals or disrupted their feeding and breeding habitats. But worst of all when species mixed freely is the easy spread of pathogens to species which had not developed suficient immunity to new diseases.
We do not know whether global warming had a greater impact than globalisation in the Permian extinction. But we do know that CO2 ppm in the next 100 to 200 years won't actually reach one sixth of the Permian level of 3,000 ppm. That even without taking into account the coming energy revolution that will make oil a thing that we can live without. Indeed the current economic crisis has reduced the global CO2 emission for 2009 by 2.6 percent.
Given such a scenario, globalisation which has been promoted by almost all economists as a source of economic growth is the real danger unbeknown to its strident advocates. However among economists it is heretical to criticise it because that goes against the teaching of all economics schools. Because of this perverted belief in the benefits of globalisation, many countries have embraced it without realising of its longer-term harmful effects. The harm comes stealthily because initially it beguiles the populace with its temporary economic benefits. The deluded populace embraces it not realising that over time new countries, such as China, adept at manipulating exchange rates, will eat into other countries' lunches.
If we go back to the theory of comparative advantage first promulgated by David Ricardo in 1817, nowhere is it mentioned the applicability of the theory in conditions of surplus capacity. The theory works as long as the demand can consume whatever is being produced. It breaks down when supply exceeds demand as what the world is suffering from now. So now China can produce while the others sit idly by. Certainly, not a recipe for prosperity but for a catastrophe of major proportion. Thus the current crisis which actually is not initiated by the financial meltdown (which happens to be a consequence) but by the surplus supply capacity.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
To Master Economics, Learn Ecology
Do you know how this recession is going to eventually turn out? You can either defer to economists or ecologists in order to make up your mind.
To begin with, let's find out the difference between economy and ecology. The best approach is to dig up their root words, i.e., their etymologies. Both are derived from Greek. Their common prefix, eco, comes from oikos, Greek for house. Economy can be traced to oikonomia, house management while ecology derives from oikologia, study of the house or house knowledge. Surely, you would study the house first before you can consider yourself qualified to manage it. But our economists have plunged headlong into managing the house without mastering its plans and inner workings. It certainly makes for a lot of crisis management along the way as they switch from one crisis to another. In the meantime, we, the house occupants bear the consequences of their half-baked knowledge and shoddy repairs.
Another big difference between economists and ecologists is the approach they take to learn their trade. Both share the misfortune of not having the luxury to conduct their study in a controlled lab environment. However, the ecologists can go back to millions, if not billions, of years of earth history to learn how the various components of the environment relate to and interact with one another. The economists, on the other hand, do not study economic history. And for those enlightened few who study economic history, the most they can go back is to the beginning of recorded human history.
The danger of the economists has been highlighted by none other than the eminent British economist, John Maynard Keynes as regards the so-called economic experts, "The ideas of economists and philosophers, both when they are right and and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economists."
In order to demonstrate the relevance of ecology to the mastery of economics, my next post will be on Globalisation and Global Warming. Once everybody gets the hang of pattern recognition, the economics faculty of every university will be devoid of students; they will be flocking instead to the history or biology faculty.
To begin with, let's find out the difference between economy and ecology. The best approach is to dig up their root words, i.e., their etymologies. Both are derived from Greek. Their common prefix, eco, comes from oikos, Greek for house. Economy can be traced to oikonomia, house management while ecology derives from oikologia, study of the house or house knowledge. Surely, you would study the house first before you can consider yourself qualified to manage it. But our economists have plunged headlong into managing the house without mastering its plans and inner workings. It certainly makes for a lot of crisis management along the way as they switch from one crisis to another. In the meantime, we, the house occupants bear the consequences of their half-baked knowledge and shoddy repairs.
Another big difference between economists and ecologists is the approach they take to learn their trade. Both share the misfortune of not having the luxury to conduct their study in a controlled lab environment. However, the ecologists can go back to millions, if not billions, of years of earth history to learn how the various components of the environment relate to and interact with one another. The economists, on the other hand, do not study economic history. And for those enlightened few who study economic history, the most they can go back is to the beginning of recorded human history.
The danger of the economists has been highlighted by none other than the eminent British economist, John Maynard Keynes as regards the so-called economic experts, "The ideas of economists and philosophers, both when they are right and and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economists."
In order to demonstrate the relevance of ecology to the mastery of economics, my next post will be on Globalisation and Global Warming. Once everybody gets the hang of pattern recognition, the economics faculty of every university will be devoid of students; they will be flocking instead to the history or biology faculty.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Good but not so Great
You may have come across the book Good to Great written by Jim Collins. It's part of the genre of management faddish books that was started by Tom Peters's with his In Search of Excellence. Their common theme is an in-depth research into companies that had been performing well, such work then being publicised in the authors' books which later received rave reviews. Lamentably, a few years later these companies turned out to be duds.What's wrong with the approach taken by these authors? Mind you, some of them are respected management consultants who have taught at prestigious business schools. Are we teaching business leaders who are only good for the moment but leaving damaging legacies for the future generations, as exemplified by George W Bush, a typical product of such business schools? His leadership records speak volumes on the damage indirectly inflicted by the Harvard Business School on the Middle East.
What the business books (except those written by Peter Drucker) and the business schools badly suffer from is the inability to perceive the right patterns that differentiate the great from the not so great, i.e., the good. The authors did study the track records of the performing companies, no doubt, but the time frame that they used is so short so much so that whatever patterns that they perceive cannot withstand the test of time. These companies, by the way, are only recent creations; 100 years is too short. Hence, they are in no way good models for recognising patterns.
Take Jim Collins. He has used the analogy of the hedgehog and the fox to emphasise the benefits of focus as exemplified by the hedgehog. In his words, the hedgehog is 'a simple dowdy creature that knows one big thing and sticks to it.' Actually this characterisation of the human view of things can be traced to the ancient Greek poet, Archilocus. The hedgehog knows only big thing while the fox knows many things. This analogy was further elaborated by Sir Isaiah Berlin, a British philosopher to categorise thinkers and writers; hedgehogs are those who view the world through one big idea while foxes maintain several perspectives of the world depending on the prevailing conditions.
Hedgehogs see things in black and white. They are dogmatic with their one big thing and will overextend the applicability of that one big thing into areas much remote from its limited scope. Foxes, on the other hand, are pragmatic. They are not bound by one single idea and are amenable to changing their views. Foxes tap on their wide experiences to make an informed judgment.
It's not for nothing that the phrase 'cunning as a fox' or 'sly as a fox' came about. Fox, the animal, has a reputation for intelligence. It has a well developed sense of sight, smell and hearing. It can live in a wide range of habitats including living close to humans.
However, our infatuation with extreme focus has instead glorified the hedgehogs. With their narrow specialisation, they have become the experts, albeit dangerous ones at that because the public has allowed them to influence events and opinions. The Economist dated 18 July 2008 has the perfect definition of an expert: '... someone who knows about less and less until eventually, he knows everything about nothing.' It's time that we take control of our own decisions lest we be the slaves of some dubious 'experts'.
Prof Philip Tetlock of the University of California, Berkeley, has studied the accuracy of the experts' forecasts over 20 years, as documented in Expert Political Judgment. He has found their forecasts to be only slightly better than random guesses. It is our own fault that the 'experts' who see things in blacks and whites are the ones we clamour for. Remember George W. Bush's 'You're either with us, or against us' statement. Such a statement makes for great sound bites. In the real world, however, there are many grey areas with their complexities and nuances. In this regard, foxes make for better judges of events and issues.
I'm not arguing that we should all be foxes. Otherwise, we will succumb to the Western construct of black and white. We need hedgehogs for the short-term objectives of implementing things. But we need to mix the hedgehogs with the foxes. Down below in the organisation, there should be more hedgehogs. As we move up, the proportion of foxes should prevail. The main problem with most organisations is that the hedgehogs who have been good at running organisations in the past are still at the helm when the outside environment has changed drastically. They just are not able to adapt and are perplexed when their business models can no longer deliver the hoped for returns.
Am I for the hedgehog or the fox? Given the expected turn of events, I'm for neither. Not even the eagle, much beloved of many organisations and management writers. Mine is the ANT. I've got strong reasons for it and will be writing on it in the future.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Book of Five Rings
The Book of Five Rings is a Japanese book on sword dueling techniques. Unlike Sun Tzu's The Art of War, it's not straight forward and there are not many strategies that can be found useful for real life applications.
However, if you have studied pattern recognition, you will find that The Book of Five Rings is essentially about mastering patterns and making them part of you, that is, by internalising them. In a sense, it's the better of the two strategy books.
Take the sword fight. Any novice dueler would need to think where to strike, and if the strike doesn't hit the mark would be analysing why it didn't hit. He's using his prefrontal cortex to process new information. In a sword duel, such split second thoughts lead to certain death. An experienced swordsman doesn't think; every move is intuitive. The parts of his brain that direct his movements are the basal ganglia and the cerebellum. If you have watched The Last Samurai movie, remember that only when Tom Cruise made his movements come out naturally did he manage to master the art of swordsmanship.
How do you master patterns? Only through continual practices. But what distinguishes a master swordsman from an experienced but average one? The master would keep stretching his skills, adding more to his repertoire of sword fighting techniques while the average dueler would be repeatedly practising his limited set of skills. In a duel, the master would not use the same technique all over again if it does not work. He will try something different and in so doing, he triumphs over his opponent. That is the secret of Miyamoto Musashi, the author of The Book of Five Rings.
However, if you have studied pattern recognition, you will find that The Book of Five Rings is essentially about mastering patterns and making them part of you, that is, by internalising them. In a sense, it's the better of the two strategy books.
Take the sword fight. Any novice dueler would need to think where to strike, and if the strike doesn't hit the mark would be analysing why it didn't hit. He's using his prefrontal cortex to process new information. In a sword duel, such split second thoughts lead to certain death. An experienced swordsman doesn't think; every move is intuitive. The parts of his brain that direct his movements are the basal ganglia and the cerebellum. If you have watched The Last Samurai movie, remember that only when Tom Cruise made his movements come out naturally did he manage to master the art of swordsmanship.
How do you master patterns? Only through continual practices. But what distinguishes a master swordsman from an experienced but average one? The master would keep stretching his skills, adding more to his repertoire of sword fighting techniques while the average dueler would be repeatedly practising his limited set of skills. In a duel, the master would not use the same technique all over again if it does not work. He will try something different and in so doing, he triumphs over his opponent. That is the secret of Miyamoto Musashi, the author of The Book of Five Rings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)