Category Archives: Business

Competitive Advantage |Michael Porter’s Five Forces; Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Strategy But Were Afraid to Ask

Types of Competitive Advantage

You can be a cost leader (the cost leadership approach) or you can be differentiators in either the broad target or narrow targeted dynamic. Regardless, you will need to focus: a) cost focus or b) differentiation focus. The ultimate road to failure is to be “all things to all people”; that is the recipe for disaster.

Determinants of Industry Profitability

You need to understand these core-influencing factors before you dive into a potential product market.

The “Five Forces” are the following:

  • Rivalry among existing industry: rivalry can be cut throat some not so much.
  • Bargaining power of buyers: buyers might be price sensitive, might want more service they don’t pay for etc.
  • Threat of substitutes: a product that can do the same thing: if you do steal then plastic is a problem for you.
  • Threat of new entrants: if entry is easy than it will reduce value.
  • Bargaining power of suppliers: employees, machinery they can bid up their own prices. They can strip the profitability of an industry.

competitive advantage the five forces revealed

So success is a function of these strengths. You need to determine the industry success levels. Each of these competitive forces is shaped by the underlying determinants in that industry.

Intensity of Rivalry: are companies cutting prices or attacking competitors in ads?
Industry growth: how fast is it growing?
Product differences: is each product the same thing or are there value adds?
Brand Identity: does each company have a distinct brand strategy?
Switching Costs: are there switching costs from one to the other high or low?
Barriers to Exit: is there are lot of infrastructure required to realise profits?
Diversity of Competitors: are the competitors more different than the product?

Pharmaceutical Industry Case Study

Pharmaceutical Case StudiesThe pharmaceutical industry is highly profitable with the margin around the 20% mark in this industry. Why is this industry such a great game to be in?
Buyers: there are really 3 buyers: doctors, insurance folks and customers.
Entrants: It’s very hard to get into the industry; to get your drug accepted it needs sales man to persuade the doctors to use it. You need to have a sales force. Also, the average cost of a new drug development is 100 million dollar. 60% test to get government approval. Only when you have innovation like the pill does a new entrant change the landscape and a new player can enter the market.
Suppliers: not very strong. Commodities have little room..
Substitutes: very tough to get an alternative built up in a specific industry.
Rivalry: process is gentlemanly in pharmaceuticals; they don’t’ have to compete on price; the buyers aren’t price sensitive.

  • Therefore, every one of the Five Forces is favourable. The Pharmaceutical industry very evidently

Airlines Industry

American Airlines QualityGovernment regulation fundamentally effects this industry. Government IS not the included in the Five Forces as a Sixth Force. But it probably should be. The difference might be that government effects the other five forces in significant ways.

Buyers: prices are fixed.
Rivalry: limited new flights.
Entrants: no new airlines;

With the deregulation of the Airlines in the Reagan era:

Entrants: very low now as allowed by government.
Buyers: are price sensitive, very low, customers are willing to switch.
Rivalry: it’s intense, you might cut costs.
Suppliers: pilots can go on strike.

The underlying structure is not favourable therefore no very exciting.

Industries are not static. Industry structure can change for better or worse Changes;

1, technology causes the shift.

2, companies can shape industry structure.

Industry trend is significant for industry structure if it affects one or more of the Five Forces.

Pharmaceutical CompaniesPharmaceuticals are under threat

1, Buyers might start to care about price, government and insurance have tried to lower price. Costs have grown twice as fast.

2, Generic drugs has also been a huge problem. Once a drug goes off of patent, it’s legally possible get another prescription.

3, Biotechnology is reducing the cost of developing new drugs; lower the cost of entry. Genentech with the pill has innovated using none other than horse urine.

Some industries change can be positive. There is change.

  1. Hub and Spoke route system. Better marketing, airlines are competing as hubs thus this has raised a barrier. You need to get slots in those hubs.
  2. Information management system. Modern computers have allowed the sorting to be automated. It takes millions of dollars to develop this technology of managing technology.
  3.  There are these rewards programs which will keep you loyal. You need to differentiate and have started to change that equation.

Lessons from Industry Analysis

  • We have learned that industry analysis is the beginning strategy. You need to understand that industry and what that industry functions as it does. Which ever force is most significant, you need to focus your creative energies;
  • Focus on how the industry might change;
  • Watch out for industry change;
  • Companies can change their destiny;
  • Companies can actually destroy their industry: if you don’t think through your moves you might actually undermine your industry.

Swimming Pool

Competitive Positioning

How does a company achieve superior performance in an industry? To be superior you need to have a sustainable competitive advantage. Advantage is sustained in two ways:

  1. competitors can’t compare;
  2. continuous improvements before your competition catch up.

There are few companies in a position to catch up with Google in search for example. Bing is fast but even so, it still lacks the scale and user relationship that Google has created. Google has grown alongside the internet in an organic manner.

How Do You Get A Competitive Advantage

Kinds of Competitive AdvantageThere are 2 types of competitive advantage:

  1. Low Cost: lower cost in designing, marketing and producing.
  2. Differentiation: able to provide a unique benefit this is superior product and price.

It’s very important to determine which on these two a company is trying to achieve. Every company has a fundamental goal. Gain advantage in a narrow arena. You want to lead to generic strategies.

You could be broad & low cost. You can seek to be low cost or differentiated. The worst strategic error is to be stuck in the middle. If you aren’t willing to be designated then you will be stuck. These companies are always the below average in any industry.

Cost Leadership | How To Create Value On A Tight Budget

The low cost producer uses economist of scale to help lower costs. You want to basically amortize your research and development in order to focus in on the high value generation. They find ways to exploit cost advantage through resources.

Any company seeking to gain a cost advantage needs a good product. Acceptable in features, but the low costs doesn’t want the frills. You focus on a good basic product. Your advantage is about getting a cost gap over all competitors. You gain the low cost position, and then you can command prices and get a low cost performer.

Prices relative to competitors and the cost position relative to competitors.

You are being the low cost and get a low cost advantage. But if you get too low then you won’t get a cost advantage.

The standard no-frills product -> needs to command price near industry standards. Low cost – higher returns unless not comparable to the average, which leads to discounts. Proximity: cost advantage is already great or parity similar products / a different combination. You need to be the cost leader many firm miss this point but they end-up racing to the bottom > this needs preemption unless major technological change allows for radical position change.

Proctor & Gamble

1.6 Billion dollars in revenue every year in the mid-1980s. Ivory is not a mundane product, soap is an example about competitive positioning. Most soaps in the 19th century were producers of expensive of luxury soaps. The basic Ivory strategy was to produce a pure mild soap. The ivory bar actually floated. Consumers were interested in the floating element. Ivory have symbol of strategy. Most soap was brown. Ivory was the first white. Ivory was heavily advertised. Harley Proctor had his own idea. He developed 99 44/100% pure soap. Proctor created these comparison ads between ivory. Proctor also had testimonials.

Ivory also used babies to promote themselves. Ivory commanded a premium prices and then dominated.

  • 1950s and 60s challenged the Ivory strategy.
  • Dial was a deodorant bars.
  • The second was Dove: it makes your skin better 1956.

These new products had features that threatened them.

Ivory bar moved from the differentiated soap but moved to the low cost to being a cost leader in the industry. So this new ivory strategy. So you have a simple no frills soap. Ivory has a simple bar. Ivory goes for simplicity; basic approach.

Ivory also did a lot of bundling of six bars. So then Ivory could be used for the family.

Ivory doesn’t have demographic skew it’s well developed. That’s what makes Ivory unique. Ivory is always all purposes. Ivory set its prices are a low level. Ivory focused on a basic soap. Ivory cot less than  the other store. Four bars of Ivory lo cost. The new Ivory strategy is worked.

What makes it so cheap? Air bubble mean less bar? No additional flavours. The pac

kaging is inherently cheaper to product. Ivory controls advertising cost. The brand image is that ivory is a very effective trafficker.

You can add these features or strategically re-position Ivory. Moving from differentiator to cost leader. The Ivory packages is about simplicity. Ivory goes for simplicity.

Ivory bundled soap for the whole family. Ivory set its prices lower than the competitive market-place. Ivory costs less than the other soaps than the store. The simple packaging are inherently cheaper to produce and Ivory controls advertising costs. Ivory is an effective traffic builder. Proctor & Gamble get scale and distribution advantages. Ivory hangers a low price, but it cost is even lower. The cost saving is very much a virtue. LOW COST LOW PRICE.

Despite Ivory’s success, there is new soap Pure & Natural.

John Pepper @ Proctor & Gamble

Ivory became a giant brand in the 19th century. Pure, mild, floated, white. There is no product life cycle is totally an issue of the people managing the business.

First step, you need to understand what customers actually want. You need to talk to consumers, group testing is valid. Ivory’s histories central brand have changed.

We like continuity of management, promote from within, people know eachother well. Not all working on Ivory; continuity is related to the advertising agencies. Agency advertising has been with 67 years.

Brand at Proctor & Gamble: the brand becomes a person. It brings benefits to consumers; it assumes a personality or character to it. Proctor & Gamble has chosen to not change Ivory. Proctor & Gamble didn’t want to compromise the idea. We wanted to be consistent about Ivory. Consumers want consistency.

Lessons from Ivory

What lessons are there for strategy. Soaps all go after different.

  • Choose different strategy;
  • Implement, but don’t flip flop and the market place doesn’t know what to do;
  • Strategy must respond to market forces;

Cost Leadership II | Taking Cheapness To The Next Level Down

La Quinta: it’s a motel chain in the US. It has 200 locations, spread across the US. La Quintata results in 80s has been amazing. Profits have been modest in Texas. There is a dramatic expansion of competitors.

From a strategy point of view: customers, are satisfied, competitors can’t match them. La Quinta’s strategy is an example as an effective lodging companies; there are wide ranging needs; high rollers and the have a wide range of services. Room service for the tired executive. La Quinta has chosen to find a particular kind of customer.

They focused on the commercial man, sales, auditor (who has to travel to the same places) Spends 17 nights a year in a La Quinta organization.

Location: good access and excellent visibility; located where business people go a lot. La Quinta builds beside Kenny’s. But they don’t want to go into the motel business. Most lodging establishments loose money on their in-house restaurants.

Building: sound proofing; very quite rooms made out of concrete.

Cost of $40 very cheap. Why they stay here; it’s consistency. Simple no frills. I don’t care about room services; folks are travelling: I’m busy I keep myself moving. The operating costs are held down as well. The room is as large as the competition, but the costs are lower. There is a corporate fetish for cost control; construction costs are held down.

A La Quinta is managed by a husband and wife team. The employees live in the apartment on the premise. The couples are loyal to the company; they stay at the company. The final bonus is that the couple and the other employees provide a great deal of personal attention. There is extensive training 12 weeks of training. Makes simple repairs.

Sam Barshop: President of La Quinta

We are constantly updating our services. We started with TVs then we put in cable. Our customers are the boss not me. Marriot Hotels is great and it has the Courtyard concept: they going after. Marriot is the GM of hotels. Motel6 is a good company, they know what they are doing. We are working on minutes in cleaning a room, working on nickels and dimes. We build a building extremely cost effectively, we know what the land cost. We know our product really well. Wall Street should not run your business.

Lessons from La Quinta

Competing with a focused strategy. La Quinta illustrates that you should choose a particular target segment. It has to have unusual or distinctive needs.

  • Choose target segment with distinct needs.
  • Service target exclusivity.
  • Always under temptation to get a few more customers.
  • If your company starts to broaden strategy it will loss its base.
  • Fin a segment that has lower needs: non-luxury and then find those customers.
  • Invest where needed: All concrete construction, booking system that was simple, renovated the properties.
  • Cost leadership is part of the company; everyone is worrying about the cost.

Charles F. Knight – Emerson

The lowest cost producer is not the answers. Six key points to define what we do:

  • quality;
  • know competitor costs;
  • receptivity to change; going after productivity in your plants.
  • Formalized cost reduction program;
  • Strong communications related to those productions; the enemy isn’t management but the competition
  • Commitment of capital to make it happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerson_Electric_Co.

If you have the highest quality in the entire system, if you have the best quality, you also had the lowest cost. How do you understand the costs of our competitors? We learn about what the competitors product and cost. Emerson uses their competitors to keep minions in line in effect. People want to win: once they see who the target is and resources. This includes productivity & cap & spending. This is not something that you put in a box, Emerson has had half about 100 Fortune then it won’t work for you.

Conclusions: Cost Leadership

  • Create a good product; willing to make choices like frills and features;
  • Cost leaders draw advantage from many sources;
  • Study the Competition;
  • Cost is literally built into the organisation: everyone is worrying about costs;
  • Cost leaders manage costs downward.
  • Many managers have a misconception about cost strategies “real managers don’t compete on costs” but those misconceptions have to be minimized.

Differentiation Strategy

Find a need and find a unique value. You need to spend extra in R&D. The differentiator is trying to command superior prices.  Differentiation is premium price / unique USP meets unique needs of consumers. Kinds of differentiation include:

  1. the produce is different;
  2. the delivery system;
  3. marketing approach;
  4. broad range of factors.

Example is Caterpillar: durability, service, spare parts, excellent dealer networks.

Price Premium must be great than the cost of differentiation. You need to reduce cost in areas where they do not differentiate. Differentiation.

The balance is that the premium is greater than anything. The premium must be greater than the cost of being unique. You should cut costs to the bone if they refuse to pay for it. The differentiator only spends as much is necessary as to command the premium.

Often customers can’t tell how you are different; you need to make sure the customer knows that the customer is getting the benefits. Differentiation is about identifying what the buyer needs and then provide unique performance to meet those needs.

Differentiator is trying to command premium prices. You need to ensure that the relative price and relative cost.

American Airlines (Broad Differentiation)

How have they survived thanks to de-regulation. Most airlines have been pre-occupied with cost. American expanded internationally to Spain, France.

American Airline

On time and excellent service. Do you get you there in time: American Airline value. Overbooking is really upsetting for bumping. Now American Airline has fewer bumped passengers than any other airline. The Travel Agency was a crucial arm for the Airline and is a client. The distribution channel; effective differentiate.

Sabre has automated ticket but it got a preferable distribution channel. A successful differentiator must communicate to it’s competitors. America seeks to communicate its differentiation strategy. American Airlines is a major advertiser in newspapers. American Airline had Advantage with frequent traveller program: we would get award free travel. You have 60% seats are full so free seats aren’t a huge problem anyway. Differentiation is higher prices of course.

American Airline in traduced the supersaver program. It’s about controlling a larger control of the price for cheap-skates while also keeping the posh fliers happy with premium pricing for their foot massages. Low fare market and high fare market are being covered by the supersaver program and the Advantage programs.

Vital Steps

Measurement: message the standards. How long it takes for a bag to get to you. Tracking 21 areas of quality shoppers in their system. Recruiting: the people need the right skills and the right attitudes. Relationship with Emloyees: mutual respect, American had 2 tiered labour system. Newer employees are tied to market forces will senior staff aren’t.

Technology: Sabre is the largest realt time data tracking system int eh world. American Airlines has placed Sabre at the heart of seat booking. This all allows American to

R.L. Crandall CEO of American Airlines

The long-term coherence of American airlines has been committed to the shared throughout the management, we are more consistent at differentiating ourselves.

You tend to need to do this differentiation over a long period of time. Crandall we communicate with our people, we explained the plan. 33% of my time is spent in things in communication excercises.

We looked at the fleight in the airlines, got rid of whole fleets of airplanes. We used to fly point to point, moved to hub and spoke model. We seriously cut cost without having any effect on product quality you can’t really do. But you can make cuts in costs when there is pockets of cost that don’t make any real contribution to quality.

Do you need 3 pieces of lining or just 2 pieces of linin. We looked at the weight of the airplanes: so you can eliminate costs that don’t make any sense, anything that doesn’t add value should be thrown out that weight.

America Airline: you can find out any price of any airline ticket with a phone call. You need a quality score for those hotels. These are the kinds of adds that we would run. Finally we sold that to the department of transportation.

Lesson from American Airlines

  • Challenge of creating value for the buyer;
  • Value readily perceives the value: American was interested in onboard and arrival times were of high value.
  • Communicate value: you need to let people know about that. That’s why they wanted the government to publish statistics on travel performance.
  • Differentiations is costly: American was willing to differentiate via cost. They were trying to minimize extra cost of services; so they are trying to reduce the extra cost.
  • Differentiators Worry About Cost: they are constantly looking to cutting out bad fleets of planes and remove heavy objects that don’t matter for quality. So they have to make a tradeoff between cost and.
  • Be a moving target: competitors will be constantly trying to emulate what you do.

Differentiation (Narrow/Focused Strategy)

Cost focus: seeks focus on cost for a subgroup OR differentiation focus: a firm seeks differentiation in its target segment. Cost focused looks at the behavior of consumers based on segment of iPhone users.

“Stuck in the Middle”: fails to achieve any strategy. Not making choices about competition. Laker Airways had a clear cost focus shift to some frills. A firm is better off finding new industries in which to grow where it can use its generic strategy again or exploit interrelationship.

A firm must make a choice: among them or it be stuck in the middle. Three conditions for meeting both cost leadership and differentiation.

  • Compeitotr are stuck in the middle.
  • Cost is strongly Affected by share or internatliosnhip.
  • A firm pioneers a major innovation like Apple computer Ince new machines forging compeative relation with suppliers.

Ford wenf to a low-cost streaty in the 1920. GM differentiate strategy based a wide line, features, premium prices.

Smirnoff produces new brand due to eroding competitive advantage.

Cray Research:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_Research

Founded in 1972 in 1976. Cray sales are on the rise and they have had an equity increase of 25% year on year. Has doubled the average of an unstable system. Has been differentiating in IBM. Pundits have been predicting Cray Researchers demise. IBM and Japanese Companies product a wide range.

Cray Research: only builds the most power. They are a differentiated super computer in the world because they build supercomputers and they believe that their product makes sense. It turns out to be absurd now, but at the time Michael Porter rated their strategy highly without thinking much about mainframes were shrinking to desktop computers to mobile phones and that was the high order bid.

CEO thought: scientists what more robust technology and the need to create an addiction for the engines. Super computers + a proprietary operating system and the Cray is designed to interface without computer equipment (except Apple computers).

The sales process is tough: a supercomputer costs 15 million dollars! They have a highly trained sales force in 85 sales-force.

They also have R&D to prove how effective the machine actually might be. It take 9 months to build a Cray, these computers are building computer error free. The computers are hand made. Along with every Cray goes 5 employees who manage the machine inhouse. Most problems are then dealt with on the spot. This means Cray has remarkable uptime. They are running 99% of the time.

Cray’s Pricing Strategy: they place it on the value: they are the most expensive computer, it creates so much value. They use this technology to manage the design of airplanes, cars and oil rig.

They are over 100 million dollars in R&D every year. R&D 15% of revenue is research and development. This comes off the top. Cray demands superior people.

They interview wildly win the organization. Cray is looking for people who can work across lines. Not a hierarchy and flat. There is a Cray machine year book actually details the construction with picture of engineers building the computer.

Chipawaha Falls; there is this constant dialogue: we have no secrets from our employees. Customers call the engineers directly: they don’t want to have .

The Customers Sell for Cray

The referrals they get from other customers. What about the competition? Cray Researchers: their engineers talk to our engineers so it’s a long-term relationship. When Cray Researchers are asked about performance, we disclose the plans openly: unless they know where we are going then they aren’t happy. The customer goes behind the scenes. There are no impediments between customer and engineer. IBM has ignored the super computer market. Japanese super computers in the US is really weak.

Mini-Super Computers

The mini-super computers is a challenging segment. It could be a billion dollar market by 1990. The size of the customer base for Cray Research has gone from 90 companies to 1000 companies so they will not be entering the mini-super computer.

John Rollwagen: Cray Research CEO & Chairman

There is a vast computer industry: why are you focused on this one objective? Historically, Seymour Cray has been the dominant figure. The strategic reason for focus is that we think that we should continue the specialization in this one field.

Why didn’t Cray Research not enter the mini-super computers?

It’s always better to have a broader market. Cray Research was even asked by partners to look. They called the product Quarter Horse in 1984, they fleshed out the business plan and reduce the cost and maintain performance. The final analysis was that we shouldn’t do it. If we do this we will lose our focus and it takes all our attention to stay focused. It’s always easy to see that you add products to the main product until you lost the essence of the product.

We want to have the most powerful computer in the world: The first risk is that if we don’t make the super power then we are screwed. The second risk is that people don’t want to buy super computer. The rational thing to do is to spread. Rollwagen believes in just do this thing focused on the high end.

The Cray Research Strategy:

  • Differentiation creates value for the customer to justify the premium price, but it’s cheap the unique benefit that Cray Research buys.
  • More than physical product: it’s the ability of the customer to use the product: insight customer engineers.
  • Communicate differentiation: credibly improve;
  • Be A Moving Target.
  • Sharp focus on target segment.
  • Find segment with greater needs.
  • Stay focused: Cray has kept their advantage.

Cray Research built its strategy around the super computer. Period.

Broad Lesson

  • Successful strategy must worry about their own position and industry structure.
  • Don’t ignore industry structure!
  • Choose a different strategy!
  • Dare to make trade-offs

Competitive Strategy in Practice

Culture effects competitive advantage it is a means of achieving competitive advantage. Build, Hold, Harvests. There are risk of the generic strategies.

Risk of cost leadership not sustain because

  • competitors imitate;
  • technology changes;
  • other bases for cost leadership erode;

Risk of Differentiation is not sustained:

  • competitors imitate;
  • ase for differnetiaiton becomes less important to buyers.
  • Cost proximity is lost / differentiation focuses achieve greater differentiation in segments.

Risk of Focus: the focus strategy imitated the target segment becomes structurally unattractive.

Case Study: Skil Corporation

Practical tools industry, had a wide product line and a global market position. It was faced with Black&Decker. Also having to deal with new and severe competitors. Skill Corporation was deteriorating.

Emerson Electric were going to turn Skil Corporation….Harvard Class Room Notes

  • Black & Deck has lower prices & better brand and aggressive marketing strategy. Black & Decker is across the board.
  • Skill Corporation was very much not a cost oriented company or a marketing specialist. They don’t have a brand name.
  • Might want to trim the product line, build the advertising budget; differentiate from the consumer tool.
  • Skill might lose hardware stores. It’s key to look at the distribution channels that is difficult for hardware. Hardware store is dependent on high margins.
  • No chance to be strong at 7% market share. If you focus exclusively on circular saws.
  • Skill Corporation showed try to drop with a channel that is more powerful because they have K.Marts and other distribution.

What Skil Corporation Did…

  • Distribution Channels: reduce the number of distribution channels it wanted to serve. Skill decided to de-emphasis those channels. Skill chose not to sell to mass merchandisers.
  • They streamlined the product line and sales force. They were able to keep their product out of the mass markets.
  • Black&Decker sold to all the channels which meant the mass merchandisers could also get that saw down the street for cheaper.
  • Skil also cut 50% of the products and that meant lost revenue by 20%.
  • Skil tried to fundamentally re-design the product line. Circular Saws; there were once 7 different housing: 6 encaps. But today they only do one of each.
  • Skil also reduced the number of parts from 69 costs to 30 parts the cost reduction was substantial.
  • Skill also went global with the product.
  • Dramatic change 10 of the 13 plants were closed and then 3 factories became the world source for each of the product lines. They reduced the number of products and product families. Skill was able to dramatically improve the automation.
  • Skil made the automation flexible. Able to produce any of Skils product within 15 minutes.
  • There was also Just-In-Time to reduce the inventory space. So the space to process the inventory was repurposed.

Lessons from Skil Corporation

  • Market share has increased profitability. Then it’s also on the highest levels of any of its competitors.
  • Don’t imitate, you should choose new positioning going after consumers and industrial.
  • Focus on the target, serving the target market: dare to trade-off! Stop producing certain products and certain distribution. Need to exploit the sub-optimisation of their competitors.

The Process of Developing Strategy

  • Practical actions are the toughest part.
  • Know what you are and be the best version of yourself.

Conclusion for Competitive Advantage

  • Create a formal strategy;
  • Use a multi-functional team;
  • The organization must understand the strategy;
  • Be consistent over time;
  • You won’t get competitive advantage if you change strategies.
  • Use proper measurement; find underlying measures;
  • Don’t look at financials alone to measure;
  • Test strategy continually.
  • Strategic thinking is a scares resource; many companies follow and have a tendency to follow. No company ever masters this skill you can always learn more about themselves and their competitors.

competitive analysis by Michael PorterThe above is a synopsis of Competitive Advantage by Michael Porter complete with analysis and criticism.

USA Inc Analysis as A Way to Communicate The State of A Country, Province or Town

Preface

This presentation style would be invaluable for communicating to the public what is going on with their country, province or town. Imagine if all town’s had to present their annual report in the form of a power point. It would be game changing democratically speaking. Mary Meekers say the US is not a business but then spends the entire time treating as such in order to illustrate her points…hm. She is unconsciously biased but aren’t we all? The presentation is a powerful remind too that talking heads, broadcast media and the public generally are more interested in the horse-race, the drama of politics rather than the quiet policy committees that create legislation. In other words, even if this is a great power point, it’s still boring for 95% of the target market (i.e. citizens of the US). Taking a further step back on the numbers, Piketty has shown that it isn’t debt but the concentration of wealth that is the bigger of the problems facing the US; debate-able but interesting. The public pocket book ain’t great but the private pocket books of US citizens are increasingly concentrated and massive.

T<G

The Government must management money like any other organization according to Meeker’s. The first issue is that the US has been spending more than it is taking in in tax revenue. To over spend, the USA must issue bonds to get the loans needed. So the question is how long can the USA continue to lose money? With more bonds, the easy money in the market is in government bonds. That means that financial investment in government bonds is eating away available funds for entrepreneurial invests and the like.

Entitlements Are A Big Expense

Meeker is obsessed with entitlement programs and what to do about it. The financial obligations are healthcare, medicaid and medicare and social security. The entitlement expenses are 73% of all entitlement expenses in 2011. Entitlement and interest expenses exceed revenue according to projections from 2011. The US’s mission is to provide the common defense, liberty etc. The US is not trying to maintain a profit but the government should be able to afford the service it is providing. In many ways, the costs are hidden in terms capital allocation in the economy….more research required.

Public Opinion on the Deficit and Debt

Citizens were very concerned at a 93% rate regarding the debt but they also oppose cutting back on services. Instead, politicians should commit to learn the facts about the numbers according to Meeker. There needs to be a slow and steady effort to pay down the debt.

The Family Unit is not like the US government but Meeker thinks if the US was a family they would be pretty irresponsible. But unlike a family, the US government can get away with it because they are only game in town. If the US was a family, that family might take in a renter, post-pone family vacations for a decade and stop spending on music lessons for little Timmy who has no musical talent anyway….but is it all about spending? It seems that Meeker’s is obsessed with spending and not increasing the T (tax).

Spending Has Grown

24% of GDP is the spending rate in 2011. Federal income grew at 2.9% over 40 years and spending grew at 3.1% over that same period. Through the power of compounding interest, Expenses has grown to be almost 50% greater than revenue.  Over spending has been facilitated by increasing the debt which means that government bonds are the sure thing that many investors put their money in.

Health Care Expenses are 8.2% of Spending

Healthcare spending is much higher. The US has the highest obesity rates in the world. And their healthcare is expensive as ever relative to other OECD coutnries.

Babyboomers + Fewer Workers

The perfect storm that Meeker’s describes at 19:45 is subject to new information. Namely that we anticipate that there were will be fewer jobs that require menial tasks in the future (generally). Meanwhile, the babyboomer’s will retire, handing over the power and revenue generating potential to a smaller pool of workers than the BB generation has. The net effect of reduction in menial labour may be nullified by fewer more productive workers.

Bankrupt Companies

Financial institutions can go bankrupt. And the US government bailed them out. You want to make sure that your debt is attractive to foreign countries. To sell our debt to the China, the US needs to ensure they trust that this debt is not going to default. If the US defaults on it’s debt, all the shit will hit the fan. One way to undo the entitlement super-structure is to default and restructure like GM….dangerous thinking to be sure.  In GM’s 2009 bankruptcy, it went negative in 2006. Employee pensions were a commonly state cause for lack of competitiveness. The GM focused on eliminating old entitlements and then turned cash-flow positive.

Why Are We Not Investing In Education?

Meeker notices that the R&D investment is becoming difficult and less common. Again, Meeker is overlooking the individuals who are investing in the education system virtually and through sell-directed learning rather than institutional learning.

Social Security Fixes are Straight-Forward

You either increase the retirement age to 73 or you cut payments. Simple.

Defense Spending is Well Below the 40 years Average

The $80 billion spent on pet projects. Or the $225 million Naval base in Iceland for example. The programs should be run more efficiently according to Meeker’s. Meeker’s believes that defense spending could be allocated to other services.

Changing Tax Policies

Only 49% pay income taxes. The % of Americans who pay 50% tax is down from 1965. To raise taxes, you could double income tax rate. Revenue could be raised through tax benefits of deductions. Increasing tax revenue is another approach. You could try to get an increase in GDP and an increase in tax revenue. However, Meeker’s doesn’t seem convinced that increasing taxes is the right move, rather reducing deductibles is a quiet way to move forward. Like the family that has renters in the basement to pay off their debt….

The US is Falling Behind

Restore competitive growth. The tax structure should be reformed according to Mary Meeker’s. The US has been a global leader in many fields. So the needs to address the sacrifice of Americans. Major cuts could hurt but we need to get a return on the investment.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/kpcbweb/files/USA_Inc.pdf 

MedTech Innovations Now and Beyond

Artificial Intelligence Meets Radiology

Artificial Narrow Intelligence is becoming a thing of its own with natural language processing also emerging as tools in healthcare. While IBM Watson is largely a marketing property, other healthcare giants are putting a real stake in AI. And coming up with semi-workable technologies. Note that AI is plateauing at the moment. Some sunspots include a company called Arterys which has developed a deep learning algo for radiology. Knowing folks in the radiology field myself, I would say that this could augment their scale-ability IF they as radiologists embrace and trust the algo to search effective. There will be push back of course, especially if the technology is cumbersome, requires a login, has a poor quality interface, the usual guaranteed problems. The iPad of the 90s WAS the PalmPilot so execution is essential for Arterys.

Cyber Pills Make the Fantastic Voyage

Nanotechnology is allowing for digestable computers to enter the body orally. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the very first pill of this kind last year. The pill is called Abilify MyCite joining the ranks of pills with totally goofy pharma names. How about Track-O-Matic. Hmmm, maybe not… This pill has sensors that communicate with a wearable patch to confirm that the drug in the pill has been taken. That information is relayed to a smartphone for the forgetful patient or the family or team of clinicians taking care of the patient. In the event of a court order for, say, a man who is required to take medication as part of his or her sentencing, this sensor in a pill might come in handy. 

Medical ChatBots Are A Thing, Sort Of

AI chatbots like in the struggling Kik App are pretty terrible at the moment. In the next 5 years there might be more messaging capability but I would not recommend talking with a chatbot about your feelings just yet. The benefits of an effective chatbot with Artificial Narrow Intelligence is to engage people in need of a human therapist and can direct them accordingly. A company called Ada Health is providing this service in Europe as of 2017. It’s been tested by over 1.75 million people. Meanwhile in the UK, the National Health Service is using a chatbot app for providing medical advice thus drawing down the on call nurses. However, I can tell you that having a conversation with a real nurse over the phone when you’re having an asthma attack is the only way to go because they know which hospital to go to and can give you medically sound advice…expensive but valuable.

Virtual Reality in Health Care

Playing video games is one way to distract people from pain. It’s especially potent if the patient has never played a video game before. Cue the VR helmet and you have a great distraction. Of course, there are elderTech folks developing the sounds and environments of your grandparents youth: dust bowl, anyone? While there are over 100 million sufferers of chronic pain in the US and Oxycondin has terrible side-effects (and is a scourge on society), VR and video games have mild side-effects like the feeling that you want to crash your actual car after playing Grand Theft Auto for 5 hours straight. Look to see this technology applied more widely.

Roche and the Acquisitions of mySugr

mySugr is a diabetes management startup from the Alps (Austrian-side). They have already registered patients from all over the world. The acquisition was around $100 according to TechCrunch. The good news is that mySugr is now embedded in Roche giving that pharmaceutical giant a new competitive edge. Other pharmaceuticals will follow suit. Meanwhile competitors like Livongo and Glooko are likely to be emboldened to cash out at a higher price point. This tactic is a classic in pharma: buy instead of build. It’s not hard to predict that more such acquisitions will happen in 2018.

CRISPR and Gene-Editing Is Not a Fad

In 2016, experiments were conducted to demonstrate how to treat mice with muscular dystrophy using CRISPR techniques. Genome editing is a thing and probably is a path to curing cancer in my opinion. MIT is leading the way. Could this technology be used to manage potential mutations of fatal blood disorders through something called base editing? Yep. Meanwhile, China is also pushing forward on human testing with this technology in part due to less ethical approach to science. How do you feel about that?

Insurance companies want to give you better rates for wearing fitness wearables

Qualcomm and Xiaomi + other smartphone providers are signing up participants with a price of $1000 if the user meets their daily walking goals. Imagine being paid to be healthy? I wonder if there is a business model there? Certainly, I would like a tax deduction for my gym membership and a free pizza to balance the health benefits while I’m at it (kidding;-P) But seriously, instead of Stickk.com where you punish yourself for not meeting your target, how about a pool of funds to pay out to citizens who meet their person targets? Make the target hard to game of course. Insurance companies are all over this predictably, largely because, it’s not that interesting outside of the financial team in these firms. Make insurance marketing the greatest it always wasn’t:-)

 

In Defence of Diefenbaker (if it’s possible): The Defense Crisis and Its Implications

A Defiant Defence of Diefenbaker: The Defense Crisis and Its Implications

One of the most tumultuous periods in Canada-U.S. Relations was the Defense Crisis of 1962 and 1963. In order to examine the American presence in Canada during that period, this article will accomplish four objectives. First, it will explain the background of the Defense Crisis. Secondly, this article will provide a historiographical analysis of John G. Diefenbaker. Thirdly, it will argue that the Defense Crisis led to explicit American intervention in Canadian politics. Finally, this article will defend George Grant’s significant contribution to analyzing this history and will reach the conclusion that Diefenbaker’s indecisiveness was not a product of personal tension with John F. Kennedy, but a product of an irreconcilable vision of Canadian Nationalism.

The historical background of the Defense Crisis begins on October 15th, 1958.  On that day, the Canadian government authorized negotiations with the US government “for the acquisition and storage of defensive nuclear weapons and warheads” [1]. Bomarc-B Missiles were to be placed in North Bay, Ontario and La Macaza, Quebec to neutralize a surprise Soviet attack. The Canadian cabinet knew that “in taking the nuclear-[fitted] U.S. Bomarc weapon, Canada ran the danger of falling under greater U.S. military control in North American air defence” [2] given Canada’s obligations under NATO and NORAD. However, in response, Diefenbaker continued through five years of government to stall making a final decision to accept or reject the required nuclear warheads. Eventually, the government collapsed when the Minister of National Defense Douglas Harkness tendered his resignation in protest[3]. Among historians, it is widely accepted that Bomarc controversy was a key contributor to Diefenbaker’s political demise because it highlighted indecisiveness caused by personality problems. This article will suggest an alternate cause of this indecisiveness.

Most historians have a vastly different interpretation of Diefenbaker compared to George Grant’s interpretation of the lucky 13th Prime Minister. The question is how has this history been interpreted through the lenses of political biases? Before assessing Grant’s perspective – which plays a central role in this article – a historiographical analysis of the various competing interpretations of Diefenbaker’s behaviour must be taken into account. It is the next step in this article to contrast these differences and to suggest why such a divergence with Grant’s perspective exists on foreign policy. A general consensus among historians suggests that Diefenbaker was indecisive on accepting the nuclear warheads. What remains to be observed is each author’s claim to the source of this indecisive foreign policy.

A recurring pattern of pro-Liberal Party historians is to attack the character, not the ideological motivations behind Diefenbaker’s demise. Nash and Robinson both take this interpretative position. Among the most popular interpretations of the period is Knowlton Nash’s Kennedy & Diefenbaker: Fear and Loathing Across the Undefended Border. The books major fault is its overemphasis on the personalities of John F. Kennedy and John G. Diefenbaker. Nash first notes that the two world leaders backgrounds do not complement each other as Kennedy was a Bostonian Catholic elitist and Diefenbaker was a Saskatchewanian Protestant populist. Although Nash shares this descriptive tendency with most other historians, he characterizes Diefenbaker as a messianic demagogue full of exaggeration and infectious charisma. Nash also repeatedly calls him ‘insecure’, ‘irrational’, ‘obsessive’ and a small-town lawyer. This is juxtaposed with friendly adjectives calling Kennedy ‘young’, ‘ambitious’ and ‘witty’. For Nash, a series of altercations illustrates the international friction between the two nations. In January of 1961, Diefenbaker visited Washington and argued with Kennedy over sport fishing and the War of 1812[4]. Their personal tension were further exacerbated in May 1961, when Kennedy visited Ottawa, insulted Diefenbaker’s French and then asked for a ‘two-key’ nuclear warheads policy with Canada. Diefenbaker’s response instead was a peculiar proposition to accept nuclear warheads only during the initial phase of the supposed Soviet attack[5]. Nash’s conclusion was that as a consequence of personal clashes, both politicians grew to hate each other resulting in a foreign policy rift[6].

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker is seen here with U.S. President John F. Kennedy in Ottawa in 1961. (CP PHOTOS)

One major historiographical problem in Nash’s interpretation is that he implicitly suggests the lack of friendship between leaders caused the disagreement on the Bomarc missiles. This is misleading. George Grant seems to have indirectly attacked the specific work of Knowlton Nash by stating that the media had “reduc[ed] issues to personalities”[7] for the purposes of the ruling class. Far too much credence is given to the friction between the two world leaders because of a simple truth; personal anecdotes are amusing and they give a simple but false explanation for the poor Canada-U.S. Relations during this period. Another problem with Nash’s interpretation is that in reality Diefenbaker’s policy was not endearing to either American presidents Kennedy or Eisenhower. Evidently, Nash overlooks the smooth personal relationship with Eisenhower despite serious policy disagreements between the Canada and American governments from 1957 to 1960. This misleading historical interpretation must be highlighted in order to demonstrate the flaw of overemphasizing personality clashes. In addition, it seems unlikely that Diefenbaker could position himself as leader of the Progressive Conservative party and then become what is described as a petty and irrational person upon meeting John F. Kennedy. There must be more to Diefenbaker’s indecision over the Bomarc missile. Nash does not differentiate between actions motivated by personal tension versus political tension.

Sharing a similar Liberal bias with Nash is another civil servant’s interpretation called Diefenbaker’s World. Basil Robinson openly admits to being a continentalist Pearsonian who witnessed Diefenbaker’s disintegrating leadership from within the foreign policy bureaucracy. As will be explored in detailed below, a continentalist is an individual who believes in a closely unified North America. Adding more substantive insight into this history, Robinson analyzes the underpinnings of Diefenbaker’s internal indecision by noting the dichotomy between two wings of the Progressive Conservative caucus. Howard Green and Douglas Harkness each represented competing wings of the caucus. Green was appointed the Secretary of External affairs and admonished nuclear proliferation while Douglas Harkness became the Minister of National Defense in 1960 and called for nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. While Green attempted to make international disarmament a reality, Harkness had to constantly make excuses for “the failure of negotiating with the United States and NATO authorities on nuclear warheads”[8]. Robinson also heavily implies that the Prime Minister was negligent and indecisive because of his natural tendencies and demeanour. This is flawed and serves Robinson’s personal self-defence from fundamentally disagreeing with Diefenbaker’s vision of Canadian Nationalism.

The more conservative leaning analysis, Peter C. Newman adds greatly to the interpretation of the growing Defense Crisis. Newman wrote Renegade in Power within several years of Diefenbaker’s fall in 1963. Newman took the necessary time in a balanced historical interpretation to focus on the philosophy that drove Diefenbaker to reject the rules of international subservience. For Newman, Diefenbaker believed in national building in the tradition of John A. MacDonald, although in a modern era of increasing continental interdependence. Diefenbaker was surprisingly left leaning on welfare policy and desired closer ties with Britain, which American continental interests despised[9]. Newman continually emphasized in contrast to the Nash and Robinson readings that the Canadian Nationalist rhetoric damaged the influence of the “continentalists in the American State Department who believe that what’s good for the U.S. us automatically good for Canada”[10]. “Diefenbaker never managed to make convincing his often-repeated boast that his anti-Americanism was actually pro-Canadian”[11]. Although both Newman and Grant agree that a clear vision of Conservatism was allusive, they both point to the institutions and entrenched structures that usurped Diefenbaker from power. The indecisiveness was political, not a product of irrational fool, but of serious discord with the rhetoric and the realities of Canada’s position in North America. It was not that Diefenbaker’s indecisiveness was a product of character, but a product of untenable principle.

It could be argued then that the forces of continentalism overthrew the Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservatives. With serious policy missteps regarding to the Coyne controversy, cancellation of the Arrow, growing monetary crisis, unabated unemployment rates, Diefenbaker’s defeat in 1963 can be attributed to many factors. This article, however, will present conclusive evidence that among the most significant factors was the American desire for regime change in Canada.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 reopened the debate over nuclear warheads in Canada. For Kennedy’s Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “Diefenbaker’s ‘introspection and nationalism’ were the biggest problems in Canada-U.S. relations”[12]. On the Canadian side, continentalists like Sevigny believed that “the need for…a closer association with our NATO partners…[was made] very clear by [the] tragic Cuban incident”[13]. From the American perspective, the intense crisis proved resolutely that Diefenbaker was either indecisive or stubborn with regard to American security needs. Following the failure to swiftly declare ‘DEF CON 3’ on October 21st, 1962, the Diefenbaker government was the target of a replacement campaign that would allow American Cold War objectives to be achieved. Similar to Vietnam in October 1963, Canada required a discreet coup d’etat. In quick succession, the Kennedy Administration struck three strategic blows against the Canadian government to achieve that end.

The first blow occurred with an incident of frankness, revolving around retiring NATO General Lauris Norstad; an American. On January 2nd, 1963, whether by accident or design, Norstad told reporters that Diefenbaker had not fulfilled his obligations under NATO regarding accepting nuclear warheads. This was an open attack on the Canadian government that would spark major controversy. Criticism in the Conservative caucus put Diefenbaker on unstable ground as indecisiveness seemed to give way to utter incompetence.

The next blow was the Pearsonian Re-Alignment on missile defence. On January 12, 1963, newly anointed Liberal Party leader ‘Mike’ Pearson decisively declared that he was ‘ashamed we accepte[d] commitments and then refuse[d] to discharge them”[14]. In a complete reversal of Liberal Party policy, the Liberal leader fulfilled the desires of the ‘Establishment’ by calling for the acceptance of nuclear weapons. The infamous about-face was the consequence of repeated consultation with the JFK. Many insiders “felt sure that Pearson had made a deal with Kennedy that in exchange for Pearson’s switch on nuclear warheads, Kennedy would help destroy Diefenbaker”[15]. As two Nobel Prize winning internationalists, Kennedy and Pearson had good personal relations, but far more importantly; Pearson had a malleable ideological preference for continentalism.

The final blow was a reaction to a miscalculation on the part of Diefenbaker. On January 21, 1963, Diefenbaker claimed in Parliament that a ‘rethinking’ had occurred between the leaders of America, Britain and Canada at the Nassau meeting. This was a crass attempt to justifying indecision concerning the nuclear warheads[16]. The implication of this gaffe was that a public denial in a U.S. Government press release was necessary and tremendously embarrassing. In essence, the Kennedy Administration had explicitly intervened in Canadian affairs in what would “deliberately foster an anti-American thrust in the tactics…[of[ the coming election campaign”[17]. This evidence of interference was openly accepted by future Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau who confirmed in the Cite Libre that “Diefenbaker was beaten by ‘les Hispters’ around Kennedy”[18]. The 1963 Diefenbaker campaign was had the best of his political career according to most sources, but it was not enough against the full force of the United States. The ultimate consequence was the collapse of Diefenbaker and re-installation of the Liberal regime. The nuclear warheads were brought into Canada immediately by Pearson’s new government.

The most plausible conclusion for why Diefenbaker’s government fell is articulated by Sevigny: “…by choosing to listen to the dreamers in his entourage and discarding the opinions of the realists, John Diefenbaker committed his most serious mistake, one which broke up his party”[19]. From the evidence, Diefenbaker’s dream of Canadian nationalism assumed that NATO was an alliance, not an extension of American foreign policy. Pearson’s acceptance of the latter gave him the advantage of American influence. During the election of 1963, Diefenbaker tried to paint the Liberals as co-conspirators with Washington and that a vote for the Liberals would lead to nuclear war[20]. This did not resonate. However, there was some credence given to Diefenbaker’s nationalist position after U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara revealed that the Bomarc missiles were in fact designed to draw fire away from American cities without much regard for Canadian civilians below the aerial interceptions of a Russia attack[21].

To recap, the article first explained the Defense Crisis of 1962 and 1963. Subsequently, a historiographical analysis of Nash, Robinson and Newman interpretations showed that Liberal historians attempted to focus on Diefenbaker’s character over the true source of conflict. Then, the evidence was examined showing the Kennedy Administration’s intervention in Canadian politics. The article will now address the unique historiographical interpretations proposed by George Grant. It will conclude that Diefenbaker’s political principles were his ultimate downfall.

To understand more clearly the underlining framework of American manipulation, George Grant’s interpretation of Diefenbaker’s demise is most salient. George Grant’s Lament For a Nation is a direct reaction to the fall of the Progressive Conservatives in 1963 and its implications for Canadian Sovereignty. As part of his analysis, Grant states that “lamenting for Canada is inevitably associated with the tragedy of Diefenbaker”[22]. According to Grant, Diefenbaker’s political failure occurred because he challenged American continentalist, progressivism, and capitalist designs in Canada. The “prairie blowhard”’s downfall was rooted in his ideology of Canadian Nationalism. Part of the great disappointment from historians like Peter C. Newman was that Diefenbaker’s larger than life expectations fell well short of their mark. His “One Canada[23] campaign rhetoric admonished voters against the Liberal desire for “a virtual forty-ninth state in the American Union”[24] but this socialist nationalism could not stand a chance in an already submissive Canada. In the end, the Bomarc missile fiasco was the tipping-point for an American coup d’etat that was in the making upon Diefenbaker’s rise to power.

To elaborate on Grant’s argument, American imperialism relied heavily on the ruling class within Canada that had become continentalized in its views. These complicit Canadians were Diefenbaker’s adversaries. They include the King, St. Laurent and subsequent Pearson Liberal governments, as well as the entrenched continentalist bureaucrats such as Robinson and Pearson, in addition to the Central Canada’s anti-rural ‘Establishment’. Whether collaboration was intentional or accidental, the Liberal Party achieved hegemony during this period of the 20th century in part because of their acceptance of continentalism. Grant suggests that the march to American annexation was moving faster with Liberal pro-capitalist policies that “paid allegiance to the homogenized culture of the American empire”[25]. As a consequence of compliance, American universalizing and homogenizing free-market forces within Canada benefited the willing Liberals and disadvantaged the Saskatchewanian who was a populist that rejected the ‘Establishment’. Liberal rule was only interjected by a lapse from 1957 to 1963, which would be marked by a constant struggle between the three groups and the antagonist to their self-interest; Diefenbaker.

 

A view of the launch of a CQM-10A Bomarc target missile.

If this is true, as the evidence suggests, then this prairie, Protestant, orator served merely as a sacrificial lamb for American Cold War objectives in 1963. It also shows that the demise of Diefenbaker’s government was the tip of an iceberg that has inevitably sunk Canadian political autonomy. Diefenbaker was unavoidably wrong in contradicting the conventional wisdom of the American led progressive age. From Grant’s account, Canadian sovereignty was no longer viable since no alternative could be found, as demonstrated by Diefenbaker’s failure. In truth, Diefenbaker seemed to be an irrational protestor because a truly rational leader would have submitted to American desires. In his concluding optimism, however, Grant argues that the overwhelming forces of American imperialism left Canada as a satellite state destined to desire annexation for the betterment of Canada’s citizens[26]. The gravitational forces of progressivism, globalization and assimilation of cultural distinctions will ultimately result in the amalgamation of Canada into the American super-structure. This is Grant’s solace which Diefenbaker’s nationalistic rhetoric, so passionately, hoped to avoid but could not.

It would be erroneous to not mention, at this point, that George Grant was a leading proponent of Red Toryism. Compared to Liberal historians such as Nash and Robinson, Grant’s politics may too appear to mask biases. He may have simply developed a skewed perspective of Liberals who “led inexorably to the disappearance of Canada”[27]. However, his claims are justified because they can be qualified with compelling evidence. Both sides have a point, eh?!

The goal of historians is to the piece together the past and synthesize it into tangible explanations of those events. It stands to reason that the Diefenbaker’s flawed personality, described by pro-Liberal academics, is a distraction from the actual source of Diefenbaker’s demise. Instead of the rampant character assassinations, historians should note that the causal arrow moves from Diefenbaker’s conceptualization of Canada to political indecision with regard to the Defense Crisis of 1962 and 1963. What becomes resoundingly consistent among historians is the sense that Diefenbaker was a disappointment. Intrinsic in their view is that he failed to achieve what his rhetoric so sincerely promised. Regardless of the bias of the various historians, there is a compelling argument within Grant’s work that may help change the commonly held perception about the outsider prairie populist and the Canada-U.S. relations in that period. The tragedy of Diefenbaker needs to be re-written to pay homage to his perilous and courageous attempt to carve out a sovereign nation despite forces more overwhelming than anything ever witnessed on this earth.

 

Work Cited

Diefenbaker, John G. One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker: The Years of Achievement 1956 to 1962. A Signet Book: Scarborough, 1976

Grant, George. Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism: 40th Edition. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal, 2005.

Nash, Knowlton. Kennedy and Diefenbaker: Fear and Loathing Across the Undefended Border. McClelland & Stewart Limited: Toronto, 1990.

Newman, Peter C. Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years. McClelland and Stewart Limited: Toronto, 1963.

Robinson, Basil H. Diefenbaker’s World: A Populist in Foreign Affairs. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1991.

Sevigny, Pierre. This Game of Politics. McClellan and Stewart Limited: Montreal, 1965.

Smith, Denis. Rogue Tory: the Life and Legend of John G. Diefenbaker. MacDarlan Walter & Ross; Toronto, 1995.

Stursbeg, Peter. Diefenbaker: Leadership Lost: 1962-67. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1976.

[1] Robinson, Basil H. Diefenbaker’s World: A Populist in Foreign Affairs. University of  Toronto Press: Toronto, 1991: pp 106.

[2] Nash, Knowlton. Kennedy and Diefenbaker: Fear and Loathing Across the Undefended Border. McClelland & Stewart Limited: Toronto, 1990: pp. 76.

[3] Newman, Peter C. Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years. McClelland and Stewart Limited: Toronto, 1963: 367.

[4] Nash, 96

[5] Nash, 119

[6] Nash, 100

[7] Grant, George. Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism: 40th Edition. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal, 2005: pp 8.

[8] Robinson, 227

[9] Newman, 254

[10] Newman, 261

[11] Newman, 262

[12] Nash, 65

[13] Sevigny, Pierre. This Game of Politics. McClellan and Stewart Limited: Montreal, 1965.

[14] Smith, Denis. Rogue Tory: the Life and Legend of John G. Diefenbaker. MacDarlan Walter & Ross; Toronto, 1995: pp. 469.

[15] Nash, 255

[16] Smith, 466

[17] Robinson, 307

[18] Nash, 301

[19] Sevigny, 261

[20] Newman, 387

[21] Newman, 391

[22] Grant, 6

[23] Diefenbaker, John G. One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker: The Years of Achievement 1956 to 1962. A Signet Book: Scarborough, 1976: pp. 21

[24] Grant, 13

[25] Grant, 7

[26] Grant, 94

[27] Grant, 6