Tag Archives: clients

TDV Offshore

Posted: July 23, 2016 at 4:20 am

Im a long-term US expat, who has spent the majority of my adult life living, working and investing in numerous countries around the world, and on every inhabitable continent. Like so many of our clients, I long ago became aware of an alarming trend of rapidly declining levels of personal freedom, and our basic human right to personal privacy, in the rapidly declining industrialized world which I have happily left behind.

As it is my lifes passion, this quest for personal freedom, and our basic human right to personal privacy, I work to help others achieve those same goals, and to help their children avoid a lifetime of declining standards of living. With an apparent irreversible downward economic spiral currently in motion in North America and the European Union, not to mention Japan, the only way to avoid the negative effects of this degradation is through wide diversification. That means as to asset class, financial institutions, and jurisdiction.

I help our clients accomplish this by sharing the value of my personal experiences on a number of fronts, and obtained through years of experience in this arena. Recently, the changes have been quick, and mostly detrimental to our freedom. I work hard to stay ahead of this curve, and to help our clients do so as well.

What we do at TDV Offshore

Formation of offshore legal umbrellas in the form of an LLC or IBC

This is typically the first step in your diversification plan. We know that it takes a great deal of contemplation and soul-searching to take that first step, but history shows, that once that step is taken, our clients realize the benefits, and therefore increase their offshore foothold. The reasons to establish a company in a privacy-respecting jurisdiction are many, to name a few: 1) No recognition of foreign judgments 2) Names of owners are not public record 3) Creditors receive only charge order status in case that a local judgment has been obtained, etc etc

Bank, Brokerage and Precious Metals purchasing and storage

Now that you have a properly established structure to hold, and act as a legal umbrella for your assets, you need to move those assets to a similarly asset-protecting environment. Therefore, we will also help you to establish a bank or brokerage account in the name of the newly established company, and in one of these same jurisdictions, where sharing the names of the Ultimate Beneficial Owner (you) is also restricted by law. Of course, the name of your account will be your company name, and that company is registered in a different jurisdiction, and the disclosure of the UBOs of the company, in that separate jurisdiction, are also protected by law.

This will protect you from such threats as:

The fee to establish both an LLC, and an account in the name of the LLC, is $2,600 ($2,400 for TDV Premium subscribers). This includes apostille of company documents, delivery of the original documents to you, and our assistance in every aspect of both processes.

I stay available to you in the future to answer any questions you may have in which my experiences may be of value. Our network of clients are a group of like-minded people who are living in every corner of the globe. Im continuously connecting those who have joined our growing club to achieve a bit of synergy in our/their experiences, and on a growing number of topics.Self Directed IRA

For our US citizen clients only SD IRAs are Self-Directed tax-deferred retirement accounts. Actually, all IRAs are self-directed, but the IRS allows each administrator the opportunity to decide what types of investments to offer. As a result banks and brokerage houses only offer the products that they benefit from, like US stocks, CDs and mutual funds in which they can earn commissions from you. Under the plan we offer, there are no investment options offered, and therefore no bias nor restrictions to USD-based investments. Outside of a very few prohibited transactions, you can legally diversify your tax-deferred IRA assets out of the USD, and into foreign real estate, precious metals, foreign stocks etc, and legally maintain a qualified status and therefore stay tax-deferred, and protected from the imminent conversion to worthless government bonds.

We will assist you from start to finish to:

The fee to perform all of these steps is $3,200 ($2,900 for TDV Premium subscribers). You can be certain that your Senators and Representatives have already made this move. What are you waiting for?Trusts and Foundations

Trusts and Foundations are the best of all asset protection umbrellas for your lifes savings. With a Trust or Foundation, youre not only protected by the same privacy and anonymity laws as with companies, but have the added benefit of transferring ownership of assets to this legal vehicle, while maintaining 100% control of those assets.

As I prefer the foundation, let me use that as an example, as although the benefits of the trust and foundation are identical, the foundation has a bit more flexibility, and lower annual fees. Very briefly, the Council Members of the foundation, have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets for the future ownership of your named beneficiaries, but no control over those assets after we have correctly structured the ownership under an LLC with the foundation as sole member, and you would also be sole signatory on all accounts, etc.

If you would like to further discuss your specific situation, and which structure and jurisdiction(s) would best suit your needs, please complete the following contact form. I will then contact you by email in order to establish an appointment for a free consultation via either skype or by telephone.

For those who become clients, we can also discuss some ways to obtain citizenship in a new country, and obtain a more reliable travel document. There are also some ways to disengage from the US system legally if youre forced by circumstances to remain there.

See more here:

TDV Offshore

Posted in Offshore | Comments Off on TDV Offshore

Egoism – New World Encyclopedia

Posted: July 10, 2016 at 5:57 pm

Egoism is the concept of acting in ones own self-interest, and can be either a descriptive or a normative position. Psychological egoism, the most well-known descriptive position, holds that we always act in our own self-interest. In contrast to this, ethical egoism is a normative position: it claims that one should act in ones self-interest as this makes an action morally right, such that the claims of others should never have weight for oneself unless their good can serve ones own good. Similarly, rational egoism maintains that, in order to act rationally, one must act in ones self-interest, and the fact that an action helps another person does not alone provide a reason for performing it, unless helping the other person in some way furthers ones own interests.

All these positions deserve to be critiqued: psychological egoism in that people find the greatest happiness and meaning in states where they are self-giving, for example when in love, parenting a child, or contributing to society; and ethical egoism by the challenge of numerous philosophical and religious ethical systems that place self-interest within the context of contributing to the greater good.

Psychological egoism holds that every human has only one ultimate goal: his or her own good (where this good can variously be defined as welfare, happiness or pleasure). This description is verified by widespread and frequent observations of self-interested behavior. For instance, we often motivate people to act in certain ways by appealing to their self-interest in the form of rewards and punishments, while acts which appear altruistic are often shown to be motivated by self-interest. Likewise, one can find a non-altruistic explanation for the apparently altruistic behavior of organisms in general. Worker bees are an interesting case in point: although they seem to act solely for the sake of their hive with no concern for their own welfare, sociobiologists offer an account of this behavior in terms of their genes survival. They hypothesize that natural selection favors altruistic behavior in either cooperative relations in which all members benefit (reciprocal altruism) or familial relations (kin altruism). Both forms of altruism are concerned with the survival of ones genes: acts of reciprocal altruism increase ones chances of survival, and therefore ones genes chances of survival, while ensuring the survival of ones relations ensures the survival of a percentage of ones genes. For a worker bee, ensuring the survival of her sister worker means that she has ensured the survival of half of her genes. Thus, sociobiologists typically claim that, on a genetic level, altruism cannot exist. However, psychological egoism is a stronger position, as it claims that, regardless of what happens on a genetic level, the individual him or herself is motivated by thoughts of self-interest. Thus, while it allows for action that does not accomplish its goal of maximizing self-interest, as well as action that is at odds with ones intentions (a weak will), most forms of psychological egoism rule out both altruistic behavior and acting solely out of respect for ones duty. Importantly, psychological egoism allows for goals other than ones own self interest, but claims that these goals are then means to realizing ones own well-being.

There are in turn two forms of psychological egoism. Exclusive egoism makes the strong claim that people act exclusively out of self-interest, and therefore altruistic behavior does not, in fact, exist. On the other hand, predominant egoism makes the weaker claim that people seldom act unselfishly, and when they do so, it is typically only because their sacrifice is small and the beneficiaries gain is much larger, or when they are partial to the beneficiary in some way: when the beneficiaries are, for example, friends, lovers or family.

Exclusive egoism allows for no exceptions; this means that one instance of someone who does not act exclusively out of self-interest is sufficient to show that exclusive egoisms thesis is empirically false. Imagine a soldier throws himself on a grenade in order to prevent other people from being killed. His motivation for this act of self-sacrifice might quite plausibly be his desire to do his duty or to save the other peoples lives, while attempting to explain his action in terms of self-interest would appear to be a wholly implausible move. The exclusive egoist may want to defend her position by arguing for some kind of ulterior self-interested motive, such as pleasure. Perhaps our soldier believes in an afterlife in which he will be rewarded ten-fold for his apparently selfless act on earth, or perhaps, if he had not hurled himself on the grenade, he would be overcome by guilt and a concomitant sense of self-loathing. In both cases then, he is, at least from his perspective, acting in his self-interest by acting in this apparently selfless manner. There are two problems with this response. The first is that, while it might explain many instances of apparent self-sacrifice as motivated by egoistic concerns, it does not necessarily cover all cases. The psychological egoist must argue that all instances of ostensible altruistic behavior are in fact motivated by self-interested desires. If, for instance, our soldier disagrees with this, and claims that his action was truly altruistic in motivation, the exclusive egoist must respond that he is lying or is deceiving himself. At this point, however, exclusive egoism turns out to be trivially true, which means that it is unfalsifiable, since there is no empirical instance that could in principle disprove the hypothesis. As with the trivially true statement all ostriches that live on Mars have gold and purple polka dotted wings, this version of psychological egoism provides no useful information and therefore fails as an empirical theory. It does not allow us to distinguish, for instance, between our soldier and the soldier who thrusts a child onto the grenade in order to save himself. Whereas we generally think that the latter is behaving selfishly, while our soldier is acting in a selfless manner, exclusive egoism maintains that both soldiers are equally selfish, because both are acting in their self-interest.

Alternatively, the psychological egoist might opt for a non-trivial response to the soldier counter-example. She could argue that, as infants, we have only self-regarding desires; desires for our own well-being, for instance. However, as we grow older, we find that desiring things for their own sake eventually satisfies our self-regarding desires. We then come to desire these things for their own sake. For example, I might detest exercise, but also find that exercising results in physical well-being; after a while, I will begin to desire exercise for its own sake. This would preclude the common objection to psychological egoism, that one must desire things other than ones welfare in order to realize ones welfare. However, then the psychological egoist will have moved away from exclusive egoism. It may be true that our soldier would not have had a present desire to save others, unless saving others was connected in the past with increasing his welfare, but this does not mean that his present desire is selfish. At this point, the psychological egoist could adopt the weaker stance of predominant egoism which allows for exceptions, and thereby forestall counter-examples like our heroic soldier; moreover, predominant egoism is both an empirically plausible and non-trivial position.

In her novel, Atlas Shrugged, Russian emigre Ayn Rand sketches the portrait of a man who feels responsible for himself and no one else. John Galt is the archetype of the individual who practices what Rand calls the virtue of selfishness: a man for whom true morality consists in resisting the temptations of self-sacrifice, sympathy and generosity. In the fictional figure of John Galt we find the embodiment of egoism as an ideal. Similarly, the move from psychological egoism to ethical egoism is a move from a descriptive to a normative position. Ethical egoism claims that for ones action to count as morally right it is both necessary and sufficient that one act in ones self-interest. Precisely how one acts in ones self-interest is a matter of some divergence among ethical egoists. As with psychological egoism, ethical egoism comes in both a maximizing and a non-maximizing flavor: the former holds that self-interest must be maximized for an action to count as ethical, while the latter simply claims that one should act in ones self-interest and thus leaves the possibility for acting in others interest open. There is also a distinction between short-term and long-term interests: I might gain a short-term benefit by stealing from my friends, but experience a long-term loss when they discover the theft and I lose those friends. In addition, ethical egoism can also apply to rules or character traits, as well as acts. Finally, acting in ones self-interest means acting for ones own good, but this good can variously be defined as ones happiness, pleasure or well-being. There are various permutations of these conceptions, but considering that the arguments for and against them are generally relevantly similar, I will very broadly define ethical egoism as the thesis which states that in order for ones actions to count as ethical, one should act to promote ones self-interest, where self-interest is taken to mean ones own good.

There are several arguments in support of ethical egoism. Ethical egoists occasionally appeal to the findings of psychological egoism as support for their normative claims; however, regardless of whether psychological egoism is true or not, the jump from a descriptive to a normative position is fallacious, as one cannot use supposed existing conditions as justification for how one ought to behave. A more valid move is to argue that, as psychological egoism is true, it is impossible to motivate people on non-egoistic grounds. Thus, ethical egoism is the most practical moral theory, or the most capable of motivating people to act ethically. However, as we have seen, exclusive egoism just seems false, and substituting it with predominant egoism loses the crucial claim that it is impossible to motivate people to behave altruistically. On the other hand, if psychological egoism is true, it follows from psychological egoism that I cannot intend to perform an action which I believe is not in my self-interest. However, if I am wrong, and this action is in my self-interest, then ethical egoism stipulates that I should perform an action that I cannot intend. The appeal to psychological egoism therefore fails to ensure its practicality.

However, this is not necessarily a shortcoming of an ethical theory, as part of the value of an ethical theory may lie in its offering us an ideal for us to live up to. Setting aside the appeal to its supposed practicality, ethical egoists might alternatively claim that ethical egoism best fits our commonsense moral judgements. For instance, it captures the intuition that I should not let others exploit me, and unlike consequentialism, allows me to keep some good for myself, like a house, even though giving this house to someone else might benefit him slightly more. Moreover, it stipulates that it is often in ones best interests to ostensibly take other peoples interests into account so as to secure their cooperation. I derive a much larger long-term benefit if I act generously and compassionately towards my friends, for example, than if I steal from them, even though theft might provide the greatest short-term benefit to me. Nevertheless, it appears that ethical egoism is also at odds with some of our most deeply held ethical beliefs. It mandates that one should only ever help someone else if doing so benefits oneself, which means that one is not morally obligated to help those who cannot help or hinder one. Imagine I can easily save a drowning child, but none of the players in this scenario can offer me any beneficial cooperation in return for saving the child (like praise) or negative retaliation for failing to help (like scorn). Further, say that I am indifferent to the situation presented to me, and regardless of what I do, I will feel no sense of guilt or pleasure, then ethical egoism will remain silent as to whether I should save the child. Moreover, if there is some slight uncompensated sacrifice I will have to make, like getting my shoes wet, then ethical egoism will tell me to refrain from saving the drowning child. However, we generally think that, in this case, there is a moral obligation to save the child, and ethical egoism can neither explain how such a duty might (validly) arise, nor generate such a duty. Ethical egoism therefore appears to be morally insensitive to situations which we ordinarily think demand great moral sensitivity. We can further see that ethical egoism will potentially generate counter-intuitive duties in situations where the individual in need of help cannot reciprocate (like physically or mentally disabled people) or where the sacrifice one might need to make is not compensatable. Ethical egoism will, for instance, condemn the action of the soldier who throws himself on the grenade as ethically reprehensible, precisely because it entails an irreversible sacrifice (loss of life) for the soldier, while we ordinarily think it is an ethically admirable action, or at the very least, not a morally repugnant one.

Furthermore, a number of critics have argued that egoism yields contradictory moral imperatives. There are generally two inconsistency charges against ethical egoism. The weaker of the two lays this charge: say ethical egoism recommends that X and Y buy a particular item of clothing on sale, since buying this item is, for some reason, in the self-interest of each. But there is only one remaining article; hence, ethical egoism recommends an impossible situation. However, the ethical egoist can reply that ethical egoism does not provide neutral criteria: it advocates to X buying the article of clothing for X, and advocates to Y that Y buy the article for Y, but ethical egoism has nothing to say on the value of X and Y buying the same article of clothing.

The second inconsistency argument claims that, in any given situation, the ethical egoist must aim to promote her own self-interest, but if her brand of egoism is to count as an ethical theory, she must simultaneously will that everyone else also act to promote their own self-interest, for one of the formal constraints on an ethical theory is that it be universalisable. Say I am a shopkeeper, and it is in my best interest to sell my products at the highest practically possible profit, it will generally not be in my clients best interests to buy my products at these high prices. Then if I am an ethical egoist, I am committed to recommending a contradictory state of affairs: that I both sell the products at the highest possible price and that my customers pay less than the highest possible price. The ethical theorist, however, can respond that, although she morally recommends that the customers pay less than the highest possible price, this does not necessarily mean that she desires it. Jesse Kalin provides an analogy with competitive sports: in a game of chess, I will be trying my utmost to win, but I will also expect my opponent to do the same, and I may even desire that he play as good a game as possible, because then the game will be of a far higher standard. If the analogy with competitive gaming holds, it is therefore not inconsistent for me to recommend both that I attempt to sell my products at the highest possible price and that my customers attempt to buy them at lower than the highest possible price.

However, this move to making an analogy with competitive games cannot preclude the worry that ethical egoism is not sufficiently public for it to count as an ethical theory. What is meant by this is that ethical egoism is at odds with public morality (which generally appears to value altruism) and one can therefore imagine many cases in which the ethical egoist might find it in her interests not to profess ethical egoism. Imagine I am an ethical egoist and I donate a large sum to a charity because it gives my company a good image and I receive a large tax deduction for doing so. Then it is most definitely not in my best interests to reveal these reasons; rather, it is to my advantage that I pretend to have done so out of a spirit of generosity and kindness. Leaving aside worries of duplicitous and unreliable behavior, it does not seem as if ethical egoism can truly be made public without the ethical egoists interests being compromised. Yet it seems as if an ethical theory requires precisely this ability to be made public. Moreover, although it meets the formal constraints of an ethical theory it must be normative and universalisable as noted above, it also fails to provide a single neutral ranking that each agent must follow in cases where there is a conflict of interests. Just what makes for a moral theory, however, is contentious, and the ethical theorist can subsequently respond to any argument against ethical egoisms status as an ethical theory by claiming that the failed criteria are not really constraints that an ethical theory must adhere to. A more elegant solution, however, is to move to rational egoism, which might provide the ethical egoist with non-ethical reasons for adhering to ethical egoism.

Rational egoism maintains that it is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be rational that it promotes ones self-interest. As with ethical egoism, rational egoism comes in varying flavors. It can be maximizing or non-maximizing, or can apply to rules or character traits instead of actions. Certain versions might claim that acting in ones self-interest is either sufficient but not necessary, or necessary but not sufficient for an action to count as rational. However, as with ethical egoism, relevantly similar objections to and defenses for the various species of ethical egoism can be made. The salient common feature amongst all variants is that all claim that the fact that an action helps another person does not alone provide a reason for performing it, unless helping the other person in some way furthers ones own interests. Stronger versions might also hold that the only underived reason for action is self-interest.

In support of their thesis, rational egoists most commonly appeal to the way in which rational egoism best fits our ordinary judgements about what makes action rational. However, as we saw with the soldier counter-example, both psychological and ethical egoism fail to make sense of his action, and rational egoism will similarly generate a counter-intuitive response to this example. It will classify his action as fundamentally non-rational because it has permanently violated his self-interest. However, we would ordinarily characterize his action as rational, because it realizes his strong non-self-interested preference to save the lives of others. In other words, we take the safety of others to be a legitimate motivation for his action, whereas his hurling himself on a grenade in order to save a chocolate cake would ordinarily be seen as non-rational. Yet rational egoism would not allow us to distinguish between these two cases, because it does not recognize the demands of others as alone providing one with reason to act in a certain way.

Rational egoism furthermore appears to make an unjustified weighted distinction between ones own self-interest and the good of others. Imagine I decide that I should act to increase the good of brown-eyed people over that of others. Justifying this preferential treatment on the grounds that brown-eyed people just are more deserving of preferential treatment is not rational. James Rachels argues that ethical (and here, rational) egoism, makes a similarly unwarranted or arbitrary move, because it claims that I ought to act in one persons interest (myself). The rational egoist might want to respond that non-arbitrary distinctions can be made by ones preferences. The fact that I like oranges and not apples makes my decision to buy apples rather than oranges non-arbitrary, and similarly, my preference for my own good makes my commitment to achieving my own good non-arbitrary. However, as we have seen, there are cases (as with the soldier example) where I might lack a preference for my own welfare. In these instances, rational egoism cannot give me a reason to pursue my self-interest over that of others. Nevertheless, rational egoism might hold that, in these cases I am wrong, simply because we must take it as a ground assumption that our own good comes before that of others. In other words, the preference for ones own good needs no further justification than the fact it is ones own good that one is pursuing. When it comes to the preferential treatment of brown-eyed people, we generally do not accept their being brown-eyed as a good reason for their preferential treatment, but when it comes to acting for our own good, we seem to take the fact that it is our own good as a reasonable justification for doing so; we do not ask why acting in ones own good is pertinent.

However, although this may be so, this argument does not demonstrate that acting to promote ones own good is always sufficient or necessary for an action to count as rational. There are instances where we take an action to be rational, but where the agent makes no reference to pursuing his own good as justification for performing the action. The villagers of Le Chambon provide us with a real-life example of this. Le Chambon was a pacifist French village responsible for saving the lives of several thousand Jews from the Nazis, often at a great risk to the inhabitants. The reason they gave for this altruistic behavior was that it was simply their duty to help anybody in need. Here, no reference is made to their own good (and indeed, their own welfare was often severely jeopardized by their actions), and we generally take their concern for the others welfare as a good reason for their actions.

At present, there seems to be no good reason to accept the theses of psychological, ethical or rational egoism. Nevertheless, egoism in general presents us with a useful insight into the moral life by pointing out that, contra what many of us might suppose, morality and self-interest do not necessarily conflict. Indeed, there may be many cases in which there are good self-regarding reasons for acting ethically and egoism forces us to question whether we pay sufficient attention to legitimate self-interest when assessing moral situations.

A small selection of literature in popular culture dealing with ethical egoism and altruism.

All links retrieved September 14, 2013.

This article began as an original work prepared for New World Encyclopedia and is provided to the public according to the terms of the New World Encyclopedia:Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Any changes made to the original text since then create a derivative work which is also CC-by-sa licensed. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.

More:

Egoism – New World Encyclopedia

Posted in Ethical Egoism | Comments Off on Egoism – New World Encyclopedia

FE Trustnet Offshore: Offshore Top Mutual Funds | Offshore …

Posted: June 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm

Trustnet Limited (we, our, us and derivatives) are committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. This Privacy Policy, together with our Terms of Use, sets out the basis on which any personal data that we collect from you, or that you provide to us, will be processed by us relating to your use of any of the below websites (sites).

For the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, the data controller is Trustnet Limited of 3rd Floor, Hollywood House, Church Street East, Woking, GU21 6HJ. Our nominated representative for the purpose of this Act is Kirsty Witter.

We collect information about you when you register with us or use any of our websites / services. Part of the registration process may include entering personal details & details of your investments.

We may collect information about your computer, including where available your operating system, browser version, domain name and IP address and details of the website that you came from, in order to improve this site.

You confirm that all information you supply is accurate.

In order to provide personalised services to and analyse site traffic, we may use a cookie file which is stored on your browser or the hard drive of your computer. Some of the cookies we use are essential for the sites to operate and may be used to deliver you different content, depending on the type of investor you are.

You can block cookies by activating the setting on your browser which allows you to refuse the setting of all or some cookies. However, if you use your browser settings to block all cookies (including essential cookies) you may not be able to access all or part of our sites. Unless you have adjusted your browser setting so that it will refuse cookies, our system will issue cookies as soon as you visit our sites.

We store and use information you provide as follows:

We may also send you emails to provide information and keep you up to date with developments on our sites. It is our policy to have instructions on how to unsubscribe so that you will not receive any future e-mails. You can change your e-mail address at any time.

In order to provide support on the usage of our tools, our support team need access to all information provided in relation to the tool.

We will not disclose your name, email address or postal address or any data that could identify you to any third party without first receiving your permission.

However, you agree that we may disclose to any regulatory authority to which we are subject and to any investment exchange on which we may deal or to its related clearing house (or to investigators, inspectors or agents appointed by them), or to any person empowered to require such information by or under any legal enactment, any information they may request or require relating to you, or if relevant, any of your clients.

You agree that we may pass on information obtained under Money Laundering legislation as we consider necessary to comply with reporting requirements under such legislation.

We want to ensure that the personal information we hold about you is accurate and up to date. You may ask us to correct or remove information that is inaccurate.

You have the right under data protection legislation to access information held about you. If you wish to receive a copy of any personal information we hold, please write to us at 3rd Floor, Hollywood House, Church Street East, Woking, GU21 6HJ. Any access request may be subject to a fee of 10 to meet our costs in providing you with details of the information we hold about you.

The data that we collect from you may be transferred to, and stored at, a destination outside the European Economic Area (EEA). It may be processed by staff operating outside the EEA who work for us or for one of our suppliers. Such staff may be engaged in, amongst other things, the provision of support services. By submitting your personal data, you agree to this transfer, storing and processing. We will take all steps reasonably necessary, including the use of encryption, to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this privacy policy.

Unfortunately, the transmission of information via the internet is not completely secure. Although we will do our best to protect your personal data, we cannot guarantee the security of your data transmitted to our sites; any transmission is at your own risk. You will not hold us responsible for any breach of security unless we have been negligent or in wilful default.

Any changes we make to our privacy policy in the future will be posted on this page and, where appropriate, notified to you by e-mail.

Our sites contain links to other websites. If you follow a link to any of these websites, please note that these websites have their own privacy policies and that we do not accept any responsibility or liability for these policies. Please check these policies before you submit any personal data to these websites.

If you want more information or have any questions or comments relating to our privacy policy please email publishing@financialexpress.net in the first instance.

Read more here:

FE Trustnet Offshore: Offshore Top Mutual Funds | Offshore …

Posted in Offshore | Comments Off on FE Trustnet Offshore: Offshore Top Mutual Funds | Offshore …

Freedom! '90 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: May 31, 2016 at 1:42 am

“Freedom ’90” (also known simply as “Freedom”) is a song written, produced,and performed by George Michael, and released on Columbia Records in 1990. The “’90” added to the end of the title is to prevent confusion with a hit by Michael’s former band, Wham!, also titled “Freedom”.

It was the third single taken from Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, though released as the second single from the album in Australia. “Freedom ’90” was one of a few uptempo songs on this album, it was also a major hit and went to #8 in the US. The song is referring to Michael’s past success with Wham!, yet also shows a new side of himself as a new man, who is more cynical about the music business than he had been before. Michael refused to appear in the video and allowed a group of supermodels to appear instead.

George Michael performed the song during the closing ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics.

By 1990, Michael had grown weary of the pressures of fame, telling the Los Angeles Times, “At some point in your career, the situation between yourself and the camera reverses. For a certain number of years, you court it and you need it, but ultimately, it needs you more and it’s a bit like a relationship. The minute that happens, it turns you off … and it does feel like it is taking something from you.” He decided that he no longer wanted to do photo shoots or music videos,[1][2] saying, “I would like to never step in front of a camera again.”[2]

Although he relented and decided to make a video for his new song, he still refused to appear in it. Instead, inspired by Peter Lindbergh’s now-iconic portrait of Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Tatjana Patitz, Christy Turlington, and Cindy Crawford for the January 1990 cover of the British edition of Vogue, Michael asked the five models to appear in the video. While it was not uncommon at the time for models to appear in music videos, usually such models played the love interest of the singer, as with Christie Brinkley’s appearance in her then-husband Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” video, or Turlington’s appearance in Duran Duran’s “Notorious” video when she was 17 years old. For “Freedom ’90”, the five models would not portray Michael’s on-screen girlfriends, but would lip-synch the song in his place. Evangelista took some persuading before agreeing to appear in the video, saying, “He thought it would make us into a big deal, that it would be good for us. I was like, ‘Please, we’re here. We’ve already arrived!'” After speaking with Michael, she was convinced, and rearranged her schedule. In a 2015 Vanity Fair article, Evangelista reflected on her decision positively, saying, “Little did I know that to this day, when someone meets me for the first time, they bring up that video. That’s what they remember. So yeah, George was right.” An initial disagreement over their salaries was resolved when Annie Veltri, who represented Crawford, Evangelista, Campbell, and Patitz at Elite Model Management, made it clear that all of her clients would receive the same compensation$15,000 a day.[1]

The video was directed by David Fincher, whose “dark and graphic style, distinguished by velvety-rich color, moody interiors and crisp storytelling”, had earned him notice for his work on Madonna’s “Express Yourself” video the previous year. His team for the multi-day “Freedom! ’90” shoot included Camilla Nickerson, who went on to become a Vogue contributing editor, as the clothes stylist, hair stylist Guido and makeup artist Carol Brown. The video was shot in a vast building in the London Borough of Merton that Nickerson says exhibited “a grandeur and a Blade Runner feel.”[1]

The 92-sketch storyboard called for each model to film on separate days, with the exception of Evangelista and Turlington, who appear in a scene together. Each model was assigned a verse to lip-synch, while for the song’s chorus, Fincher envisioned the three iconic items from Michael’s 1987 music video “Faith” that had come to symbolize his public image: his leather jacket, a Wurlitzer jukebox, and guitar, exploding in a ball of flame at each occurrence of the word “freedom” during the chorus. Whereas “Faith” had opened with a jukebox phonograph needle touching a vinyl record, “Freedom! ’90” opens with a compact disc player’s laser beam reading a CD.[1]

Nickerson envisioned a “low-key street style” for the wardrobe, which she characterizes as “a sort of undone beauty”, in contrast to the prevailing “vampy, larger-than-life” direction in which the fashion industry, typified by models doing film work, was moving at the time. The black sweater worn by Evangelista was from Nickerson’s own closet, and the studded biker boots worn by Campbell belonged to Nickerson’s boyfriend. Most of the wardrobe budget, however, went to the 60-foot-long linen sheet used by Turlington, the nature of which was specified by Fincher. Guido looked to each model’s personality to devise hairdos that would effect a sense of their “true beauty”. Evangelista was up until 3:00am the night before the shoot dying her hair platinum blonde, which reflected the cool-blue lights of the set, while Campbell’s hair was curled and pulled up with a headband for a 1960s “tough chic” in order to highlight her movement for a shot in which she dances solo. Patitz’s hair was framed with soft curls and Turlington’s was gelled back to exploit her statuesque form as her character crosses the screen trailing the linen sheet. Brown also tried to bring out each model’s personality with makeup, saying, “Cindy was the sexy one; Christy was the cool, classic one; and Linda was the chameleon. She could do anything.” Following Fincher’s instruction that Crawford’s makeup look “completely trashed, as if she’d been in a steamy atmosphere,” Brown did Crawford’s makeup, and then oiled it down by covering her with glycerin. Crawford spent most of her time topless and sitting in an empty bathtub, resting on an apple box so that enough of her would be visible. Brown recalls, “The poor girl must have been freezing because it wasn’t hot in there. I remember her walking across that studio so fearlessly and proudly and not making any sort of a big deal that she was wearing only a G-string.”[1]

Despite not appearing in the video, Michael was on set. Guido recalls, “We’d drink red wine and sing songs in the evening because it kind of went on late, and George was just like one of the gang, in the trailers, hanging out.” On the last day of shooting, Brown broke her own rule about not asking the celebrities she worked with for autographs. On her copy of the video’s production booklet, Michael wrote: “Thanks, I never looked so good.”[1]

The video premiered a few weeks after the shoot, and went into heavy rotation on MTV. Judy McGrath, a former CEO of MTV Networks reminisces, “I remember watching it and thinking, This is entrancing. The ’90s was a time of incredible creative freedom, when you had a generation of directors making a new visual language, and you had musicians driving the pop-culture conversation, and ‘Freedom’ kind of kicked off that whole period.” A few months later, at the conclusion[3] of his 1991 fall fashion show in Milan, designer Gianni Versace sent Crawford, Evangelista, Campbell and Turlington down the runway. The four of them stood in a huddle, mouthing along to “Freedom”. It marked the zenith of the 1990s supermodel era, which would end with the grunge movement, which was ushered in by Nirvana’s 1991 album “Nevermind”.[1]

Reflecting on the video in 2015, Crawford stated that at the time, they perceived themselves to simply be making “a really cool video”, but that in retrospect, the vide
o exhibits a dark humor: As MTV had altered the music industry so that physical beauty was now necessary to sell music, the video used five beautiful faces in lieu of the song’s vocalist in order to poke fun at this.[1]

“Freedom ’90” was 6:30 long, but a shorter version was made available for radio consumption cutting down the intro and the bridge. The addition of the year to the title was to distinguish the song from “Freedom”, a #1 hit in the UK for Wham! in 1984 (#3 in the US in 1985). It was the second US single from the album Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, and had contrasting fortunes on each side of the Atlanticit peaked #28 on the UK Singles Chart, but was a major success on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100, reaching #8 and selling over 500,000 copies to earn a Gold certification from the RIAA. It remained in the Billboard Top 40 for 12 weeks in late 1990 and early 1991.[4]In Canada, Michael achieved another charttopper.

CD single (USA) (Released 15 December 1990)

“Freedom” was covered in 1996 by Robbie Williams who released it as his debut single since leaving Take That. It reached #2 in the UK, twenty-six places higher than George Michael’s original, and had not been included on any of his albums until 2010, when it was included on Williams’ greatest hits album In and Out of Consciousness: The Greatest Hits 19902010. The single had sold 280,000 copies by the end of 1996, being certified Silver by the BPI.[14] Williams had left Take That the previous year and therefore could identify himself with much of the sentiment in the song, although he did not use the line “we had every bigshot goodtime band on the run boy, we were living in a fantasy” in his version. The music video shows Williams dancing in the sea and in a field, celebrating his separation from his former group. Williams later admitted that the song had not even been recorded by the scheduled date of filming and instead mimed to George Michael’s version of the song.

Go here to read the rest:
Freedom! ’90 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Freedom! '90 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TransHuman Consulting | Unleashing Human Potential

Posted: May 22, 2016 at 10:41 pm

Executive and Leadership Coaching

Coaching for Managers

Building Coaching Culture

Transition Coaching

Organisation Development

Assessment Center

DNA – Values , Vision and Mission

Team Building Workshop

Effective Communication

NeuroLeadership

Re-Write Leadership Practices

Brain Sciences Based Coaching

NLP for Excellence

NLP Practitioner Certification

NLP Master Practitioner

NLP Psychotherapy

NLP and Applied NLP Programs

Unleashing the Human Potential

Do you ever feel stuck? Are there things you wish you could change.[more]

The Neuro Leadership Program aims at highlights some of the key brain insights relating to leadership. [More]

TransHuman Consulting is a Training and Consulting Service provider company, founded by Paritosh Sharan, an Executive Coach and an OD Consultant. TransHuman Consulting partner with Individuals and Organisations together in their transformational journey and help them unleashing their inner potentialso that they could achieve their desired outcome. Our purpose is to develop and support values-based visionary leadership in all fields of human endeavour.

Our innovative and diversified range of training programs and consulting services are designed and delivered by a team of full time consultants experienced in providing solutions relevant to this part of the world and most importantly tailored for the clients need.

Devesh Sinha, President , ESSPL

– Bhushan Desai, Director , Praendex Management Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Saurabh Arvind, AVP and Head, Project Management Excellence at Tech Mahindra.

Nrusimha Rao, SFO, USA

The rest is here:
TransHuman Consulting | Unleashing Human Potential

Posted in Transhuman | Comments Off on TransHuman Consulting | Unleashing Human Potential

TransHuman Consulting | Unleashing Human Potential

Posted: at 8:46 pm

Executive and Leadership Coaching

Coaching for Managers

Building Coaching Culture

Transition Coaching

Organisation Development

Assessment Center

DNA – Values , Vision and Mission

Team Building Workshop

Effective Communication

NeuroLeadership

Re-Write Leadership Practices

Brain Sciences Based Coaching

NLP for Excellence

NLP Practitioner Certification

NLP Master Practitioner

NLP Psychotherapy

NLP and Applied NLP Programs

Unleashing the Human Potential

Do you ever feel stuck? Are there things you wish you could change.[more]

The Neuro Leadership Program aims at highlights some of the key brain insights relating to leadership. [More]

TransHuman Consulting is a Training and Consulting Service provider company, founded by Paritosh Sharan, an Executive Coach and an OD Consultant. TransHuman Consulting partner with Individuals and Organisations together in their transformational journey and help them unleashing their inner potentialso that they could achieve their desired outcome. Our purpose is to develop and support values-based visionary leadership in all fields of human endeavour.

Our innovative and diversified range of training programs and consulting services are designed and delivered by a team of full time consultants experienced in providing solutions relevant to this part of the world and most importantly tailored for the clients need.

Devesh Sinha, President , ESSPL

– Bhushan Desai, Director , Praendex Management Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Saurabh Arvind, AVP and Head, Project Management Excellence at Tech Mahindra.

Nrusimha Rao, SFO, USA

Here is the original post:
TransHuman Consulting | Unleashing Human Potential

Posted in Transhuman | Comments Off on TransHuman Consulting | Unleashing Human Potential

About NSA Media

Posted: March 30, 2016 at 5:46 pm

NSA Media is a media planning and buying agency that delivers significant business results for our client partners by developing, negotiating and executing the mosteffective print and digital media plans on a locally relevant basis.

We were founded on the idea that media can deliver more favorable returns through a more intelligent approach to the media buying process.

Our consumer-centric approach to buying media incorporates a comprehensive mix of advanced analytics, intelligent insights, competitive rates and flawless execution to ensure our clients media investments are fully optimized.

We design Interconnected media strategies that reflect the complex usage habits of consumers, delivered at the right time, using the right platform, at the most efficient intensity level.

Established in 1991, our company has over 200 employeesand is basedin Downers Grove, IL. NSA Media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Interpublic Group of Companies (NYSE:IPG).

For information about IPG Mediabrands or IPG,please tap or click their logos below to visit their websites.

See the original post:
About NSA Media

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on About NSA Media

Life Coaching for Personal and Professional Empowerment

Posted: March 26, 2016 at 8:44 am

So here you are, searching the web to find a life coach. You might be anyone…

You might be an executive or the owner of a successful small business looking to find balance between the demands of work and the needs of your family. You might be an empty-nester looking to make a difference in the lives of others but not sure which direction to choose. Maybe it’s simply that you want your already great relationship to be spectacular.

Perhaps you are a musician, a writer, or an artist looking for a creative breakthrough, or a doctoral candidate looking for the perfect thesis. You might even be a twenty-something techno whiz entrepreneur with a brilliant idea for a product or service that will change the world forever. Maybe you just want to figure out how to have more fun.

Whatever your circumstances, goals or dreams might be, the bottom line is that your life is in transition. And you are determined to make your life be what you want it to be! That’s where a Professional Life Coach comes in: We will help you turn your dreams into reality.

– About Us –

LifeCoaching.com is a cooperative effort between Carmine Leo and Kellie deRuyter. We’ve been friends for over 40 years, through all the ups and downs that life has had to offer. Not surprisingly, our strongest connection has always been our relentless commitment to personal growth and the space of possibility, for ourselves, for each other, and for everyone whose path through life touches ours.

For more individualized information, please view our bio pages using either of the links below.

Click Here to meet CarmineClick Here to meet Kellie

We provide Professional Life Coach Training as well as coaching, training, certification, and assessments for Emotional Intelligence ( EI ).

– Our Coaching Philosophy –

We believe that each of us has the wisdom and power within us to make our life be what we want it to be. We see the coaching relationship as an alliance, a partnership, a process of inquiry that empowers clients to reconnect with their own inner wisdom, to find their own answers, to rediscover those powerful moments of choice out of which lasting change grows.

We believe we are all whole beings with whole lives and that every choice we make affects every other aspect of our lives. Our work affects our relationships. Our relationships touch our spirituality. Our spiritual well being affects our capacity for joy which affects our work and so on, round and round. We coach the whole person. We believe you deserve the life you want.

So… Who are you? What is important to you? What are your challenges? What gets in your way? Where do you want to go? How would you feel if your life were just exactly the way you wanted it to be? When would you like to begin?

Free Introductory Life Coaching Sessions

Read More About Life Coaching

– Privacy Policy – Confidentiality is a sacred trust. We never sell, rent or trade our clients’ personal data. We never spam.

We Accept Online Payments Fast – Free – Secure Sign Up Now!

All content on this site 2001-2016 Carmine Leo and LifeCoaching.com except where otherwise noted.

Disclaimer: All content on LifeCoaching.com is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on LifeCoaching.com does so of their own volition and at their own risk. The owner of and contributors to LifeCoaching.com accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm – real or imagined – from the use or dissemination of information contained here. If these conditions are not agreeable to you, you are advised to leave this site immediately.

See the article here:

Life Coaching for Personal and Professional Empowerment

Posted in Personal Empowerment | Comments Off on Life Coaching for Personal and Professional Empowerment

Empowerment – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: at 8:44 am

Empowerment refers to measures designed to increase the degree of autonomy and self-determination in people and in communities in order to enable them to represent their interests in a responsible and self-determined way, acting on their own authority. Empowerment refers both to the process of self-empowerment and to professional support of people, which enables them to overcome their sense of powerlessness and lack of influence, and to recognise and eventually to use their resources and chances.

The term empowerment originates from American community psychology and is associated with the social scientist Julian Rappaport (1981).

In social work, empowerment forms a practical approach of resource-oriented intervention. In the field of citizenship education and democratic education, empowerment is seen as a tool to increase the responsibility of the citizen. Empowerment is a key concept in the discourse on promoting civic engagement. Empowerment as a concept, which is characterized by a move away from a deficit-oriented towards a more strength-oriented perception, can increasingly be found in management concepts, as well as in the areas of continuing education and self-help.

Robert Adams points to the limitations of any single definition of ’empowerment’, and the danger that academic or specialist definitions might take away the word and the connected practices from the very people they are supposed to belong to.[1] Still, he offers a minimal definition of the term: ‘Empowerment: the capacity of individuals, groups and/or communities to take control of their circumstances, exercise power and achieve their own goals, and the process by which, individually and collectively, they are able to help themselves and others to maximize the quality of their lives.'[2]

One definition for the term is “an intentional, ongoing process centered in the local community, involving mutual respect, critical reflection, caring, and group participation, through which people lacking an equal share of resources gain greater access to and control over those resources” (Cornell Empowerment Group).[3]

Rappaport’s (1984) definition includes: “Empowerment is viewed as a process: the mechanism by which people, organizations, and communities gain mastery over their lives.”[4]

Sociological empowerment often addresses members of groups that social discrimination processes have excluded from decision-making processes through – for example – discrimination based on disability, race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. Empowerment as a methodology is also associated with feminism.

Empowerment is the process of obtaining basic opportunities for marginalized people, either directly by those people, or through the help of non-marginalized others who share their own access to these opportunities. It also includes actively thwarting attempts to deny those opportunities. Empowerment also includes encouraging, and developing the skills for, self-sufficiency, with a focus on eliminating the future need for charity or welfare in the individuals of the group. This process can be difficult to start and to implement effectively.

One empowerment strategy is to assist marginalized people to create their own nonprofit organization, using the rationale that only the marginalized people, themselves, can know what their own people need most, and that control of the organization by outsiders can actually help to further entrench marginalization. Charitable organizations lead from outside of the community, for example, can disempower the community by entrenching a dependence charity or welfare. A nonprofit organization can target strategies that cause structural changes, reducing the need for ongoing dependence. Red Cross, for example, can focus on improving the health of indigenous people, but does not have authority in its charter to install water-delivery and purification systems, even though the lack of such a system profoundly, directly and negatively impacts health. A nonprofit composed of the indigenous people, however, could ensure their own organization does have such authority and could set their own agendas, make their own plans, seek the needed resources, do as much of the work as they can, and take responsibility – and credit – for the success of their projects (or the consequences, should they fail).

The process of which enables individuals/groups to fully access personal or collective power, authority and influence, and to employ that strength when engaging with other people, institutions or society. In other words, “Empowerment is not giving people power, people already have plenty of power, in the wealth of their knowledge and motivation, to do their jobs magnificently. We define empowerment as letting this power out.”[5] It encourages people to gain the skills and knowledge that will allow them to overcome obstacles in life or work environment and ultimately, help them develop within themselves or in the society.

To empower a female “…sounds as though we are dismissing or ignoring males, but the truth is, both genders desperately need to be equally empowered.”[6] Empowerment occurs through improvement of conditions, standards, events, and a global perspective of life.

Paradoxically, before there can be the finding that a particular group requires empowerment and that therefore their self-esteem needs to be consolidated on the basis of awareness of their strengths, there needs to be a deficit diagnosis usually carried out by experts assessing the problems of this group. The fundamental asymmetry of the relationship between experts and clients is usually not questioned by empowerment processes. It also needs to be regarded critically, in how far the empowerment approach is really applicable to all patients/ clients. It is particularly questionable whether mentally ill people in acute crisis situations are in a position to make their own decisions. According to Albert Lenz, people behave primarily regressive in acute crisis situations and tend to leave the responsibility to professionals.[7] It must be assumed, therefore, that the implementation of the empowerment concept requires a minimum level of communication and reflectivity of the persons involved.

In social work, empowerment offers an approach that allows social workers to increase the capacity for self-help of their clients. For example, this allows clients not to be seen as passive, helpless ‘victims’ to be rescued but instead as a self-empowered person fighting abuse/ oppression; a fight, in which the social worker takes the position of a facilitator, instead of the position of a ‘rescuer’.[8]

Marginalized people who lack self-sufficiency become, at a minimum, dependent on charity, or welfare. They lose their self-confidence because they cannot be fully self-supporting. The opportunities denied them also deprive them of the pride of accomplishment which others, who have those opportunities, can develop for themselves. This in turn can lead to psychological, social and even mental health problems. “Marginalized” here refers to the overt or covert trends within societies whereby those perceived as lacking desirable traits or deviating from the group norms tend to be excluded by wider society and ostracized as undesirables.

According to Robert Adams, there is a long tradition in the UK and the USA respectively to advance forms of self-help that have developed and contributed to more recent concepts of empowerment. For example, the free enterprise economic theories of Milton Friedman embraced self-help as a respectable contributor to the economy. Both the Republ
icans in the US and the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher built on these theories. ‘At the same time, the mutual aid aspects of the concept of self-help retained some currency with socialists and democrats.'[9]

In economic development, the empowerment approach focuses on mobilizing the self-help efforts of the poor, rather than providing them with social welfare. Economic empowerment is also the empowering of previously disadvantaged sections of the population, for example, in many previously colonized African countries.[10]

Legal empowerment happens when marginalised people or groups use the legal mobilisation i.e., law, legal systems and justice mechanisms to improve or transform their social, political or economic situations. Legal empowerment approaches are interested in understanding how they can use the law to advance interests and priorities of the marginalised.[11]

According to ‘Open society foundations’ (an NGO) “Legal empowerment is about strengthening the capacity of all people to exercise their rights, either as individuals or as members of a community. Legal empowerment is about grass root justice, about ensuring that law is not confined to books or courtrooms, but rather is available and meaningful to ordinary people.[12]

Lorenzo Cotula in his book ‘ Legal Empowerment for Local Resource Control ‘ outlines the fact that legal tools for securing local resource rights are enshrined in legal system, does not necessarily mean that local resource users are in position to use them and benefit from them. The state legal system is constrained by a range of different factors – from lack of resources to cultural issues. Among these factors economic, geographic, linguistic and other constraints on access to courts, lack of legal awareness as well as legal assistance tend to be recurrent problems.[13]

In many context, marginalised groups do not trust the legal system owing to the widespread manipulation that it has historically been subjected to by the more powerful. ‘To what extent one knows the law, and make it work for themselves with ‘para legal tools’, is legal empowerment; assisted utilizing innovative approaches like legal literacy and awareness training, broadcasting legal information, conducting participatory legal discourses, supporting local resource user in negotiating with other agencies and stake holders and to strategies combining use of legal processes with advocacy along with media engagement, and socio legal mobilisation.[13]

Sometimes groups are marginalized by society at large, with governments participating in the process of marginalization. Equal opportunity laws which actively oppose such marginalization, are supposed to allow empowerment to occur. These laws made it illegal to restrict access to schools and public places based on race. They can also be seen as a symptom of minorities’ and women’s empowerment through lobbying.

Gender empowerment conventionally refers to the empowerment of women, and has become a significant topic of discussion in regards to development and economics. It can also point to approaches regarding other marginalized genders in a particular political or social context. This approach to empowerment is partly informed by feminism and employed legal empowerment by building on international human rights. Empowerment is one of the main procedural concerns when addressing human rights and development. The Human Development and Capabilities Approach, The Millennium Development Goals, and other credible approaches/goals point to empowerment and participation as a necessary step if a country is to overcome the obstacles associated with poverty and development.[14]

According to Thomas A Potterfield,[15] many organizational theorists and practitioners regard employee empowerment as one of the most important and popular management concepts of our time.

Ciulla discusses an inverse case: that of bogus empowerment.[16]

In the sphere of management and organizational theory, “empowerment” often refers loosely to processes for giving subordinates (or workers generally) greater discretion and resources: distributing control in order to better serve both customers and the interests of employing organizations.

One account of the history of workplace empowerment in the United States recalls the clash of management styles in railroad construction in the American West in the mid-19th century, where “traditional” hierarchical East-Coast models of control encountered individualistic pioneer workers, strongly supplemented by methods of efficiency-oriented “worker responsibility” brought to the scene by Chinese laborers. In this case, empowerment at the level of work teams or brigades achieved a notable (but short-lived) demonstrated superiority. See the views of Robert L. Webb.

During the 1980s and 1990s, empowerment has become a point of interest in management concepts and business administration. In this context, empowerment involves approaches that promise greater participation and integration to the employee in order to cope with their tasks as independently as possible and responsibly can. A strength-based approach known as “empowerment circle” has become an instrument of organizational development. Multidisciplinary empowerment teams aim for the development of quality circles to improve the organizational culture, strengthening the motivation and the skills of employees. The target of subjective job satisfaction of employees is pursued through flat hierarchies, participation in decisions, opening of creative effort, a positive, appreciative team culture, self-evaluation, taking responsibility (for results), more self-determination and constant further learning. The optimal use of existing potential and abilities can supposedly be better reached by satisfied and active workers. Here, knowledge management contributes significantly to implement employee participation as a guiding principle, for example through the creation of communities of practice.[17]

However, it is important to ensure that the individual employee has the skills to meet their allocated responsibilities and that the company’s structure sets up the right incentives for employees to reward their taking responsibilities. Otherwise there is a danger of being overwhelmed or even becoming lethargic.[18]

Empowerment of employees requires a culture of trust in the organization and an appropriate information and communication system. The aim of these activities is to save control costs, that become redundant when employees act independently and in a self-motivated fashion. In the book Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute, the authors illustrate three keys that organizations can use to open the knowledge, experience, and motivation power that people already have.[5] The three keys that managers must use to empower their employees are:

According to author Stewart, in her book Empowering People she describes that in order to guarantee a successful work environment, managers need to exercise the “right kind of authority” (p.6). To summarize, “empowerment is simply the effective use of a managers authority”, and subsequently, it is a productive way to maximize all-around work efficiency.

These keys are hard to put into place and it is a journey to achieve empowerment in a workplace. It is important to train employees and make sure they have trust in what empowerment will bring to a company.[5]

The implementation of the concept of empowerment in management has also been criticised for failing to live up to its claims.[19]

Read the rest here:

Empowerment – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Personal Empowerment | Comments Off on Empowerment – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Daily Progress: The Daily Progress, Charlottesville News

Posted: March 25, 2016 at 12:44 pm

Valley Volkswagen is the premier Central Virginia Volkswagen dealer with a convenient Staunton location and a large stock of new and used cars, trucks and SUVs – including fuel efficient hybrids. Just a short drive from Lexington, Harrisonburg, Charlottesville and Lynchburg, we serve as a convenient Volkswagen dealer and repair shop for all of Central Virginia. Our dealership has been in business for over 40 years and prides itself on dedication to not only the customer, but the entire customer experience.Originally founded in 1966 as a family-owned and operated store, Rule Auto grew to become Staunton’s premiere Honda, Volkswagen and RV dealer. In October 2010, Rule Auto became Valley Volkswagen and Valley Honda, proud additions to Carter Myers Automotive – a group of family-owned dealerships serving Central Virginia since 1924. Times have changed, but our commitment to integrity, respect, service and value never will. Come visit us at Valley Honda. You will see a lot of familiar faces and some new ones too.Valley Volkswagen is the premier Central Virginia Volkswagen dealer with a convenient Staunton location and a large stock of new and used cars, trucks and SUVs – including fuel efficient hybrids. Just a short drive from Lexington, Harrisonburg, Charlottesville and Lynchburg, we serve as a convenient Volkswagen dealer and repair shop for all of Central Virginia. Our dealership has been in business for over 40 years and prides itself on dedication to not only the customer, but the entire customer experience.Originally founded in 1966 as a family-owned and operated store, Rule Auto grew to become Staunton’s premiere Honda, Volkswagen and RV dealer. In October 2010, Rule Auto became Valley Volkswagen and Valley Honda, proud additions to Carter Myers Automotive – a group of family-owned dealerships serving Central Virginia since 1924. Times have changed, but our commitment to integrity, respect, service and value never will. Come visit us at Valley Honda. You will see a lot of familiar faces and some new ones too.

Let me introduce myself briefly! I am an Associate Broker, licensed in Virginia. I am the Managing Broker for Montague Miller in Culpeper, VA. As a full time real estate professional since 1980, I have sold, trained and mentored, managed and owned offices across Northern Virginia. In 1990, having moved to the Warrenton area from Falls Church in 1988, I moved back into sales. While developing my product knowledge and professional contacts in this “country suburban” area, less than an hour from our nation’s capital, I have also maintained my Northern Virginia colleagues and contacts. As a result, my daily business includes many cross-town as well as cross-country clients, and many of my past folks are recommending me to their kids, even as I assist them to prepare for their own retirement moves!I am happy to assist you across Fauquier, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William as well as in more rural settings such as Culpeper, Clarke, Rappahannock, Madison and Warren counties. My experience allows me to serve you from the Potomac to the Piedmont as your personal real estate advantage. My goal is to be your personal Realtor for life!I stay active in my local and state Realtor Associations not only to serve, but also to stay up to date on laws, issues, and services that help me assist my clients even better! I am a certified Ethics Instructor in Virginia, and beyond the classroom I am mindful of how important the Code of Ethics is to my clients as I conduct daily business! With new Virginia requirements effective in July of 2012, I will also be teaching other agents as well as my own clients about the meaning and the spirit of Agency. I have had the opportunity to help lots of buyers and sellers for over 32 years. Given the opportunity to assist you, whether to rent, buy, sell or build, I will put together the right team to assist you through your entire real estate transaction. My goal is to maximize my client’s savings, minimize the “bumps” along the way, and achieve a smooth move, well done!

Welcome to Hamer & Hamer Orthodontics, where we provide orthodontic solutions designed to suit your lifestyle and specific orthodontic needs. With two convenient locations in Charlottesville and Crozet, VA, Dr. David B. Hamer and our team specialize in helping patients of all ages achieve healthy, beautiful, and confident smiles.Hamer & Hamer Orthodontics has been a leading Charlottesville orthodontist office since 1960. Our doctors and staff at our practice are committed to providing quality orthodontics in an environment that you can trust. This is why every patient that comes to our practice is given the high-quality care they deserve, and are always treated like family. We believe that our open communication and state-of-the-art technology are just some of the qualities of our practice that have kept people smiling for over 50 years!Dr. Hamer is a leader in the orthodontic industry, providing quality treatment to thousands of patients that come to our offices. Our treatment options include:Invisalign Traditional metal and clear braces In-Ovation self-ligating braces Invisalign and Invisalign Teen clear aligners Lingual braces Oral and maxillofacial surgeryWe welcome patients of all ages, and invite you to explore our website for more information on our practice. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment, please feel free to contact our Charlottesville orthodontic office or our Crozet orthodontic office, and we will be happy to assist you.

Originally posted here:

The Daily Progress: The Daily Progress, Charlottesville News

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on The Daily Progress: The Daily Progress, Charlottesville News