TMT doesn’t own Mauna Kea they are a renter.
The guy that owns the house next to me rents to crack heads. Do I fight the crack heads or the owner of the house?
Always thought it was about the decision makers and NOT TMT.
The guy that owns the house next to me rents to crack heads. Do I fight the crack heads or the owner of the house?
Always thought it was about the decision makers and NOT TMT.
Ku Kia’i Mauna! He keeps saying Mauna, Mauna. Even our younger keiki generation knows!!! 🔺❤️🔺❤️🔺
Clifford Kapono
OHANA WEALTH
The wealth of a nation is founded on it’s people and those inherent to that nation are its beneficiaries. Those Hawaiians who are claiming sovereig...nty and independence, exactly how do they define that wealth factor a “native driven economic expression” to happen? To claim something as sacred, you must understand it’s inherent wealth and be able to translate that wealth into an expression of prosperity. Clearly those sacred trust for native Hawaiians have not benefited those defined as beneficiaries to the same degree of wealth as those who manage it.
OHANA WEALTH
The wealth of a nation is founded on it’s people and those inherent to that nation are its beneficiaries. Those Hawaiians who are claiming sovereig...nty and independence, exactly how do they define that wealth factor a “native driven economic expression” to happen? To claim something as sacred, you must understand it’s inherent wealth and be able to translate that wealth into an expression of prosperity. Clearly those sacred trust for native Hawaiians have not benefited those defined as beneficiaries to the same degree of wealth as those who manage it.
Where are the native Hawaiian families here in Hawaii that have and continue to benefit themselves and the native Hawaiian community that defines them? There are wealthy families here in Hawaii but are they native Hawaiians and how did these people prosper? Why is it that so many corporations here in Hawaii prosper under the guise of being a Hawaiian business?
Family-controlled firms internationally now make up 19% of the companies in the Fortune Global 500, which tracks the world’s largest firms by sales. That is up from 15% in 2005, according to new research by McKinsey, a consulting firm (which defines such firms as ones whose founders or their families have the biggest stake, of at least 18%, plus the power to appoint the chief executive). Since 2008 sales by these firms have grown by 7% a year, slightly ahead of the 6.2% a year by non-family firms in the list. McKinsey sees these trends continuing for the foreseeable future.
This is largely because of rapid growth in big developing economies where family ownership is the norm among large businesses. Since 2005 the countries that have most increased their share of the Fortune Global 500 are Brazil, China, Russia, South Korea and Taiwan. By 2025, McKinsey forecasts, there will be more than 15,000 companies worldwide with at least $1 billion in annual revenues, of which 37% will be emerging-market family firms. In 2010 there were only 8,000 firms worldwide of this size, and only 16% of them were family-controlled and from emerging markets.
Around 85% of $1 billion-plus businesses in South-East Asia are family-run, around 75% in Latin America, 67% in India and around 65% in the Middle East. China (where the proportion is about 40%) and Sub-Saharan Africa (35%) stand out for their relatively low share of family firms, because in both cases many large firms are state-owned.
So, where are the Maoli or Maori wealthy families? We critically need to redefine what this cry for sovereignty and independence means aside from cultural protesting and academic curriculum bantering that clearly lacks competitive global wealth.
jus sayʻn ©
See MoreFamily-controlled firms internationally now make up 19% of the companies in the Fortune Global 500, which tracks the world’s largest firms by sales. That is up from 15% in 2005, according to new research by McKinsey, a consulting firm (which defines such firms as ones whose founders or their families have the biggest stake, of at least 18%, plus the power to appoint the chief executive). Since 2008 sales by these firms have grown by 7% a year, slightly ahead of the 6.2% a year by non-family firms in the list. McKinsey sees these trends continuing for the foreseeable future.
This is largely because of rapid growth in big developing economies where family ownership is the norm among large businesses. Since 2005 the countries that have most increased their share of the Fortune Global 500 are Brazil, China, Russia, South Korea and Taiwan. By 2025, McKinsey forecasts, there will be more than 15,000 companies worldwide with at least $1 billion in annual revenues, of which 37% will be emerging-market family firms. In 2010 there were only 8,000 firms worldwide of this size, and only 16% of them were family-controlled and from emerging markets.
Around 85% of $1 billion-plus businesses in South-East Asia are family-run, around 75% in Latin America, 67% in India and around 65% in the Middle East. China (where the proportion is about 40%) and Sub-Saharan Africa (35%) stand out for their relatively low share of family firms, because in both cases many large firms are state-owned.
So, where are the Maoli or Maori wealthy families? We critically need to redefine what this cry for sovereignty and independence means aside from cultural protesting and academic curriculum bantering that clearly lacks competitive global wealth.
jus sayʻn ©
No comments:
Post a Comment