鍾漢清加入英國戴明協會（BDA）。認識 David Kerridge 教授，深受關愛。獲創始會長 Henry R. Neave 博士贈其佳作 The Deming Dimension 。他們都有紀念Deming之專文，David的登在歐洲 EOQC 的季刊；Henry的可在 www.spcpress.com找到。
|The Deming Dimension|
| Quantity in Basket: None|
Shipping Weight: 3.00 pounds
by Henry R. NeaveThis classic is the definitive book written about Dr. Deming and his work. The author and Dr. Deming were friends and colleagues who worked together to be sure that readers would clearly understand the principles and philosophy developed and taught by Dr. Deming over the course of a half century. The book begins with a first-rate historical perspective and then goes on to explain the basic tenets of the Deming philosophy, including such topics as The Fourteen Points, The Deadly Diseases, The Obstacles, and the System of Profound Knowledge (updated shortly before Deming's death in 1993). Dr. Neave has powerfully communicated both the message and its importance to the business world of today.
440 pages. Paperback. $20.00
◎ 領導學研究大師 詹姆斯‧奧圖James 0’Toole 出版 Leading Change (Jossey-Bass) 第九章〈Deming Ignored：Premature Articulation or Flawed Leadership〉，他主要探討為何美國高階主管長期忽略戴明，即抗拒變革呢？因為很多主管都認為情勢尚未壞到不得不變的地步。戴明很生氣：「我們要拋棄凡事必須錯了才來改變。」戴明的意思是美國老闆太自以為是。
○ ９月29日 北市品質管制學會 鍾漢清 12 座談討論會：
他的學生及同情者，也有人把他的理念應用在分析美國財政系統 ，也有人主張應把戴明與美國政治經濟學者Henry George（1839-1897）及奧國學派的Ludwig von Mises合看，三者整合起來正可以使西方經濟「轉危為安」
Robert M. Solow (2008年 84歲): Nobel Prize-winning economist;
- Solow, Robert M.; Dorfman, Robert; Samuelson, Paul (1958). Linear programming and economic analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Solow, Robert M.; Galbraith, John Kenneth (1967). The new industrial state or son of affluence. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Robert Solow on powerful families’ threat to democratic institutions.
In a recent interview at the Economic Policy Institute, Nobel Prize-Winning economist and MIT professor Robert Solow riffed on the political effects of increasing inequality and concentration of wealth at the very top. "If that kind of concentration of wealth continues, then we get to be more and more an oligarchical country, a country that's run from the top," he said.
Solow's sentiments echo a point he made earlier this week in his review of Thomas Piketty's book in The New Republic. (Solow, it should be noted, is not the only Nobel Prize-winning economist to use the o-word in discussing Piketty's work.) Having examined and explained the trends Piketty identifies, Solow turns his attention to the possible measures that could be taken to ameliorate the inequality, and rejigger the system to favor merit over inheritance. Piketty, Solow says, favors an annual, global progressive tax on wealth, such that the benefits of a growing economy could be more widely felt.
This is a proposal that Solow cheers. But there is one problem:
Piketty writes as if a tax on wealth might sometime soon have political viability in Europe, where there is already some experience with capital levies. I have no opinion about that. On this side of the Atlantic, there would seem to be no serious prospect of such an outcome. We are politically unable to preserve even an estate tax with real bite. If we could, that would be a reasonable place to start, not to mention a more steeply progressive income tax that did not favor income from capital as the current system does. But the built-in tendency for the top to outpace everyone else will not yield to minor patches.
And this is, perhaps, the most significant point. Piketty has identified the mechanism by which inequality accelerates over time (Solow calls it, simply, the “rich-get-richer dynamic"). But the consequences of that distribution are not merely economic but political: A concentration of wealth leads to a concentration of power, which in turn protects the concentration of power. That our political system is incapable of tempering Piketty's dynamic is not a bizarre coincidence but a direct result.
"Wouldn’t it be interesting," Solow asks in his TNR review, "if the United States were to become the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the last refuge of increasing inequality at the top (and perhaps also at the bottom)? Would that work for you?"
It's working for some people, anyway.