There are different versions from different sources, but the standard line from self-help types is “find your bliss” or “find your passion” if you want to be happy in this life.

Business theory types have narrowed this down to “find your bliss and you will find success” or “your passion can make you rich”.

This is true to the extent that if you enjoy something, you will spend time on it, and if you spend time on something, you will probably become good at it – and if you are good at something, you have a competitive advantage when it comes to selling it.

However, the problem is that most passions are of little or no commercial value.

Someone may be passionate about a particular girl, or about a hobby like train spotting, but there is limited scope for building a business out of such a passion.

For the entrepreneur, especially the serial entrepreneur, the secret is perhaps not to be passionate about a particular business but to be passionate about the processes of doing business in general.

There is certainly a visceral pleasure to be had in putting deals together simply for the sake of putting deals together.

Yet that pleasure is the prerogative of entrepreneurs. It cannot be conveyed to employees. If they shared that passion, they would be entrepreneurs themselves, not employees.

It can be positively embarrassing when entrepreneurs try to pretend that their employees share their passion:

Meg Ryan was wrong in When Harry Met Sally ...

... fake passion is always easy to spot, and it puts people off. Calm, rational honesty is the better policy.      

As we all know from Cliff Robertson in Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

So we are not being partisan if we criticise President Obama or Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK – it is simply that they are the ones in power, therefore they are the ones with the greatest responsibility.

However, opposition politicians also have a responsibility: the obligation to offer a viable alternative.

It is an obligation with which the Republicans in the USA and the Conservatives in the UK are having difficulties when it comes to economic policy.

It was their failure to come up with a convincing narrative on the economy that cost the Republicans the 2008 election. As a result, many Americans still blame the younger President Bush for the recession. This is probably a bit unfair. True, his federal deficits were a contributory factor, but not the decisive factor. In any case, blame for those deficits must be shared with the Democratic Congress, and they have increased enormously since then under a Democratic President. Yet, irrespective of how we got here, the problem remains: how do we deal with those deficits? The Republicans need to show that they have moved on from the fiscal indiscipline of the Bush Junior years.

Of course, no one can blame Britain’s Conservatives for their country’s government deficits – they have been out of power since 1997, when they handed on an economy in a very healthy condition. However, their current leader and finance spokesman have yet to convince the voters or the markets that they have a plan to reduce the deficits they would inherit if they win this year’s General Election. The pound fell on news of polls indicating that the Election might be indecisive – because of a widely held perception that Conservative policy is itself indecisive.

Wise old hands like the business spokesman Kenneth Clarke say there will have to be massive spending cuts, but the inexperienced young leader, David Cameron, seems reluctant to accept the obvious and keeps hedging on the subject.

Making deficit reduction sound attractive to voters is indeed a tough sell. However, those of us with business experience know that the best strategy with a tough sell is to make a virtue out of necessity – and tell the truth...

“Countries prosper most when governments interfere least. Less interference requires less bureaucracy. Less bureaucracy means lower spending. Lower spending reduces deficits.”

A party that ran on that simple truth – and sounded like they really believed it – would get our vote.     

These days, the name of Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer is barely known outside the highly specialist field of Counterinsurgency Warfare – within which he is a role model of heroic proportion.

However, since legislative trends make dealing with employees ever more like Counterinsurgency Warfare, your contributor was reading a very helpful book on the subject when he came across a formulation of the Field Marshal’s leadership system that deserves much broader attention.

It can be applied to organising almost anything.

The key to the system is taking each step in turn, in order of importance, not moving on to the next step until the one before has been sorted out completely. Getting the more important step right is half way to getting the next step right.

So, in order of importance – and action – starting with the most important,

1   Get the priorities right – i.e. the objectives;

2   Get the instructions right – i.e. the strategy; 

3   Get the organisation right – i.e. the structure;

4   Get the right people into the organisation;  

5   Get the right spirit into the people;

6   Leave them to get on with it.

The word “bullying” conjures up images of unpleasant children beating up smaller children for their lunch money.

Yet now it seems that an adult boss need do no more than speak harshly to an incompetent subordinate to be accused of “bullying in the workplace” – especially if there is the faintest scent of compensation in the air.

Most such complaints of “bullying” trivialise real bullying.

For example, one would think British opposition leaders would want to focus public attention on what they see as the dire state of the economy under the Premiership of Gordon Brown – perhaps even, if it is not naive to suggest it, proposing alternative policies. Instead they have distracted attention from this all-important issue by calling for an inquiry into the way he treats his personal staff.

Most voters could not care less. Indeed, given the obvious uselessness of some of Mr Brown’s flunkies ...

... it might go down well in the real world to hear someone gave them a good beating – as it is, a bit of shouting and the odd telephone being thrown at them is getting off lightly.

That is not to say leaders should shout and throw things. It is the highest proof of true leadership to appear calm and in control even in the worst crisis – indeed, especially in the worst crisis.

This is the proverbial “grace under pressure”.

Displays of hysteria and discourtesy are therefore always counter-productive, but there are times when it is necessary to impress others, especially employees, with your strength of feeling on a particular point.

Great leaders are usually passionate about what they do. They need to convey that passion to those they lead. This can make it difficult for people in their immediate vicinity. Another British Prime Minister was notoriously hard on those around him – but the same people were devoted to him. They realised that, in helping him in his work, they were part of something far greater than themselves. That Premier was, of course, Sir Winston Churchill.

Lesser employers wishing to emulate him should surround themselves with people who share their own passion – and who are grown up enough to accept that being on the receiving end of the odd lapse in good manners is a price worth paying to be part of something special.  

Recently we identified the oldest book on leadership as one written by a Greek in the 4^th Century BC, Xenophon of Athens, about a Persian in the 6^th Century BC, Cyrus the Great – a leader so great that he also gets a positive mention when he makes a cameo appearance about half way through the Bible.

However, the earliest management advice that has come down to us is found nearer the front of the Bible, in one of the first five books.

The Book of Exodus describes how Moses, the reluctant leader of 600,000 Israelites, is visited by his wise father-in-law, Jethro – who is concerned to see his son-in-law busy from morning till evening deciding trivial matters.

“What you are doing is not good,” says Jethro. “You and the people with you will wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you; you are not able perform it alone.”

He advises that Moses selects trustworthy men who hate a bribe, and appoint them as officers in charge of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands.

“And let them judge the people at all times; every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves; so it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you.”

There is no better summary of the art of the delegation which is the foundation of all leadership and of the decentralisation which is the foundation of all efficient management structures.

Moses accepts Jethro’s advice and it proves successful. Then, like all management consultants after him, Jethro departs and goes on his way, but, unlike his successors, he does not appear to have demanded a fee ... or suggested more consulting.

It should go without saying – but we still say it, firmly and without qualification – that nothing can justify crashing an aeroplane into a building, even a tax office, with the deliberate intention of killing oneself and others. That it is morally indefensible was as true in Austin, Texas, last week as it was in New York in 2001.

Yet the most disturbing thing about the Austin case was the “suicide note” the perpetrator left behind: like most of these things, it was misspelt, ungrammatical, and often irrational – as one would expect, given that his actions were those of an unbalanced man – but some of the things he said cannot be easily written off as the ravings of a madman. Amid the ranting, there were occasional flashes, no more than that, of something very familiar: the despair of a businessman driven over the edge by the constant frustration of dealing with an uncaring bureaucracy.

The individual feels powerless in the grip of The System. Of course, this has almost always been the case, but what makes it harder to bear is that The System is intruding more and more into our daily lives – and into our businesses.

It is in the nature of The System to be corrupt – and it has in fact been more corrupt in other times and in other places – but it was at least bearable when it was further away and we did not have to deal with it so often.

It only adds insult to injury when bureaucrats claim to be acting in the name of countries committed to freedom, democracy, justice, equality, and the rule of law – when, in practice, we are helpless in the hands of those same bureaucrats whenever they choose to ignore those fine principles. This is definitely not saying anything against freedom, democracy, justice, equality, and the rule of law – on the contrary, it would be very pleasant if we could have them for once, or, in some cases, have them back.

Politicians and bureaucrats must be held accountable for their actions. They must be taught that bad things will happen to them if they do bad things. That does not, of course, mean crashing aircraft into them – but, if such acts of despair are to be avoided, there must be a legal mechanism which ensures that those who inflict suffering on their fellow citizens through maladministration cannot expect to go home to fat, secure pensions.

So far the only reaction by the bureaucracy has been a statement that tax returns will not be delayed.  

One of the UK’s most successful exports is legal services. Many international contracts contain clauses to the effect that any disputes are to be arbitrated under English law. These generate a lot of business for British courts and those who work in them.

The British legal system is seen as fair because British judges have always been politically independent. The understanding at the heart of the UK’s unwritten constitution has always been that elected lawmakers will respect the independence of appointed judges in return for the judges not making up their own laws.

This system worked well for three hundred years – compare the UK’s political stability over that period with the lack of it in, say, France next door – but the understanding has been undermined on both sides over the last decade. It is particularly worrying that judges, perhaps envious of their American counterparts, are now making up their own laws.

The most recent example is particularly frightening. It is a well known legal fact that expatriate Brits need not pay British income tax, so long as they spend less than 91 days in the UK

...or it was a well known legal fact until the Court of Appeal arbitrarily and retrospectively changed the law. Tax exiles must also now demonstrate a “distinct break” with their native land – whatever that means: the Court’s nebulous language, which would never have been tolerated by lawyers of the old school, leaves the concept open to all sorts of bureaucratic abuse.

So the purpose of this post is to sound two alarms. The first is to warn entrepreneurs, not just in Britain but in other jurisdictions that are following the British example, that international tax law is becoming far more capricious and imprecise. That will make it harder for those of us who want to be honest to plan with confidence. The irony is that the increased complexity will actually make revenue collection harder and reduce the tax base.

The second – and more important – warning is to the judges themselves, should any happen to be reading this. Arbitrary, retrospective, and imprecise law-making by the courts will undermine confidence in their independence. That will in turn undermine Britain as a venue for international legal services. More to the point, it will also undermine the rule of law that once made the UK the envy of the world, and on which all prosperity depends.

Should any fund managers with millions to spare for bonus payments be reading this, they could do a lot worse than to give a few of them to the people who write this blog.

Without wishing to blow our own trumpets, our predictions over the last three years have proved a lot more accurate than those of the expensive “experts” hired by major players, who have lost their shirts in the crash and its aftermath.

First, we predicted the crash – which, to be honest, was not that difficult to foresee, but many in authority still did not foresee it. Then, at the height of the crisis, we said things would stabilise so long as no one panicked – a prediction that called for a lot more courage at the time. Most of the “experts” were saying the opposite – panicking, in fact.

Since then, we have been warning about the return of inflation. We started our warnings at the time when the “experts” were screaming about the dangers of deflation.

The “experts” have finally caught up with us. It can no longer be denied that inflation is back.

We are told that it is a temporary anomaly – a “blip”. We have heard that one before.

Some of the factors behind the most recent rise will indeed work their way through the system fairly quickly. However, there may be longer term trends at work as well.

Inflation reduces the value of debts – bad news for fixed rate creditors, but good news for their debtors. This is particularly significant when the biggest debtors are governments, most notably those of the UK and the USA.

Do our politicians have the moral fibre to resist the temptation to let a little inflation into the system to ease their problems when their deficit crises really start to bite? The signs are not encouraging: Britain has been printing money and American politicians on all sides seem content to put off their deficit problem with the time-honoured delaying tactic of appointing a committee to consider it.

At the same time, almost everyone is ignoring the inflationary time bomb of the combination of limited natural resources and increasing population.

In the years ahead, entrepreneurs who take the probability of inflation into account in their planning and preparations will have a competitive advantage over those who do not.

According to International Living magazine – no, we had never heard of it either – France is the best place to live.

That surprised us. France is indeed a beautiful country to visit – but a horrible place to do business.

It was interesting that some of the same factors which International Living cited as making France a desirable place to live – such as the lengthy maternity leave – are among the reasons why only an idiot would employ anyone there if given a choice.

Obviously, all these “best place” surveys depend entirely on the factors you happen to choose by which to assess each place and the relative weight you assign to each factor. It is a wholly arbitrary process – which could be manipulated to produce almost any result.

So it is our turn to be arbitrary. With no desired result in mind, here are the factors by which we would assess the “Best Place to Do Business”, in approximate order of priority.

1   Easy access to markets. Obviously.

2   Few regulations and bureaucrats. The two are related but separate: it does not matter so much when a state has a lot of regulations if it employs few bureaucrats to enforce them, but where there are many bureaucrats, they need only a few regulations to make your life a misery.

3   A reasonable tax regime. Note that it is not top – you must make money before keeping it becomes an issue.

4   Rule of law. Honest and effective police and courts are essential for both personal safety and business.

5   Good communications. Both transport and telecommunications – and, above all now, broadband.

6   An efficient service support network. Both public sector and private contractors.

It is beginning to dawn on politicians that economic recovery does not necessarily mean a return to previous levels of  employment: many of the jobs that have been lost had been marginal for some time, and the recession was only the coup de grace – those jobs are not coming back, at least not in the same country.

Our leaders have also finally accepted the well established fact that small businesses, especially new starts ups, generate most new jobs. So all parties are suddenly proclaiming how much they want to help us.

That is very nice – if a little late – but, having neglected us for so long, they have no idea what we really need.

President Obama, for example, has proposed “giving” small businesses $5,000 for every new job.

Thank you very much, Mr President: no one is going to turn down five grand – which is, of course, why the policy will make no difference to job generation. Those businesses who were going to employ new people anyway will happily pocket the cash, but a measly five thousand is not going to be enough to persuade anyone to establish a new post if they were not planning it already.

Viable jobs can only be generated by viable businesses. A business is only viable if there is a market to support it. Giving taxpayers’ money to unviable businesses does not make them viable. It only obscures their real problem, which is the lack of a market. Meanwhile the act of taking the money in question from the taxpayers means taking it from viable businesses, the businesses with the potential to generate real employment if they had kept the money.

In any case, what government gives with one hand, it takes with the other. Even as Mr Obama is offering federal taxpayers’ money to business, payroll taxes in many states are increasing to cover increased unemployment.

In addition to being economically inefficient, this pointless recycling of our limited resources imposes four additional administrative burdens: government must employ bureaucrats both to supervise grants or rebates and to collect payroll taxes; and employers must waste more time on both grant or rebate applications and tax forms.

If government really wanted to help business, it does not need to give us money – it simply needs to take less from us.

Politicians cannot generate viable employment. We can – if only they let us.