Showing posts with label Human Behavior. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Behavior. Show all posts

Friday, September 19, 2014

Should NFL Players be Role Models?

The NFL's sponsors are rattling their sabers because of the flood of negative headlines and stupid apish behavior of the players.

Their response has demonstrated bunker mentality. They're working their backchannels with the sponsors, throwing money/perks at them, and hoping it goes away.

Meanwhile, the talking heads debate ad nauseum about whether athletes should be role models.

They're on to something. The NFL should launch a "Role Models" program.

Players who DON'T qualify (see criteria below*):

  • Cannot sign sponsorship deals
  • Cannot appear in NFL promotional media (ads, spots, visuals, interviews) or any off-field activities/media related to the NFL
  • Cannot play in the Pro Bowl or other off-season promotional events
  • Cannot be admitted to the Hall of Fame
Conversely, if they do qualify they get:
  • A significant annual bonus directly from the NFL, payable in installments over the subsequent 2 years unless they are removed from the program
* Eligibility criteria would be the following with a zero tolerance, one-strike-you're-out policy:

  • 2+ years with the league
  • No criminal activity for the past 5 years
  • No suspensions or fines from the team or NFL 
  • No violations of NFL or NCAA policies on drugs, conduct, etc.
They'd have to be careful about due process and presumed innocence, but they should not allow any wiggle room within their rules. 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

All I want for Christmas is ...


Shamelessly borrowed from Monica Trasandes ... but I couldn't have said it better myself.

The ability to unitask | by Monica Trasandes
"Recently I found myself walking toward the kitchen with a load of laundry in my arms, two empty coffee cups dangling from my fingers, and car keys tucked between my chin and the clothes.
Oh, and I stopped to clean up a spill, using a fallen sock, which I then kicked into the kitchen. Forty minutes later, as I pulled my fresh-smelling, shiny keys from the wash, I realized I had reached unhealthy levels of multitasking.
This problem has dogged me for years. For example, I never just make pasta for dinner: I put on the spaghetti sauce while cleaning the bathroom, opening and shredding mail and watering the plants. This means I end up with a very clean apartment that smells like scorched tomatoes. I never seem to just drive, either: I simultaneously peel and eat a banana and listen to the news while returning calls for my media-director job (on my hands-free phone, of course).
A man I admire has called multitasking "the enemy of intimacy"—and for me that's certainly true. Often I do dishes or clear my desk while chatting on the phone with friends. I can't seem to help myself.
The problem: I've always felt guilty about doing one thing at a time. On those occasions when I have, say, carried laundry and dirty dishes on separate trips, my evil inner critic has sneered at me: "Hmm, taking it slow today, aren't we, unitasker? I guess some of us don't want to succeed." To which I should reply: "I want to succeed, evil inner critic! I just don't want to have to achieve all my goals at the same time." But I rarely succeed. Usually I give in, reluctantly, to that bullying voice.
So, for Christmas this year, I want to make a change. At long last, I would like to embrace a slower way of life: I'll read and only read. Drive and only drive. I'll be fully present when talking to my friends. Because with all the multitasking, I know that I'm missing so much."

Sunday, November 04, 2012

What Will Tomorrow Bring: Retro Fashion in Organizations


The organization, whether group, tribe, team, corporation, or government represents the ugly, bloody edge of our evolution as social animals. It's complicated ... and we're not NEARLY done yet. Perhaps a few millennia down the pike we will get it right.

At the moment, I feel safe in saying that we are all collectively burnt and battered into pessimism about our ability to get it right. Look left. Look right. Share your booze with your neighbor. Their loosened lips will start to tell you how anti-government, anti-bank, anti-corporate, or anti-politics they are. 

I can't purport to foresee the best master plan. But I am an organization-man. Based on daily frustrations, I can highlight a few very very VERY simple things which will ever-so-slightly evolve us. These things were once fashionable in organizations, but have gone out of style. It's time to go retro.
  • Meeting agendas and minutes
  • Documentation of decision taken and justification thereof
  • Reading materials prior to meetings
  • Discussing and understanding issues prior to meetings
  • Taking time to give the context of a discussion beforehand
  • Following up on your OWN To Dos
  • Speaking in simple sentences which directly respond to the question at hand
  • Making decisions based on informed analysis and then EXPLAINING your decision-drivers to anyone who will listen. Rinse and repeat until you have consensus.
  • Saying you were wrong. And knowing why.
  • Building objective business cases for investments
  • Viewing man/hours as a valuable asset you are investing
  • Overtly recognizing and funding innovation time at all levels (except at Google, of course)
  • Having a secretary to keep the high-priced execs from spending hours formatting documents and finding conference rooms for meetings. (talk about inefficient division of labor)

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Staged.

Does the White House really think that all it takes to control public opinion is having the US people watch Congress clap for the President for 3 minutes straight? Last time I checked, the only people less liked than the President were the Congressmen.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Taking Care of the Heroes

Football is valuable entertainment. Add up the value of the NFL teams: $30 billion according to Forbes to get one measure of just how valuable it is. A hundred bucks for every man, woman, and child in the US.

We love to play and watch it more when we can build (indirect) relationships with it by following our favorite teams, coaches, and players.

We love it more when we can build community with other fans around said relationships.

We love it more when it's exciting (meaning the competition is close and the outcome uncertain).

We love it more when it reminds us of humanity's higher nature. We can't stop talking about players who achieve super-human heroic feats, or coaches who execute strategies to snatch victory from the clutches of defeat.

We love it more when it makes us feel like winners.

We love it less when it is unjust.

We love it less when it is boring.

We love it less when it is inhumane.

We love it less when we lose connection to players or teams.

Sooooo.....

A good way to kill the sport would be to remove the best available (and best-known) players. Heroes: gone. Relationships: severed. Excitement: weak.

Another good way would be to have no rules or penalties. Justice: betrayed. Heroes: broken. Participation: discouraged. Humanity: degraded.

Yet another good way would be to have too many rules and penalties. Action: mundane. Risks: not taken. Super-humans: enfeebled. Results: predictable.

Helmet-to helmet, launching, spearing, intimidating, crushing hits are designed not to stop the opponent, but to intimidate him. Tru dat, but they also damage him, sometimes permanently. They prevent him from being his best.

For some they may be fun to watch or commit, but they are a net negative to the value of the sport and that's the best reason I can think of to stop them. Football is nothing without it's heroes. We have to let them show off ... but not at the expense of knocking other heroes out of the game. That's exactly what no-holds-barred hits do ... in more ways than one. They can injure, sure. They also can cause a receiver to muff a catch because they're too busy worrying about what semi truck is coming their way. The long-term effects (ALS, etc) might even cause some smart-and-athletic dudes to avoid college and pro ball altogether.

On top of that, menacing hits call attention to the embarrassing base nature of the hitters. These are not heroes. Their lack of humanity exposes that.

Joe Pa agrees:
"I've been saying for 15 years, we ought to get rid of the face mask," Paterno said this week. "I think, then, you go back to shoulder blocking, shoulder tackling, and you wouldn't have all those 'heroes' out there."

I'm not convinced that he's found the best solution, but his point is that these guys are just doing what they can get away with. Whether pain, fines, suspension, or legal proceedings provide the disincentive, the point is that these guys will figure it out. It's unacceptable to cream kickers and QBs (Favre aside). Players have somehow figured out how to avoid those hits. It should be unacceptable to demolish receivers, too. Egregious hits are not required. They are not unavoidable. They're not the result of confusing rules. They're not a necessary part of the psychological game. They're not the natural result of younger quarterbacks. That's all ridiculous. They are an embarrassing lack of discipline on the part of the aggressor, exploiting a loophole in the rules. The loophole should be closed and enforcement should be strict. Players will figure out how to comply ... or they're not the kind of players we want in the game.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Talking People to Death

From this week's NY Times:

"[Netanyahu's offer to freeze colonization of contested Palestinian territories] was aimed either at keeping talks with the Palestinians alive and his right-wing coalition partners in check, or at seeking to shift the burden of failure to the Palestinians and escape blame should the talks wither and die. - NY Times 10/12/10
They said "should" but clearly they meant "when." Why the hell did they re-start colonization anyway?? Oh, yeah, so they could offer to stop ... again.

This, to me, summarizes the whole problem. The involved parties, including the Israeli, Palestinian, and US governments as well as the Jewish diaspora, the militant mullahs, the Syrian and Iranian militaries, the arab-royals, the money-siphoning nonprofit organizations, and all the other agents provocateurs have no intention of saving the patient. They just want to make sure they're not blamed for it's death.

Lest they forget among all their strategic positioning (in soft chairs at fancy resort hotels), ego-stroking (whilst sipping tea on private jet they didn't pay for), and diplomatically chortling (while enjoying 5-star cuisine on finer china), there are people dying because of their delays. Some of those people are starving in camps. Others are getting blown to bits during their daily commute. Others are so hopeless and angry about their future that they're letting Bin Laden's clowns whip them into homicidal/suicidal furies. Others still are dying atop Humvees.

Yet everyone just continues talking. One step left, then one step right. Never moving forward lest they accidentally resolve the issue and lose their relevance. If that happened, who would pay for their fancy limos and massive security detail? Who would fund their next European vacation?

Hey Bibi, Hill, Abu! Hey nationalists! Hey settlers! Hey martyrs! Hey donors-to-the-cause! Hey talking heads! You're all wrong. You're all culpable. You're all criminally negligent. Let history reflect that as your true legacy.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Insensitive Cultural Observations: The Chinese Quirky Quant

In the interest of equal opportunity, I'll focus my next cultural-insensitivity at India's top "strategic competitor" ... and ours.

You'd never believe it by the example of Victim Two: The Chinese Quirky Quant.

To stereotype, scientists the world over have quirky tendencies. And Chinese people, to stereotype, are particularly good at choosing a group and flawlessly conforming to its norms.

The Quirky Quant is no exception in that regard. At all hours of the day and night, he will be hunched over a massive PC in an undesirable cubicle of a large tech slash financial company. The famous-er the better. The cube will have reams of paper strewn about among books on fancy maths. Well-worn books. It will be decorated with something red, something growing, and/or something proclaiming what Chinese zodiac animal-year we find ourselves in. The PC will have multiple monitors upon which will be a plethora of windows of code and diagrams suggesting an incredibly active powerful multi-tasking brain. WARNING: DO NOT try to understand what's on these screens. Your head will explode.

The specimen, himself, will have large and squarish glasses. The distance between his belt buckle and the open throat of his light blue button-down will be no more than 6 inches. Yes, his socks will be showing. They will be athletic socks. Preferably white.

You may think to yourself "how does he get away with wearing white socks to work like that?" The answer is that he wore the same white socks to his interview. At which he flubbed the behavioral part of the questioning, sat through the case study, and made generally unintelligible comments which were one part macerated grammar, two parts technical jargon, and three parts baffling accent. At which point the interviewers, from peers to execs, said to themselves ... wow - he must be smarter than me ... I should frown and nod a lot ... and then hire this dude.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Insensitive Cultural Observations: The Indian's Hot Beverage

Let's lighten things up a bit. This blog is smothered in heavy technocratic suggestions to the world's dirge-grimmest ills.

And I'm not a fan of the make-believe of political correctness.

And the world is, according to at least one walrus, flattening and overcrowding.

So since all flavors of humans are gonna be literally rubbing shoulders in the near future, let's get to know each other's idiosyncrasies. These are not criticisms. Just first-person observations and experiences extrapolated, generalized, and mixed with some assumptions.

Stereotype at your own risk.

Victim One: The Indian's Hot Beverage

Go to your local friendly chain of coffee purveyors in a large city's business district. While you order your eight bucks of triple-hot-hafcaf-mocha-latte-atte and scone, look around for the ever-present recent immigrant of India. He'll be the one with the sharp bouffant hairdo, the excessively shiny leather loafers, and the perfectly white button-down shirt. He'll bear the slight scent of the cigarette he inevitably smoked on the stroll from his office. If he has successfully procreated, he'll have a mustache.

He will curtly yet courteously order a "hot coffee" (if he's trying to identify with his adopted land) or a "hot tea" (if he's feeling particularly Indian). He will pay nonchalantly as though simple muscle memory guides his lax hand his wallet to dole out meaningless bits of money.

He will escort his beverage to the milk-and-sugar counter where he will begin the process.

Step 1: remove lid and insert stir stick
Step 2: blow on drink; stir
Step 3: attempt to slurp-sip; determine it too hot; stir
Step 4: blow on drink; stir
Step 5: lose self momentarily in a steamy Bombay Dream as the aroma enters nostrils; stir
Step 6: ponder milks and sugars; stir
Step 7: select a milk (pronounced with no "i" by the way) and pour a spot into beverage; stir
Step 8: blow on drink; stir
Step 9: attempt to slurp-sip; determine it too hot; stir
Step 10: blow on drink; stir
Step 11: attempt to slurp-sip; determine it too hot; stir
Step 12: blow on drink; stir
Step 13: slurp-sip; burn mouth; stir
Step 14: select a sugar and pour into beverage; stir
Step 15: blow on drink; stir
Step 16: lose self momentarily in a zen moment of abstract yet vivid color and movement as the aroma enters nostrils; stir
Step 17: slurp-sip; burn mouth; stir
Step 18: pour another spot of milk into beverage
Step 19: slurp-sip successfully; stir
Step 20: slurp-sip more deeply; stir; regain consciousness of the outside world
And just like that, he'll be gone. Back to his cubicle-mates upstairs.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Tawdry Tiger

Everybody loves a hero. I get that. Heroes do the impossible when we need it most. Heroes reaffirm our belief in humanity. Heroes set the example. Heroes motivate. Heroes save the asses of the meek.

Apparently, the only thing we love more than a hero is a fallen one. They reaffirm our fallibility. They set a nice low bar for everyone to stoop to. They make the meek feel not-so-bad. They're a backhanded self-esteem boost ... I assume. I don't get it.

To me, raking the country through Tiger's muck is disgustingly counter-productive. If someone craves tawdry drama, they should pick up a Jane Austen novel.

Strike that - they should feel dirty and trashy and embarrassed. C'mon people - we have better things to spend our brainwaves on than TM-goddamn-Z.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Sports Newspeak: Things Coaches, Athletes, and Announcers Shouldn't Say

Look - there are some people in sports who can do and say no wrong; Madden could read the Federalist Papers and it would be just as hilarious-slash-wtf as his MNF commentary. Cosell, Albert, Berman, Vitale, Carey - every guy has his list of classics who defined the trade. They can do no wrong. Nor can the old standards who are there to keep your focus on the sport, not the color commentary like Costas and Michaels. Nor can the big personalities like Deion, Tiki, and whoever shouts GOOOOOOOOOAL! On the other side of the mic are the golden-tongued coaches/managers (Holtz, Bowden, Torre, Riley to name just a few) who get away with saying the craziest things.

All those guys could make knitting interesting with the the force of their huge personalities.

This blog series is for everyone else. As the theory of multiple intelligences tells us, people can be really good at some things and not so good at others. There's no causal link between one type of intelligence and another. Athletes get recognized based on their physical "intelligence." Some are lucky enough to also have strong interpersonal and verbal "intelligences." Others ... not so much. Sadly, that doesn't stop many from trying to overcome stage fright with big words and fancy phases when presented with a mic. Often, they end up just parroting stuff they've heard other people say, even if it has little to do with the topic at hand ... and even if they don't really know what it means. At best, it's inane. So, why say it?

I suppose it's because we listen with baited breath to everything they say. We're all obsessed with these guys. Since the days of gladiators ... OK, probably genesis ... we have idolized and venerated physical prowess leading to victory. Unfortunately, we over-do it. Victory is not always directly ascribable to some dude's super-human aptitude.

Here's my own personal list of peeve phraseology that just makes us dumber, football edition:

Take Care of the Ball (v): The ability to not mess up. Just say "don't fumble."

Movement in Space (adv): Usually referring to an athlete's awareness or acuity in finding gaps in the opposing team's formations or plays. Just because the guy got a few yards doesn't necessarily mean he has some genetic mutation giving him radar-vision. So just say "good job running to a place where the opponent wasn't."

Good Feet (n): Another attempt to ascribe a specific success to an athlete's overall endowments. Just say "Good. He didn't fall down."

Hard-Fought (adj): Passive-agressive method of complimenting yourself via complimenting your opponent which can be used irrespective of whether your team won or lost. Just say "I think we're super."

I'm not Thinking About the Future... (ic): A thinly-veiled attempt to convince yourself that others believe you when you say that you're truly incentivized by the joy in the hearts of your fans, as opposed to the eight-figure contract your agent is negotiating or your mom says you deserve when you get to the pros.
Also: I'm just looking ahead to Sunday.
Also: All that matters is beating our next opponent.
Also: One game at a time.

Game-Time Decision (n): A way to avoid announcing a stupid decision you've made in the hope that, in retrospect, it will appear much smarter or will get forgotten.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Follow Up: I Keep Waiting for Somone to Say "Joke"

Stuff ain't cool unless it's secretive. See how it worked for Nixon? He was about as un-cool as they come until ... well, you know.

In that vein, the Nobel Peace Price nominees are kept secret for 50 years in order to avoid offending anyone ... and to respect Alfred's will, in which he ordered that the Peace Prize be the "coolest" of all prizes offered.

So we'll never know which deserving candidates really got snookered in this year's run-off for said prize. In lieu, more than one reader/friend (you know who you are) has suggested I come up with my own list. I'd never be so presumptuous as to assume I knew better ;-) but here are just a few names I might have offered if asked:

The US Military - How many lives HAS the US Military saved? Seriously, folks, is there any other entity on the planet who has actually DONE more to quell conflict? Every life is valuable - everyone is someone's son or mom. These guys are the only group on the planet willing to make the REALLY tough decisions about life - their own and those of others. If this is too big a group for ya, pick the current leaders - Gates, McChrystal, Mullen.

Ronald Reagan - Jeez, where to begin. Not only did he take the first steps to de-escalate the Cold War, he finished the job he started. He understood this had to be done from a position of power. Along the way, he left us with guiding principles that serve us well even today. "Trust but verify" would get us a lot further along with the Evil Leaders League than sending the Clinton twins for photo-ops.

The faceless, nameless, and thankless who dedicate their lives selflessly to promote peace one person at a time - Each of us knows one, but no one can see them all.

SOS Children’s Villages - In their own words, the "world's largest charity dedicated to orphaned and abandoned children"

Morgan Tsvangirai - Pick your metaphor. He put his life on the line. He went all-in. He took a leap of faith. He spoke truth to hideous power. He stood toe to toe ... and continues to do so in the most peaceful, calm manner possible.

Mordechai Vanunu - On a one-man lifelong crusade against military escalation.

Japan - For quietly fostering over 50 years of peace in Asia


Romeo Dallaire - Betcha don't know this one. Look 'em up.

Bono - If you don't know this one, your name must be Osama.


Wei Jingsheng - Oft mentioned as a candidate, and for good reason. Standing up to the People is beyond ballzy.

Helmut Kohl - Yeah, really. How quickly we forget. He accumulated and then spent incredible political capital to see through the peaceful reunification of a nation. Who'd have thought a commie police state could be turned into a beacon of democracy and capitalism in a mere decade? Who'd have thought West Germans could be convinced to effectively donate a quarter of their income for a decade or more to fund the reconstruction of the rusty East


Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Ian Paisley, Hugh Smyth, Tony Blair, and Bertie Ahern - One of the world's best examples of conflict resolution, de-escalation, de-militarization, empowerment, and legitimization. They dealt with an incredibly sticky wicket with patience and trust from the grassroots up. In a scary world, they proved that, at least in some cases, there IS a way out of terrorism ... err ... I mean 'troubles.'


Gates Foundation - I'll never understand why anyone considers it novel or controversial that development creates stability creates wealth creates peace. There are too many examples to list, yet the Gates foundations is one of the few major benefactors attempting to take whole economies from zero to a stable platform for development in order to facilitate true wealth (and thus peace) creation.

Safaricom, the M-PESA, and the Safaricom Foundation - Along the lines of the above, these guys are establishing the factors of development in order to let poverty-stricken people bootstrap themselves.

The 150 (and counting) Russian Journalists murdered for speaking truth to power

OFAC - Struggling, albeit bureaucratically, but fairly successfully to cut off the lifeblood of conflict.

Rodrigo Lara Bonilla - Colombian Minister of Justice who sacrificed his life in the fight against the collapse of his country into a cartel-owned narco-state.

Virgilio Barco Vargas, César Gaviria - Colombian politicians at a time when that was a decidedly ill-advised career choice.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

The Tathagata (aka Perfect One) realizes the middle way, eschewing both extremes.

This "crystallizes the Buddha's Nirvana-bound [Noble Eightfold] Path of moderation away from the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification and toward the practice of wisdom, morality and mental cultivation." (Thanks Wikipedia).

Guess The Perfect One doesn't live 'round here. Or at least I can't find him on the TeeVee anywhere.

I wonder where he might be. Where the heck's that path, anyway? Is that off A1A somewhere? Nah. More likely PCH. Here's what Google Karma Maps says:

Follow Signs to "Wisdom":
1. Right view

  • Law of Karma
  • Three Characteristics (nothing is permanent; we are not permanent; we are
    not much of anything at all)
  • Suffering (specifically, how to get rid of it)
  • 2. Right intention

  • The exertion of our own will to change
  • Take a Right at "Ethical Conduct":

    3. Right speech
  • Abstain from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter
  • 4. Right action
  • Don't act in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others
  • 5. Right livelihood
  • Don't engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings ... (I choose to practice the Middle Way on this one ... some yellowtail and a good rib eye every now and then give me moderation and balance and harmony or whatever ... veggies are people, too, you know)
  • Keep Straight onto "Concentration":
    6. Right effort
  • Always foster what would be good and useful to ones self and others in one's thoughts, words, and deeds, without a thought for the difficulty or weariness involved
  • 7. Right mindfulness
  • Constantly be alert to phenomena that affect the body and mind. Be mindful and deliberate, making sure not to act or speak due to inattention or forgetfulness
  • 8. Right concentration
  • Reach full concentration and meditative absorption. Cut off all defilements and reach self-awakening. During the practice of right concentration, one must investigate and verify their right view. In the process, right knowledge will arise, followed by right liberation.
  • What's that got to do with this blog?

    Pretty much everything.

    Tuesday, August 25, 2009

    I Don't Care if it's Legal or Not...


    For shame, poisonous people.

    Barney Frank has this one right.

    Wednesday, August 19, 2009

    When a Bad Reputation is Just Fine

    For a couple of weeks, I've been following a debate on the importance of reputation.

    In this entry on his NY Times blog, Paul Krugman argued that insurance companies don't give a rat's rear about their reputation or the satisfaction of their customers. He didn't say, but clearly was saying that he'd found yet another need for a governmental white knight. He explicitly launched snark at a series of Bryan Caplan Econlog posts which placed great importance on reputation in economic decisions. Bryan responded with this post, entertainingly including pirates and VDs in his case. At the end, he asked his audience:

    What is your favorite example where reputation doesn't make voluntary
    interaction work well? Is the problem demand, supply, or what?
    As moths drawn to fire, many responders couldn't help but focus on the pirates and sex. Others have thought up niche examples such as the "fall forward" effect of bad bosses with good employees. They needn't. His question can be answered with common real-world examples. My contribution to the debate is as follows:

    When doesn't it work? When there is:
    1. A very large, fragmented population of consumers, most making infrequent purchases
    2. A largely standardized product (ie: highly regulated or commoditized), leading to high inelasticity of demand to price ... causing price to be the major differentiator
    3. And a highly transparent market in terms of price

    Airlines, credit card companies, and banks are all great examples. Major players make little investment in customer retention, preferring instead to counter attrition with new customer acquisition, based largely on price, combined with creation of monopoly/oligopoly power (usually only local or short-lived). Any marketer in these industries will tell you that their key metric is the ratio of attrition to acquisition.

    Said concretely, an airline can sell confirmed seats to someone else, strand 300 customers in a layover airport overnight, make us stand in line for hours to get re-booked, pack each of us between sumo wrestlers on a tiny aircraft, over-charge us for a bottle of water, and then wreck your luggage. All the while, their demoralized, unionized employees will make scant few attempts to pay attention to, much less accomodate us customers to retain our business. The airline knows it can lure most of us back next time by simply offering the cheapest fare for the route and time of our next trip.

    Unsurprisingly, the story is much different in the international market where they have far less ability to secure those temporary monopolies and thus must compete on something other than price alone. Fly the same carrier domestically and internationally. You'll find it hard to believe it's the same company.

    Gee, I wonder if therein lie the seeds of a real answer for both Paul and Bryan.

    Friday, May 01, 2009

    So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish, Janet

    Thanks Big J, I feel better already:

    SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

    Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

    Okay, if combating terrorism isn't sexy enough for her undivided attention, well then she better get busy on all those trendy new topics she's just bitten off. Here's Time Mag's latest (2007) Top-10 list of those man-caused disasters she'll be busy saving us from:
    #1. Global Warming
    #2. Brazil Plane Crash
    #3. Southern California Forest Fires
    #4. Yangtze River Dolphin Extinction
    #5. Minneapolis Bridge Collapse
    #6. Utah Mine Collapse
    #7. North Korea Oil Pipe Explosion
    #8. Siberia Mine Explosion
    #9. Mozambique Munitions Explosion (huh?)
    #10. Congo Train Derailment
    I can see it now ... as a trendy ... um I mean goodwill ... gesture, we can send a US Coast Guard flotilla to babysit all those "functionally extinct" River Dolphins. As she'd know if she were properly versed in her Douglas Adams lit, the dolphins are gonna be fine. Humans are the ones in need of saving.

    Then again, if people in general were properly versed in Douglas Adams lit, they'd better understand lot of things.




    But I digress. Call me old-fashioned but I woulda thought these at least deserved a mention in Time's list:

    -Zimbabwe ("The collapse of Zimbabwe’s health system in 2008 is unprecedented in scale and scope ... as of December 2008, there were no functioning critical care beds in the public sector in Zimbabwe." )

    -Terrorism (Over 2500 dead in 2007 attacks alone)

    - Assassination (for example, Rafik Hariri in 2005, Benazir Bhutto in 2007, João Bernardo Vieira in 2009)

    - Collapse of Pakistan (no, this didn't start in 2009, or in 2007)

    - Deforestation and Biodiversity Collapse (Governments across South America and Africa turn a blind eye to the rape o the Amazon and Congo river basins. On the bright side it seems to be slowing there. The same cannot be said for Chinese and Southeast Asian decimation)

    (chart source: mongabay.com)

    - Genocide and war in lawless Sudan and Somalia

    - Nuclear proliferation (particularly thanks to this "winner" who recently walked free)

    - Oh yeah ... let's not forget the Evil Leaders League and their disregard of human rights and consequent deepening of poverty and hopelessness across nearly half the world's population and two-thirds of the alphabet ... from Afghanistan's Taliban to Congo's ... everybody ... to Iran's Ah-(throat-clearing noise)-madi-nejad to Russia's leader-whose-name-be-not-spoken-lest-I-end-up-in-a-gulag to the al-Saud plunderers of Arabia to Zimbabwe's Moogie. If properly provoked, I might even add the UN to the list, guilty of sitting idly by while this all continues year after year.

    Monday, January 26, 2009

    Surmounting Surmounted Stature

    At this very moment, at least a billion people (myself included) must be wondering what the hell happened to the US over the past fear years. Our global preeminence economically, politically, and militarily seems less impressive and less assured today. Of those billion people, sadly, many simply blame one man. The US President is powerful, but he's not all that and a bag of chips. Other people, even more sadly, blame the overall US way of life: our culture, our youth and exuberance, our taste for risk, our ADD, our wealth, our celebsessions, our fast food.

    To me, it's adolescent logic to argue that our strengths are our greatest weakness.

    The perception that the US has fallen is exaggerated by half, but clearly execution failures, spectacular to mundane, are all too pervasive. Have we just gone pear-shaped? Tits over tea kettle? Lost our mmmmmojo?

    One theory is that the rate of failure is unchanged, but in this age of information, they are spectacularized whereas century ago they would have been squelched.

    Another theory is that the US has run out of easy wins. Once, oil literally oozed out of the ground in downtown LA. Now, we install rigs in the harshest of locations and must poke miles down into the earth ... or just deal with the Devil. When electricity was first harnessed, options for exploitation were limitless. Gains were huge. Now we must conserve. Innovation used to happen in leaps and bounds as we thought up brand new things. Now it's a slow climb up a steep mountain, figuring out how to do the same old things incrementally cheaper, faster, better.

    Or perhaps a social evolution theory applies: Humanity was once, by necessity, survivalistic, decisive, ends-justify-means, hunter-killer, red meat, Western, wanderlust, and masculine. With innovation and social organization, that necessity has abated, being replaced by new imperatives: collaborative, change-averse, risk-averse, non-confrontational, agrarian, vegan, Asian and emasculated. We've evolved (socially) to a point where we believe that our best chance for survival lies not with our individual abilities, but is tied to our capability to integrate within, and enjoy the shared bounty of a larger society. In order to push the whole society to produce and achieve, each member must first endure the necessary overhead of "connecting" with the other members. To "connect" one must spend time communicating, documenting, justifying, persuading, organizing, planning, coordinating, motivating. I'll lump these societal requisites together under the term "connecting."

    As the theory goes, people now focus so much on "connecting" that they run out of time to actually produce. This sea change in the way of getting things done (or not) causes a black hole which swallows great people, ideas, laws, and businesses before they can create anything of value.

    If you don't like that theory, you could just say that we've just become rich, fat, and lazy. In his case, you must conclude that, just as the Romans, the Akkadians, the Hun, the Mali, the Egyptians, the Ottomans, the Spanish, and the English, so will the American empire fall.

    Alternatively, you could decide that we've consolidated power in the hands of a few, and left hoi polloi impotent to look after their own best interests.

    Or you could conclude that the human brain has found information overload, that life is just too fast, and that we've thus become irrational and random our their decisions.

    It doesn't much matter which justification you prefer. What I would like to figure out is where we go from here!

    Saturday, January 24, 2009

    Grumpy Old Man Quotes: Parenting

    You're a corporate monkey. Let me see if I can put it in terms you'll understand. When your kids are born, you're their manager. When they hit adolescence, you're fired! The goal from that point forward is to get re-hired as an independent consultant.

    Wednesday, December 31, 2008

    Governmental Fiat

    As quoted in George Will's recent Washington Post piece:

    "By acting without rhyme or reason, politicians have destroyed the rules of the game. There is no reason to invest, no reason to take risk, no reason to be prudent, no reason to look for buyers if your firm is failing. Everything is up in the air and as a result, the only prudent policy is to wait and see what the government will do next. The frenetic efforts of FDR had the same impact: Net investment was negative through much of the 1930s." - Russell Roberts of George Mason University
    Those who have had the misfortune of listening to me lately will find striking similarities in what Russell perceived about the '30s and what I've been lamenting about our current predicament.

    The US Dollar is fiat money ... backed not by gold, not by collateral, but by everyone's faith in the strength and continuity of the US Government. People expect the US to continue to achieve, deliver, and grow for the foreseeable future. Thus they are happy to hold Dollars. History has proven them right: the Dollar has survived world tumult and domestic shock, inflation and stagnation without ever having a crisis of confidence (=a severe drop in exchange rate).

    Underpinning this faith is stability. People trust the dollar, and it's issuer the United States, because both have historically been stable and predictable. The opposite, however, would be equally true: erratic moves by the US would cause suspicion, fear, and trepidation in people. Enough of that tumult, and people would lose faith in the dollar and the US economy. They'd flock out of Dollar-denominated assets in favor of other currencies (predominantly the Euro and Pound, with the Chinese Yuan as an interesting wild card). The US Dollar's exchange rate would tank ... not slide, not drift, but crash. This is a turn of events we cannot allow to occur.

    Whereas the Feds thought their bold moves would "jump start" the economy by fiat, their erratic decision-making over the past few months has had the opposite effect, suppressing any recovery precisely because the "boldness" has scared people. Ambiguity on the future of bankruptcy law and assistance is causing households, businesses, and banks to delay bankruptcy filings. Ambiguity on the financial bail-out is keeping would-be bank investors from taking advantage of these bargain-basement stock prices. Ambiguity about interest rates and inflation is making banks sit on their inflated reserves rather than lending. Sounds a lot like the 1930's, no?

    Rationally, those people are largely sitting on the sidelines waiting for things to calm down before they'll be willing to re-engage in economic activity. That's the generous view.

    The not-so-generous view is that people see a new level of precariousness in the US economy and a new level of unpredictability in the behavior of the US government. Rationally, they are revising their expectations about the US economy to be a little less rosy and are beginning to act based on that new view. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn and it will be far more difficult to re-interest these people in engaging in economic activity ... at least here in the US.

    History repeats. Again. Don't act so surprised.




    Yin/Yang Graphic credit: transaction.net
    Coffee Talk Cartoon Credit: wordsellinc.com
    Precarious Cartoon credit: Wide Dynamic Range

    Wednesday, November 19, 2008

    In the Words of Willie: "It's Been Rough and Rocky Travlin'..."

    ... but I'm finally standin' upright on the ground.
    And after takin' sev'ral readings,
    I'm surprised to find my mind's still fairly sound..."
    - Willie Nelson, Me and Paul

    Willie doesn't need a U of Chicago economics diploma hanging on the wall in his tour bus. He just knows good sense and how to not take things too seriously. I'm going to borrow his words above to explain what is essentially a very simple economics concept. Stay tuned.

    As I bemoaned in a recent blog, talking heads everywhere are proclaiming the death of the free market, but NOT the death of capitalism and NOT a turn toward socialism (that would be politically unwise to say). In saying this crap, they show their lack of understanding of economics. A free market is a necessary prerequisite of the capitalism model because this is how prices are determined ... and prices are the uniform measure which ensures capital is allocated most efficiently ... and efficient capital allocation ensures that the most "value" is wrung from every bit of capital. This is capitalism' single goal.

    • It's goal is NOT fairness (Thomas Friedman said it himself on Meet the Press this week: "Fairness is not on the table anymore ... we either have systemic risk or find a way out of this mess.")
    • It's goal is NOT equality (actually, perfect equality and perfect capitalism are completely incompatible, as forced equality kills the incentive mechanism)
    • It's goal is NOT stability (and that's where Willie's words come in. Free-market capitalism is great at achieving its goal, but it does not guarantee a smooth or direct path. This is not a failing of the model, it is a result of the imperfection of the human mind in making decisions)

    Capitalism focuses on what it's good at (the economy) and leaves social topics to social constructs. Advocates of other models such as socialism and communism may be reluctant to admit as much, but the ultimate goal of these models, in pure form, is the same.

    The only real difference between the models is simply who makes the decisions.

    Socialism presumes that government officials are in the best position to make decisions for the common people, and that their goal must be equality. Our economy is so bogglingly complex that, for this model to work, government must be comprised of a cadre of elite, selflessly compassionate intelligentsia with perfect foresight and super-human decision-making abilities.

    Until a doting, grandfatherly HAL 9000 emerges (and it's already 7 years late!), free-market capitalists believe that it takes the entire population of the economy to get decisions right. Leveraging 4 billion years of evolution (or 6 days of creation, which ever you prefer), capitalism makes use of each person's instinctive desire to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. Each person is empowered to constantly make the decisions that are best for themselves based on the information at hand.

    Each owner of capital (including the human capital of our own labor and intelligence) is empowered to constantly make decisions about the best use of that capital in order to maximize the NPV of future profits from it. This NPV is represented by the current price of the capital. If the owner "prices" his capital at $1,000, but a smart entrepreneur thinks of a better use and "prices" it at $1,200, then the owner should be ecstatic to sell it to the entrepreneur at any price above $1,000. Done a trillion times a day, such interaction maximizes the overall output and value of the entire economy. In short, decision-making is decentralized to the lowest possible level, not hoarded in Washington.

    Progressive Lefties will immediately smell a rat here. This process does nothing to ensure that all the pie slices are equal. They're right. Capitalism simply grows the entire pie, and in doing so makes EVERY slice bigger. Bill Gates' decisions vastly grew his slice of the pie, both in absolute terms and in relation to everyone else's. He benefited unequally from his own success. That's the incentive mechanism of the economic model.

    As a side-effect, the whole pie got bigger, and that has benefited even the poorest among us (see my recent blog on poverty for more on this) but social concepts like equality, fairness, stability, or poverty eradication should be handled via social constructs. Asking an economic model to address social goals creates an unnatural and unstable conflict of interest. To impose these goals on capitalism would require convincing every member of the economy to make decisions which do not maximize their own well-being. On the other hand, the concentration of power required by socialism, creates an much more practical way of imposing these goals on a populace without their consent.

    Is that really what we want? If not, we need to put our politicians back in line.

    Sunday, November 16, 2008

    Putting Our Economy in Context

    Granted, we're in a recession. Granted, times are hard for a lot of people. However, before we undertake sea changes in our economic system, perhaps we should pause long enough to put our current pain into the context of the two centuries of incredible wealth our system has created.

    And when I say wealth, I'm not just talking about the wealthy.

    Most governments define poverty as the amount of yearly income necessary to pay for a "get-along" basket of goods and services (they call it "standard budget"). The US government's current number is about $10,500 for an individual (for households, the per-person number decreases with the size of the household due to shared expenses).


    This buys a person a "basket" of goods and services something like the following (numbers averaged nationally):

    • a nutritionally-adequate diet ($300 a month buys you a more-than ample 3,000 calories a day, even without food stamps)
    • housing ($400 a month gets you a 20'x20' space even without public housing assistance)
    • transportation ($75 covers average monthly bus/subway fares)
    • everything else ($110 a month)

    It's not a lot, to be sure, but people at this income level do not go to bed hungry or cold. They can count on the safety of an effective police and justice apparatus enforcing the rule of law. They are able to buy food not available locally, or in the current season. They are able to eat meat daily. In fact, poor children today grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than World War II GIs. If they get sick or injured, they can count on modern healthcare and a social safety net. They can reasonably expect to live past the age of 70.

    On average, they work less than 40 hours a week, and do not need to fear negligent abuse or injury at work. Other activities necessary to support life consume less than 20 hours a week, leaving 52 waking hours for leisure. Per the US Census bureau, the average home owned by persons classified as poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

    According to several studies (including this leftish one and this rightish one), well over half of people at that income level have air conditioning, at least 2 TVs, a microwave, a cell phone AND a home phone, and a car if they don't live in a major metropolitan area. They take a one-week vacation each year, and buy enough alcohol to get drunk every two weeks.

    Moreover, there are a number of assistance avenues which help these individuals increase their standard of living from government direct assistance to religious/charitable programs to (most commonly) family assistance. It is quite common for working-age children, students, and retirees to live with family members or roommates during their (temporary) periods of low income.

    Now visualize the entire history of civilization on the face of a clock, with today as 12:00. Roll that clock back a mere 15 minutes (=250 years in real time) and examine the standard of living, not of the poorest, but of the average citizen. He would, on average live 35 years, all of which within 100 miles of his birthplace. He would have had only vocational education, no voice in regional or national politics. He would have enjoyed no social safety net, instead seeking health care from an alchemist or priest who likely would have tried to bleed or exorcise demons out of him. Half of his children would not have seen adulthood, often due to diseases all but erradicated today.

    His occupation would have most likely been manual labor. His home would have been heated by open fire or stove, using wood he chopped. Light would have been provided by candles he made. Food would have been whatever he had recently grown, hunted, preserved, or traded for. Most often it would have given him diarrhea. Electricity, phones, TVs, movies, antibiotics, antibiotics, refrigeration, food preservatives, and cars would have been unimaginable.

    Move the civilization clock to 11:55pm (=1900AD) and over 80% of the world's population (primarily in Africa and Asia) still would have had a not dissimilar standard of living.

    I could go on, but I'm sure I've already killed the horse. Poverty is a relative concept. Thanks to the amazing wealth creation of our most powerful economies over the last 100 years, the poorest among us is far wealthier and presumably lives a better life than 99% of the humans who have ever walked the face of the earth, as the following excellent chart from The Futurist Blog shows: Additional Reading:
    http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/elassmiv.htm