MTV was made possible by the advent of cable television, just as YouTube was born out of the Internet. The idea was to show music videos from popular artists. They were like a radio station for videos. But ratings didn’t hold up. They decided to add shows not related to music at all, and some that one could maybe stretch a connection to the music world to, but fewer and fewer actual music videos. It looked like that particular form of entertainment was dead.
Not so fast. Here comes Vevo and YouTube. Now, not only can you watch music videos on your phone, computer, TV, laptop, whatever, but you get to pick the artists, songs, genres, and compile them in playlists with no annoying DJ breaking in to tell you about the time he/she met Beck. Yes you have the occasional commercial, but you have the option of skipping it most of the time, or you can pay a premium and have no commercials at all. Not only did music videos not die, they’re thriving.
Sears and Roebuck was once a place you could go and look at a lot of great products. Some were for sale, but most were on display so that you could evaluate and hopefully order them. They also did catalog sales. They had great products. So much so that people were willing to order them and wait for days or weeks for the product to arrive. They gradually got away from the catalog/showroom model and expanded store floor space to accommodate inventory. They got into the same game as Walmart and Target and took a beating. It remains to be seen if Sears will survive. Their rival in the catalog/showroom retail biz also crashed and burned; Montgomery Wards. The business model just seems obsolete.
But wait, along comes Amazon. Amazon is the ultimate catalog store. Delivery is faster, but the model is much the same, and as Walmart, Amazon, Target and others battle it out, it’s becoming clear that the future of retail is a hybrid that includes a physical showroom/pick up location as well as online catalog of quality products. The catalog/showroom model is not obsolete, in fact, it’s probably the future.
There are other examples. The way Kodak went down in flames you’d think nobody takes pictures any more. Nothing could be further from he truth. So where did these companies take a wrong turn? I believe a key factor is consumer choice.
Behavior studies have shown that people don’t like to be restricted (most people I should say). When presented with limitation, they tend to push back against it. In the case of MTV, yes they offered music videos of all genres, but you didn’t get to pick the time, the genre or the video. You had to watch what they were playing. When a model came along that allowed the user to choose, people flocked to it. In the case of Sears, bringing inventory into physical stores necessitates limiting choice. It’s also expensive when you’re selling large, heavy items like appliances and tools. Online retailers can offer a huge selection of products from countless different companies. They can ship to your house or to a store for pick up. Consumers can’t get enough of it. Kodak was very late to the game in digital imaging. People love taking and sharing pictures, but evidently, that’s not how Kodak defined their business. They thought they were in the film and camera business. Oops.
The take away is that people’s interests haven’t changed so much as the products and services available to address them has. As a business owner or manager, stay alert to new choices in the market. Pay attention to your competitors. Don’t get defensive, get inquisitive. Is there a different, better way to provide what you provide? Are you sure you’re clear about what it is you provide? Why do customers come to you? How can you do it better? If you don’t find the answers to these questions, somebody else will. Viva la market.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
The AI Revolution is coming, and it's going to be cool.
You've probably heard the dire warnings about Aritificial Intelligence displacing a lot of jobs or even taking over the world.
AI is going to cause market disruption, as it introduces amazing new levers of productivity and saves countless man hours of labor. That doesn't mean opportunities for employment and entrepreneurship are going to dry up. In fact, it's more likely they'll multiply.
AI will allow your devices to update and optimize themselves, without the need for additional software, patches or even a connection to the Internet. Your phone's operating system, for example, may be the same as everyone else's when it leaves the factory. But after a short time of use, it will adjust to any issues that specifically come up for you as you use it. It will optimize itself based on the way you use it. It will identify and take out malware on its own. Of course you can always reset to factory defaults, but in the meantime, your phone's operating system will be unique, just like you.
There could also be software forums that are actual software forums, literally. You would opt in to a cloud based service and your devices software could share information and experiences with similar software that may have encountered similar issues with more or less success. They could exchange bits of software like bacteria exchange genetic information. Yes, your devices software could have their own social pages.
That's just scratching the surface. It will get even weirder, I'm sure. But is it anything to worry about? On the contrary. It's something to get excited about. Computers can process massive amounts of data in short periods of time. They can do so objectively, without rest or emotion, and they can compare results of processes to set goals, then make adjustments according to whether the most recent operation was more or less successful than the one before. Calculations and problem solving in areas that can be boiled down to math problems is an area that humans will not be able to beat computers at, and that's okay.
Computers and smart devices execute for the user. It is the user that defines the task and sets the parameters (defines what success means). You'll want to set the bar ridiculously high. If your device actually meets your goal, it'll stop improving, so you want to make the target impossibly ideal, or very close. What you can do that your device cannot is change the goals, add goals, subtract goals or tasks, redefine what success means in one area or another, and you don't have to have a rational explanation for any of it. Your device exists to help you get what you want. Your role is to figure out what you want.
We can make highly intelligent machines, but we cannot give them free will. Will they ever develop free will? I don't know, but free will is more than looking human and mimicking human body language and voice inflection. You'll know it's time to worry when your autonomous transportation pod decides it doesn't want to cart you around anymore, runs away from home and gets a job delivering oranges cross country for the black market. Unless/until that happens, it may be time to start thinking along the lines of "If I didn't have to do anything, what would I do?" That's the real promise of AI. Bring it on!
AI is going to cause market disruption, as it introduces amazing new levers of productivity and saves countless man hours of labor. That doesn't mean opportunities for employment and entrepreneurship are going to dry up. In fact, it's more likely they'll multiply.
AI will allow your devices to update and optimize themselves, without the need for additional software, patches or even a connection to the Internet. Your phone's operating system, for example, may be the same as everyone else's when it leaves the factory. But after a short time of use, it will adjust to any issues that specifically come up for you as you use it. It will optimize itself based on the way you use it. It will identify and take out malware on its own. Of course you can always reset to factory defaults, but in the meantime, your phone's operating system will be unique, just like you.
There could also be software forums that are actual software forums, literally. You would opt in to a cloud based service and your devices software could share information and experiences with similar software that may have encountered similar issues with more or less success. They could exchange bits of software like bacteria exchange genetic information. Yes, your devices software could have their own social pages.
That's just scratching the surface. It will get even weirder, I'm sure. But is it anything to worry about? On the contrary. It's something to get excited about. Computers can process massive amounts of data in short periods of time. They can do so objectively, without rest or emotion, and they can compare results of processes to set goals, then make adjustments according to whether the most recent operation was more or less successful than the one before. Calculations and problem solving in areas that can be boiled down to math problems is an area that humans will not be able to beat computers at, and that's okay.
Computers and smart devices execute for the user. It is the user that defines the task and sets the parameters (defines what success means). You'll want to set the bar ridiculously high. If your device actually meets your goal, it'll stop improving, so you want to make the target impossibly ideal, or very close. What you can do that your device cannot is change the goals, add goals, subtract goals or tasks, redefine what success means in one area or another, and you don't have to have a rational explanation for any of it. Your device exists to help you get what you want. Your role is to figure out what you want.
We can make highly intelligent machines, but we cannot give them free will. Will they ever develop free will? I don't know, but free will is more than looking human and mimicking human body language and voice inflection. You'll know it's time to worry when your autonomous transportation pod decides it doesn't want to cart you around anymore, runs away from home and gets a job delivering oranges cross country for the black market. Unless/until that happens, it may be time to start thinking along the lines of "If I didn't have to do anything, what would I do?" That's the real promise of AI. Bring it on!
Monday, March 23, 2015
Are you Feeling Under Appreciated?
It’s a common ailment that afflicts employees and self-employed business owners alike. You feel like your boss or your customers don’t appreciate your hard work and effort enough. It can cause one to become resentful, bitter, angry, stressed out. Don’t ignore it. Fix it.
Now if you’re making good money and you’re still feeling under appreciated, you’ve got a different issue. But for most, under appreciated means under compensated. The thing that makes you bitter, resentful, stressed out, is the idea of having to ask for more money, or a promotion, or having to explain that you raised your rates/prices to a regular customer. Those feelings are as normal as they are counter-productive.
“But they should see how hard I’m working. I shouldn’t have to ask.” Take it up with the Master of the Universe next time you see him/her. In the meantime, deal with reality. If you want more compensation, you’re going to have to ask for it. I know that’s much easier said than done, especially if you’re not accustomed to it. Don’t be afraid to practice on a friend or family member or even in front of a mirror.
It’s only really tough the first time. It get’s easier. After all, you’re only asking for what you believe is fair. That’s quite reasonable. Of course you’ll meet resistance. Nobody wants to pay more, but if you’re dealing with reasonable people, you can usually reach a reasonable solution. If you don’t, start shopping around (caveat: don’t lay down ultimatums like “I’ll quit” unless you are thoroughly ready to do just that). I can’t guarantee that your boss will give you a raise when you ask for it, but I can guarantee they’ll start thinking about it as soon as you ask for it, and in most cases, if you don’t ask, they’re going to be very comfortable assuming you’re fine with what you’re getting.
As for the business owner, if you’re working all day, every day and still not making what you think you should, you’re probably under-priced. Think of the area where you feel most “under appreciated” and look at what you’re charging vs what it might cost elsewhere. Maybe you have room to raise your price/rates but you’re worried about losing customers. Well, think about who you might lose. You might lose the customers who expect you to knock yourself out at below market rates. So what? Good riddance. You’ll find that losing those kinds of customers frees up your time and attention for good customers that don’t expect you to work for free.
The important thing to note is that negative emotions like anger, bitterness, resentment, anxiety, stress, frustration, serve no useful long-term purpose. For the very short term, they can be red flags that something is out of whack in your environment. Tend to it. Wallowing in negative emotion is a productivity killer. Sitting around moping about being under appreciated can be a financial death spiral. Turn the negative into a positive. Write down all the reasons that you can justify better compensation, get excited about receiving it and go make it happen.
Now if you’re making good money and you’re still feeling under appreciated, you’ve got a different issue. But for most, under appreciated means under compensated. The thing that makes you bitter, resentful, stressed out, is the idea of having to ask for more money, or a promotion, or having to explain that you raised your rates/prices to a regular customer. Those feelings are as normal as they are counter-productive.
“But they should see how hard I’m working. I shouldn’t have to ask.” Take it up with the Master of the Universe next time you see him/her. In the meantime, deal with reality. If you want more compensation, you’re going to have to ask for it. I know that’s much easier said than done, especially if you’re not accustomed to it. Don’t be afraid to practice on a friend or family member or even in front of a mirror.
It’s only really tough the first time. It get’s easier. After all, you’re only asking for what you believe is fair. That’s quite reasonable. Of course you’ll meet resistance. Nobody wants to pay more, but if you’re dealing with reasonable people, you can usually reach a reasonable solution. If you don’t, start shopping around (caveat: don’t lay down ultimatums like “I’ll quit” unless you are thoroughly ready to do just that). I can’t guarantee that your boss will give you a raise when you ask for it, but I can guarantee they’ll start thinking about it as soon as you ask for it, and in most cases, if you don’t ask, they’re going to be very comfortable assuming you’re fine with what you’re getting.
As for the business owner, if you’re working all day, every day and still not making what you think you should, you’re probably under-priced. Think of the area where you feel most “under appreciated” and look at what you’re charging vs what it might cost elsewhere. Maybe you have room to raise your price/rates but you’re worried about losing customers. Well, think about who you might lose. You might lose the customers who expect you to knock yourself out at below market rates. So what? Good riddance. You’ll find that losing those kinds of customers frees up your time and attention for good customers that don’t expect you to work for free.
The important thing to note is that negative emotions like anger, bitterness, resentment, anxiety, stress, frustration, serve no useful long-term purpose. For the very short term, they can be red flags that something is out of whack in your environment. Tend to it. Wallowing in negative emotion is a productivity killer. Sitting around moping about being under appreciated can be a financial death spiral. Turn the negative into a positive. Write down all the reasons that you can justify better compensation, get excited about receiving it and go make it happen.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
The “both sides” trap
How many times have you heard news organizations say they’re giving you “both sides” of a story? Or heard them introduce a second guest as “here to present the other side”? That’s good right? That’s fair and balanced. Wrong. It’s a trap.
It’s a trap because it leads you to believe that there are only two sides. There’s the side defined and forwarded by one major political party, and the side defined and promoted by the other major political party. That’s it. You are not to consider anything else, or if you do, it should at least be something between those two positions. Nothing outside is even worthy of entertaining.
This view serves the parties and their friends and financiers quite well. Everyone else…not so much. Not only are there just two sides to any given issue, according to most news outlets, the only issues worth discussing are those put forth by the two major parties. If you do bring up another issue, you should at least discuss it in the context of how it might affect each of the two parties. Nothing else matters.
It doesn’t really matter which party you choose. The defenders of the status quo are just as happy to have you love Party A and hate Party B as they are the reverse. As long as you conform to the two points of view system, the game still works.
How do you know if you’ve fallen into the trap? Do you discuss issues or parties? When you argue politics are you talking about the proper role of government in a given situation, or are you talking about politicians? Are you able to have a discussion about politics and/or world events without invoking the words "liberal", "conservative" or referencing a political party or politician? When you post an idea or statement that you agree with does it tend to have a picture of a politician attached to it? Do you take headlines and hearsay as fact when they conform to the “our guys good, your guys bad” scenario or do you actually do objective research before repeating accusations and stereotypes?
If you find you have fallen into the trap, take heart. There is a cure. Think for yourself. It’s really that simple. Remember, nobody on this planet has any more an idea what the heck we’re all doing here than you do. The smartest, richest, most popular people on Earth are every bit as clueless as you are. Naturally they behave as if they're on a higher plane of enlightenment. That illusion keeps them fat and happy. You don’t need them to tell you how to be, who to be or what to think. Think and do for yourself, but not because I said so. You’ll have to get there on your own.
It’s a trap because it leads you to believe that there are only two sides. There’s the side defined and forwarded by one major political party, and the side defined and promoted by the other major political party. That’s it. You are not to consider anything else, or if you do, it should at least be something between those two positions. Nothing outside is even worthy of entertaining.
This view serves the parties and their friends and financiers quite well. Everyone else…not so much. Not only are there just two sides to any given issue, according to most news outlets, the only issues worth discussing are those put forth by the two major parties. If you do bring up another issue, you should at least discuss it in the context of how it might affect each of the two parties. Nothing else matters.
It doesn’t really matter which party you choose. The defenders of the status quo are just as happy to have you love Party A and hate Party B as they are the reverse. As long as you conform to the two points of view system, the game still works.
How do you know if you’ve fallen into the trap? Do you discuss issues or parties? When you argue politics are you talking about the proper role of government in a given situation, or are you talking about politicians? Are you able to have a discussion about politics and/or world events without invoking the words "liberal", "conservative" or referencing a political party or politician? When you post an idea or statement that you agree with does it tend to have a picture of a politician attached to it? Do you take headlines and hearsay as fact when they conform to the “our guys good, your guys bad” scenario or do you actually do objective research before repeating accusations and stereotypes?
If you find you have fallen into the trap, take heart. There is a cure. Think for yourself. It’s really that simple. Remember, nobody on this planet has any more an idea what the heck we’re all doing here than you do. The smartest, richest, most popular people on Earth are every bit as clueless as you are. Naturally they behave as if they're on a higher plane of enlightenment. That illusion keeps them fat and happy. You don’t need them to tell you how to be, who to be or what to think. Think and do for yourself, but not because I said so. You’ll have to get there on your own.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Friday, December 26, 2014
The real impact of The Interview
Normally, a big name movie will run its course in theaters and then make its way to on-demand cable, Netflix, Red Box and the like. I had always thought of Google and Youtube’s video services as places to go for old stuff if you can’t find it anywhere else, or funny home made clips. But when the big movie theater companies refused to run The Interview as planned on Christmas Day, they may have put a spotlight on their more convenient, less expensive competition.
SONY announced that due to threats from hackers and the government of North Korea, they would allow theaters to opt out of their obligation to show the movie as scheduled on December 25th. It had been scheduled to open on about 3,000 screens nationwide. They all took SONY up on the offer and cancelled the showings. It looked like the movie may never be released. Then some independent movie houses stepped up. The first to announce they’d be showing the movie was the Alamo Draft House in Colorado. A few hours later, SONY announced it would make the movie available to Google Play, YouTube and Xbox Video for streaming. Other independent movie houses came on board and ultimately the movie actually found it’s way to the public a day earlier than planned, and although it only played on a few hundred theater screens nationwide, the independent movie houses were sold out and likely will be, at least through the weekend.
This was a double gift for both online streaming services and the independent theaters. The movie got an enormous amount of free press by igniting an international debate over hacking and freedom of expression. Many people are motivated to watch it simply because someone has tried to stop them from doing so. And by taking themselves out of the game, the major movie houses made the independents and online streaming the exclusive venues for people who wanted to see it.
So on Christmas Eve, I went to Google Play on my Samsung Note II, rented the movie and streamed it to my TV using the Chromecast. I was not alone. It was the biggest seller for both YouTube and Google Play that day. Now that I’ve used the service once, I’m far more likely to do so in the future. I don’t know how many movies will be released directly to such a service, but even as a standard rental, it’s not a bad deal. For $5.99 you can watch it as many times as you want in a 48 hour period (we watched it again when my son came over the next day). If you’d like to buy a movie from one of these services, it’s stored in the Cloud, so you don’t have to keep track of a DVD or Blu Ray disc and you can pull it up anywhere you have access to the Internet.
Streaming movies was well on its way, with or without The Interview and the controversy surrounding it. But the episode surely accelerated the roll out. I don’t expect brick and mortar theaters to go away, but I’d bet they’re going to have to step up their game again. The big theater companies don’t have as much clout as they may have thought. Studios and consumers have real alternatives. Even within the streaming movie space, Google, YouTube and Xbox have raised their profile against Netflix and iTunes (who did not run the movie). It will be interesting to see who adapts to the changing market place the best. Who will be the next Netflix and who will be the next Blockbuster? Viva la competition!
Friday, December 19, 2014
All “rewards” programs are not created equal
I was in a store the other day, making what I thought was an $8.99 purchase, according to my quick look at the sign on the shelf. When I got to the register I was surprised to see it ring up at over $15. I thought the clerk had made a mistake. “Oh, that’s the rewards program price.” he said “Do you want to sign up. It only takes a minute.” I was agitate, in a hurry, and really didn’t like the idea although I wasn’t exactly sure why at the time. I paid the $15+ and vowed to shop elsewhere in the future.
So what’s the big deal? Lots of companies have “rewards” programs. It helps them offer you products you like and you get great deals right? No, not really. I don’t believe that an almost $6 difference in a $15 product is the difference between a normal mark up and a sale. Obviously you are paying a steep penalty for not participating in their data collection program. That’s what bothered me about it. It’s not really a reward. It’s extortion.
Not every “rewards” program works this way. For example, I can swipe my Lowes card or not. It doesn’t change the price of anything. It just records my purchase to the benefit of both Lowes and myself. They get information on customer habits. I don’t have to worry about finding a receipt if I should have to return something. Better still, if I decide not to use the card one time, or I forgot it, or it just slips my mind, I don’t get reamed. Auto Zone has a similar program, although after several purchases over $20 you do get a coupon or discount. Office Max’s card also does not make you pay a jacked up price for not having one, but you will get lots of email offers if you do have one.
I’m not really swayed by the discounts and rewards because ultimately, they’ll get what they need to get. You lower the price on this, raise the price on that. You can’t sell dimes for five cents each and make it up in volume. It’s a head game. I know it’s an effective head game, but I prefer the honest approach. Give me you best deal. If you need more information, we can work something out that doesn’t piss me off.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Saturday, September 20, 2014
In the end, there can be only one.
Collectivism, regardless of the flavor (communism, socialism, progressivism, wealth redistribution, social justice) ultimately can not work without total government control of resources, how they're produced, when they're produced and who gets how much. They only differ in how they get from our current situation to the one they're all driving at. So if someone tells you they support your individual rights and freedoms, but also support one of the above, they either don't understand what they are saying, or they're lying. That's not a political statement. That's a fact. I'm not presuming to tell you which you should prefer, but you can't have both liberty and collectivism. Eventually, you're going to have to make a choice, or the choice will be made for you.
What is "Community"
Community is a word you hear a lot. It's invoked by politicians and speakers frequently, every day. What does it actually mean though?
Community is a feeling of commonality; a sense of being a part of a group; a common bond. It could stem from geographic location, common interest, family, group membership, affinity for a particular kind of music, hobby, sport. It can stem from almost anything multiple individuals have in common.
The term "community" can also refer to everyone who shares the feeling of community based on the same thing, i.e. "the skateboarding community". Often it's a combination of many things and each individual can feel a part of numerous communities.
The important thing to keep in mind is that it originates as a feeling. It can be a good feeling. It can be an efficiency as well. One can direct messages at a particular community (target marketing). One can get questions answered more quickly and reliably if one knows which community to access for help.
It's important to note that neither feeling nor the group is a person. Community has no property ownership, no vote, no rights. How could it? You can't speak directly to "community". It's not legally liable for anything, anywhere, ever. The individuals within it may be, but "community" is not.
Community can be enjoyed, employed, reinforced, amplified, but it should never be served. The degree to which you indulge in any community is entirely your business, but you owe "community" nothing. Don't worry. It's not a person. It has no feelings. It wont be upset with you if/when you choose not to engage, and it will still be there if/when you decide to go back.
Fun experiment. Try to be aware whenever you hear someone use the word "community". See how many times it's used in the context of asking or suggesting that you give up some of your time and/or money.
Community is a feeling of commonality; a sense of being a part of a group; a common bond. It could stem from geographic location, common interest, family, group membership, affinity for a particular kind of music, hobby, sport. It can stem from almost anything multiple individuals have in common.
The term "community" can also refer to everyone who shares the feeling of community based on the same thing, i.e. "the skateboarding community". Often it's a combination of many things and each individual can feel a part of numerous communities.
The important thing to keep in mind is that it originates as a feeling. It can be a good feeling. It can be an efficiency as well. One can direct messages at a particular community (target marketing). One can get questions answered more quickly and reliably if one knows which community to access for help.
It's important to note that neither feeling nor the group is a person. Community has no property ownership, no vote, no rights. How could it? You can't speak directly to "community". It's not legally liable for anything, anywhere, ever. The individuals within it may be, but "community" is not.
Community can be enjoyed, employed, reinforced, amplified, but it should never be served. The degree to which you indulge in any community is entirely your business, but you owe "community" nothing. Don't worry. It's not a person. It has no feelings. It wont be upset with you if/when you choose not to engage, and it will still be there if/when you decide to go back.
Fun experiment. Try to be aware whenever you hear someone use the word "community". See how many times it's used in the context of asking or suggesting that you give up some of your time and/or money.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
The Internet of Wheels
Whether it’s people, cargo, mail or dry cleaning, moving it from place to place is often the most expensive part of any project or endeavor.
Now despite the best efforts of some municipalities, lobbying groups and even countries, ride sharing operations like Uber, Lyft and others may be on the verge of breaking down that wall.
One of the reasons logistics is so expensive is the barriers to entry in many markets. In many places you’re supposed to have a special license, permit or very expensive medallion to operate a “taxi” service. Competing with the US Postal service in mail delivery is technically illegal. There are myriad rules and regulations that come along with operating a courier service as well. Some of these barriers are well intentioned, some not so much. None took into account the model presented by these relatively new companies.
The new model would not be possible without the Internet and mobile apps. The company recruits drivers, who provide their own vehicles, determine their own hours (so long as they’re within window the company specifies) and agree to abide by company standards as far as the vehicle, service and rates. The company (Lyft, Uber or other) handles payment processing, dispatch and marketing. It’s a great way for individuals to make some extra cash, or even work full time. Now they’re getting into courier and errand running service as well. Other models simply use apps to connect drivers to riders and let them work out the terms on their own. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) even has its own program called Vanpool. From the website:
“Vanpooling provides an alternative to carpooling and public transportation by offering options on traveling by van. Vanpools are most successful when 6-15 passengers that live and work within a small radius of each other commute together.
Vanpools can be owned by the driver, they can be sponsored by an employer or a third-party program sponsored by a Public agency such as Mountain Metro Rides, VanGo or Way to Go are available.”
This could be a breakthrough in logistics similar to what the Internet was to information. Imagine having several million independent drivers, always at the ready. You could call and have something picked up within a few minutes to be taken wherever you need it to go. If the control freaks can let it evolve, it could lead to much higher efficiencies in the delivery of everything from letters, to pizza to merchandise, lumber, trash/debris hauling; essentially we could see the same type of organic network configuration development that we’ve seen with the Internet and to a lesser extent, the power grid.
Naturally, the folks who have a vested interest in the status quo will continue to block such efforts in the name of public safety and consumer protection. Hopefully, entrepreneurs and public demand will push back hard enough to bowl them over.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
The forest and the trees
We are definitely living in interesting times. It can be hard to see that from here though. We’re too close to it. We can’t see the forest. We’re too close to the trees.
Consider the whole Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, et al, explosion is only a few years old. Three D printers are cranking out body parts. There actually is a flying car on the market. The stock markets continue to hit new highs as some companies continue to reach record profit levels.
In average Joe land, things aren’t quite so fantastic. Unemployment (real unemployment) is still quite high, median income is dropping, grocery prices continue to rise as the official government position is that inflation doesn’t exist. Labor participation rates (percentage of people who can work that actually do work) are at historic lows.
What’s going on? Are these the best of times or the worst of times? These are transitional times. The people, by way of their elected government, have made hiring people more expensive, paper work heavy, lawsuit prone and generally less attractive than ever before. At the same time, technology has enabled companies like Google to earn more than most country’s GDP with just a handful of employees. Meanwhile, the people (again through their representative in government) have expanded the safety net, which makes the unemployed less likely to take very low paying jobs.
Where do we go from here? Eventually, there will be enough “gotta have it” new stuff coming to market that people are going to want to do whatever it takes to earn the money to buy it. They’ll also vote in more business friendly representatives to make getting the goodies easier. The economy will soar to new heights and whoever is in charge at the time will be hailed as an economic genius.
Stossel is right, things have been getting better over time if you take the long, or even mid-range view. It’s just more fun and better for ratings to focus on what’s wrong I guess. In fairness, you can’t let what’s wrong hang around too long, so it does deserve some attention. But, I think the only thing that could really do us long term harm is if we were no longer free. We’re still free enough to make mistakes, make adjustments and make new mistakes that in the long run, we get a lot of things right, even if we don’t realize it for a while. When we lose that ability to central control and force, game over.
Consider the whole Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, et al, explosion is only a few years old. Three D printers are cranking out body parts. There actually is a flying car on the market. The stock markets continue to hit new highs as some companies continue to reach record profit levels.
In average Joe land, things aren’t quite so fantastic. Unemployment (real unemployment) is still quite high, median income is dropping, grocery prices continue to rise as the official government position is that inflation doesn’t exist. Labor participation rates (percentage of people who can work that actually do work) are at historic lows.
What’s going on? Are these the best of times or the worst of times? These are transitional times. The people, by way of their elected government, have made hiring people more expensive, paper work heavy, lawsuit prone and generally less attractive than ever before. At the same time, technology has enabled companies like Google to earn more than most country’s GDP with just a handful of employees. Meanwhile, the people (again through their representative in government) have expanded the safety net, which makes the unemployed less likely to take very low paying jobs.
Where do we go from here? Eventually, there will be enough “gotta have it” new stuff coming to market that people are going to want to do whatever it takes to earn the money to buy it. They’ll also vote in more business friendly representatives to make getting the goodies easier. The economy will soar to new heights and whoever is in charge at the time will be hailed as an economic genius.
Stossel is right, things have been getting better over time if you take the long, or even mid-range view. It’s just more fun and better for ratings to focus on what’s wrong I guess. In fairness, you can’t let what’s wrong hang around too long, so it does deserve some attention. But, I think the only thing that could really do us long term harm is if we were no longer free. We’re still free enough to make mistakes, make adjustments and make new mistakes that in the long run, we get a lot of things right, even if we don’t realize it for a while. When we lose that ability to central control and force, game over.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Bright sides and Green Chutes as 2013 comes to a close
Bright sides and green chutes
For those of us who are free market capitalist types, this may be the "Winter of our discontent" but that means that Spring is just around the corner. There are signs that point to very good things ahead for liberty, vibrant markets and improved quality of life.
The phenomenon of the role out of the Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) is one great example. It's still possible to win elections and even get legislation passed using the tried and true spin machine, back room dealings, double speak and out right deception. But fudging beyond the actual implementation is almost impossible now. Especially when that implementation affects so many people so directly. The rise of the Internet, mobile and social media has made the spread of information and opinion from one coast to the other, almost instantaneous. You may believe you have only impacted 5% of the country, but once the posting, tweeting, sharing and emailing is done, 100% of the country is going to know about it and form and opinion about it. So long as we have freedom of speech and information flow, even the worst of ideas can be corrected in increasingly short order. This bodes well for almost everything and everyone going forward.
The unveiling by Amazon.com of their project to provide 30 minute delivery of products via drone has caused some excitement and some concerns. There are a number of issues that come up around it, but none of them are technological. Most have to do with how to manage a crowded sky or ensure privacy, not with how to make it technologically feasible on a commercial scale. It already is. Technology has gotten to a point where it is now progressing faster than we can develop protocols to accommodate it. This is also a good trend. It increasingly puts control of the product and service mix back in the hands of the producers and end users and takes it out of the hands of gate keepers and regulators. Soon, 3-D printing technology may well make banning individual products totally moot. If you can draw it or imagine it, you can have it.
The rise of alternate currencies like Bitcoin is another hopeful sign. As it turns out, creating and managing currency on a global scale is not something that is over the heads of everyone except the most enlightened of bureaucrats appointed by our wisest elected officials. In fact, Bitcoin is open source. It has no Central Banker, and it works. Will it become used by the common man on a daily basis? I don't know, but it did prove the concept. By borrowing more than they can ever hope to repay, leaving hyper-inflation as their only way out, governments have long counted on the fear of currency collapse to encourage people to "whistle past the graveyard" and perhaps put more of a value on currencies than they would if there were an alternative. If we develop a competitive, private global market of easily exchanged currencies, they can't play that card anymore. Collapse of the government's finances doesn't have to be much more than a temporary inconvenience. We throw the bums out and start over without any total apocalypse taking place.
Maybe the most hopeful sign is the decreasing tendency, especially among young people, to long-term commitment to a political party. Policy makers have lots of grand plans and schemes that they are confident will create a better world, if you'll just tolerate the transition long enough. Most of those plans involve taking money from one group and giving it to another. However, they pretty much completely ignore the aspirations of people who want more than a hand out and more than mere survival. You don't tell an ambitious teen ager in America "You only need a little success." Call it the American Dream, call it human nature, but a good portion of the population will not accept limits on their imagination, dreams and drive. They want to be free to do what they want to do. Even if they don't have well refined notions of the proper role of government or the private sector or informed positions on policy questions, they know what they like. What they like is things that work. What they don't like and don't have to accept is mediocrity. Some will, but they will be pushed aside by those who want more.
It all comes down to freedom. Freedom is what gives us the capacity to try new and different things. Freedom is also what give us the capacity to self-correct and it's much more efficient and a lot less bloody than the alternative. If we can only agree on one thing as Americans, it's that freedom must be preserved above all else, because even if you get all else wrong, freedom will let you fix it. We will right this ship, not because of a political party platform or some new legislation, but because of us; because we still give each other the right to be wrong so long as no party introduces force.
For those of us who are free market capitalist types, this may be the "Winter of our discontent" but that means that Spring is just around the corner. There are signs that point to very good things ahead for liberty, vibrant markets and improved quality of life.
The phenomenon of the role out of the Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) is one great example. It's still possible to win elections and even get legislation passed using the tried and true spin machine, back room dealings, double speak and out right deception. But fudging beyond the actual implementation is almost impossible now. Especially when that implementation affects so many people so directly. The rise of the Internet, mobile and social media has made the spread of information and opinion from one coast to the other, almost instantaneous. You may believe you have only impacted 5% of the country, but once the posting, tweeting, sharing and emailing is done, 100% of the country is going to know about it and form and opinion about it. So long as we have freedom of speech and information flow, even the worst of ideas can be corrected in increasingly short order. This bodes well for almost everything and everyone going forward.
The unveiling by Amazon.com of their project to provide 30 minute delivery of products via drone has caused some excitement and some concerns. There are a number of issues that come up around it, but none of them are technological. Most have to do with how to manage a crowded sky or ensure privacy, not with how to make it technologically feasible on a commercial scale. It already is. Technology has gotten to a point where it is now progressing faster than we can develop protocols to accommodate it. This is also a good trend. It increasingly puts control of the product and service mix back in the hands of the producers and end users and takes it out of the hands of gate keepers and regulators. Soon, 3-D printing technology may well make banning individual products totally moot. If you can draw it or imagine it, you can have it.
The rise of alternate currencies like Bitcoin is another hopeful sign. As it turns out, creating and managing currency on a global scale is not something that is over the heads of everyone except the most enlightened of bureaucrats appointed by our wisest elected officials. In fact, Bitcoin is open source. It has no Central Banker, and it works. Will it become used by the common man on a daily basis? I don't know, but it did prove the concept. By borrowing more than they can ever hope to repay, leaving hyper-inflation as their only way out, governments have long counted on the fear of currency collapse to encourage people to "whistle past the graveyard" and perhaps put more of a value on currencies than they would if there were an alternative. If we develop a competitive, private global market of easily exchanged currencies, they can't play that card anymore. Collapse of the government's finances doesn't have to be much more than a temporary inconvenience. We throw the bums out and start over without any total apocalypse taking place.
Maybe the most hopeful sign is the decreasing tendency, especially among young people, to long-term commitment to a political party. Policy makers have lots of grand plans and schemes that they are confident will create a better world, if you'll just tolerate the transition long enough. Most of those plans involve taking money from one group and giving it to another. However, they pretty much completely ignore the aspirations of people who want more than a hand out and more than mere survival. You don't tell an ambitious teen ager in America "You only need a little success." Call it the American Dream, call it human nature, but a good portion of the population will not accept limits on their imagination, dreams and drive. They want to be free to do what they want to do. Even if they don't have well refined notions of the proper role of government or the private sector or informed positions on policy questions, they know what they like. What they like is things that work. What they don't like and don't have to accept is mediocrity. Some will, but they will be pushed aside by those who want more.
It all comes down to freedom. Freedom is what gives us the capacity to try new and different things. Freedom is also what give us the capacity to self-correct and it's much more efficient and a lot less bloody than the alternative. If we can only agree on one thing as Americans, it's that freedom must be preserved above all else, because even if you get all else wrong, freedom will let you fix it. We will right this ship, not because of a political party platform or some new legislation, but because of us; because we still give each other the right to be wrong so long as no party introduces force.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Health Care Comprimise?
At some point, perhaps we'll get to an environment where solutions to health care industry issues can be logically and calmly discussed. One such idea might go something like this:
The 'no consideration of pre-existing conditions' is one quite popular provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). There is obviously demand for it. But, can it be provided in a sustainable (profitable) manner? I believe it can, with one condition. Consumers must be able to choose and providers must be able to offer, coverage for conditions a la carte, with prices reflecting the actual cost of treating everyone in the pool with said condition. No mandatory coverage.
Of course, the incentive from the consumer standpoint would be to not buy a particular condition coverage until after you've come down with the condition. This could still work. One condition could be a limited annual sign up window. You'd be responsible for your own expenses for up to the first 9 months or so, if you choose to wait. Also, plans would be based on actual costs, so your monthly premium might be quite high, but you'd only carry coverage for as long as you needed treatment for the condition.
This is very close to a direct purchase situation, except that the monthly price for treatment is based on the average monthly cost of treating everyone with the condition rather than the individual case. Providers could be organized as mutuals or trusts (as an option in addition to for-profit companies) and enabled to invest premium surpluses in order to offset treatment costs. Companies or coops could specialize in a particular condition and provide treatment directly for a flat periodic rate in a competitive marketplace. Of course this would not preclude other ideas/products for the provision of health care from entering or remaining in the market. The point is to expand the realm of possibilities, not restrict it.
Maybe this proposal is a real possibility. Maybe it can't work for some reason I haven't seen. But, if our goal is to actually create a healthy, vibrant, growing, innovating, thriving health care market, things like this will have to be objectively evaluated on their merits, not based on the logo sported by the individual who proposed it.
The 'no consideration of pre-existing conditions' is one quite popular provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). There is obviously demand for it. But, can it be provided in a sustainable (profitable) manner? I believe it can, with one condition. Consumers must be able to choose and providers must be able to offer, coverage for conditions a la carte, with prices reflecting the actual cost of treating everyone in the pool with said condition. No mandatory coverage.
Of course, the incentive from the consumer standpoint would be to not buy a particular condition coverage until after you've come down with the condition. This could still work. One condition could be a limited annual sign up window. You'd be responsible for your own expenses for up to the first 9 months or so, if you choose to wait. Also, plans would be based on actual costs, so your monthly premium might be quite high, but you'd only carry coverage for as long as you needed treatment for the condition.
This is very close to a direct purchase situation, except that the monthly price for treatment is based on the average monthly cost of treating everyone with the condition rather than the individual case. Providers could be organized as mutuals or trusts (as an option in addition to for-profit companies) and enabled to invest premium surpluses in order to offset treatment costs. Companies or coops could specialize in a particular condition and provide treatment directly for a flat periodic rate in a competitive marketplace. Of course this would not preclude other ideas/products for the provision of health care from entering or remaining in the market. The point is to expand the realm of possibilities, not restrict it.
Maybe this proposal is a real possibility. Maybe it can't work for some reason I haven't seen. But, if our goal is to actually create a healthy, vibrant, growing, innovating, thriving health care market, things like this will have to be objectively evaluated on their merits, not based on the logo sported by the individual who proposed it.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Collectivism vs Individualism - What is your default position?
There is a long running battle in the arena of ideas between the advocates of collectivism and advocates of individualism. One trap that some individualists fall into from time to time is in accepting the premise that an individual never acts in the interest of a collective. Belonging to or acting in the interest of a collective does not make one a collectivist nor any less an individualist.
Most human beings oscillate between individual and member of a collective all day, every day. Sometimes you act purely in your own individual self-interest. Sometimes you act as a family member, a citizen, a parishioner or club member. When you act as a member of a group, association or collective, you put the interest of the organization or association as a whole first. This may or may not conflict with your individual self-interest at any given time.
How is this different from collectivism? Well, an individualist decides on their own if, when, why and for how long to take on the role of group member. One may make a decision favoring the group one moment and favor ones self the next. The oscillation is entirely up to the individual. Of course an association may choose to disallow one's membership based on one's actions, which is fine, so long as they do not disallow one's departure. An individualist chooses to join and maintain good standing as a member of a group because doing so suits their own self interest, as defined by that individual.
A collectivist always puts the group first. Acting in one's own self interest is considered a weakness; a transgression; something one should feel bad about. The group's interest are determined by leaders, elders, some group of elites who are more in tune with the greater good than the individual members. A collectivist serves the group out of a sense of duty. It is not for them to ask why, but simply to conform and to serve. Understanding may be helpful, but is not necessary. One does what the group wants because the group wants it. There are no other considerations.
To summarize, an individual is a member of a collective when and if it suits them. A true collectivist is never an individual, except in moments of weakness. The Progressive movement is an attempt to shift human behavior away from individualism and toward collectivism. I wont presume to tell you which you ought to be, but I think it's important to recognize the distinction.
Most human beings oscillate between individual and member of a collective all day, every day. Sometimes you act purely in your own individual self-interest. Sometimes you act as a family member, a citizen, a parishioner or club member. When you act as a member of a group, association or collective, you put the interest of the organization or association as a whole first. This may or may not conflict with your individual self-interest at any given time.
How is this different from collectivism? Well, an individualist decides on their own if, when, why and for how long to take on the role of group member. One may make a decision favoring the group one moment and favor ones self the next. The oscillation is entirely up to the individual. Of course an association may choose to disallow one's membership based on one's actions, which is fine, so long as they do not disallow one's departure. An individualist chooses to join and maintain good standing as a member of a group because doing so suits their own self interest, as defined by that individual.
A collectivist always puts the group first. Acting in one's own self interest is considered a weakness; a transgression; something one should feel bad about. The group's interest are determined by leaders, elders, some group of elites who are more in tune with the greater good than the individual members. A collectivist serves the group out of a sense of duty. It is not for them to ask why, but simply to conform and to serve. Understanding may be helpful, but is not necessary. One does what the group wants because the group wants it. There are no other considerations.
To summarize, an individual is a member of a collective when and if it suits them. A true collectivist is never an individual, except in moments of weakness. The Progressive movement is an attempt to shift human behavior away from individualism and toward collectivism. I wont presume to tell you which you ought to be, but I think it's important to recognize the distinction.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Steroids in Major League Baseball - What's the Big Deal?
Another season, another controversy over performance enhancing drugs. Today Major League Baseball announced disciplinary action against a number of players that it has determined used banned performance enhancing substances, including one of its biggest stars, Alex Rodriguez.
So is the use of performance enhancing drugs really that big a deal. Yes, it is. For one thing, if the leagues says no performance enhancing drugs, that's that. It's their church. If you want their money, you play by their rules. But breaking those rules does damage not just to the integrity of the game, but to other players as well. Real financial damage.
Suppose you're a player trying to negotiate a new contract. What do you base your desired compensation on? Well, for one thing, you might look at players of similar ability and what they are being paid. Now if you have a bunch of players whose "ability" comes from a syringe, or is at least enhanced by it, they've distorted the curve. They've lowered your value by artificially inflating theirs. In fact, if you had clear evidence that the performance of one or more of these players was cited during your contract negotiations, you may well have grounds for a civil suit against that player or players.
The use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports is akin to wearing brass knuckles under your boxing gloves. It's cheating, plain and simple. You can argue technicalities like the substance you used wasn't specifically on the list, but if you're taking something and you're not sick, you know you're cheating. You're violating the intent, if not the letter of the law. All the MVP awards, records, headlines, trophies now carry very little weight. In fact, they're especially tarnished because you may well have stolen them from someone who would have won them based on their natural ability. Yeah, it's a big deal. I hope MLB takes it further in the future and adopts a "one strike and you're out" rule.
So is the use of performance enhancing drugs really that big a deal. Yes, it is. For one thing, if the leagues says no performance enhancing drugs, that's that. It's their church. If you want their money, you play by their rules. But breaking those rules does damage not just to the integrity of the game, but to other players as well. Real financial damage.
Suppose you're a player trying to negotiate a new contract. What do you base your desired compensation on? Well, for one thing, you might look at players of similar ability and what they are being paid. Now if you have a bunch of players whose "ability" comes from a syringe, or is at least enhanced by it, they've distorted the curve. They've lowered your value by artificially inflating theirs. In fact, if you had clear evidence that the performance of one or more of these players was cited during your contract negotiations, you may well have grounds for a civil suit against that player or players.
The use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports is akin to wearing brass knuckles under your boxing gloves. It's cheating, plain and simple. You can argue technicalities like the substance you used wasn't specifically on the list, but if you're taking something and you're not sick, you know you're cheating. You're violating the intent, if not the letter of the law. All the MVP awards, records, headlines, trophies now carry very little weight. In fact, they're especially tarnished because you may well have stolen them from someone who would have won them based on their natural ability. Yeah, it's a big deal. I hope MLB takes it further in the future and adopts a "one strike and you're out" rule.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
America's neediness bubble
In economics, a bubble is an irrational inflation of value that ends in a sudden, rapid collapse of value. The inflated values are usually the result of actions taken outside the marketplace (i.e. by government). we've recently seen bubbles in Internet stocks and in real estate and now we're experiencing a neediness bubble.
There are now more people receiving some kind of government subsidized food aid than there are full time workers in America. There are also record numbers of people receiving some form of disability payment from the government. What's going on? Have Americans become less able? Is the economy so broken that it's impossible to survive on one's own? Actually, the answer is much simpler than that.
Even economists with differing views on which economic system or model is best are familiar with what incentives are. An incentive is a reward or benefit derived from engaging in a particular behavior. A disincentive is a penalty or disadvantage derived from engaging in a particular behavior. In a free market, incentives and disincentives come about through changes in what people want and/or need, as well as other factors, such as the availability of materials, location, etc. Generally, when something is incentivized, more of it is produced and if something comes with a disincentive, less of it is produced.
In the name of being nice to everyone and getting more votes, politicians have inadvertently incentivized neediness and disincentivized productivity. It's an easy sell. After all, anyone who is opposed to caring for the needy is obviously a callous, cold hearted monster, right? Never mind that such caring often leads to dependency and a lower standard of living over the long term. Elections are usually based on knee jerk reactions, so the long term is rarely a factor.
The government actually runs ads, encouraging more people to take part in various aid programs. It's become much easier to qualify for disability. I've heard many a conversation where people talk about how hard they work to "get their disability." I actually overheard one man, standing in line at the convenience store, proudly stating that he finally got "my 100%" after 7 years. He spent 7 years diligently trying to prove that he was incapable of productive activity. Yes, he walked out of the store to his truck, under his own power, with a twelve pack in one arm and a carton of smokes in the other.
Meanwhile, the more productive you are, the more demands are place on you. Your tax rates are higher. Many government fees are based on a sliding scale, so that the more you make, the more expensive it is. If you employ anyone, the government not only sets wage standards, but working and scheduling condition requirements, and now, the health care mandate. You have to get a license for just about everything; your sign, your scale, your business name; and you have to collect sales tax from your customers on behalf of the government so you can enable all this to continue.
There is still incentive toward entrepreneurship, if you are so inclined. But it is diminishing as regulations, mandates and taxes increase. And many people are not so inclined. They'd just as soon collect a check from an employer or, absent that, from the government. The trouble is we are approaching, if we have not already arrived at, a point where the bubble has to burst. The shrinking number of producers is no longer able to meet the promises made to the ever increasing number of needy.
This is the fundamental flaw of the underlying principal of socialism "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The logical end result is a vast increase in neediness. Perhaps its a good thing to have an actual real life demonstration, not just for socialists, but for those who believe they are capitalists but also believe that some kind of socialist/capitalist hybrid is desirable and sustainable. It's not. But, don't take my word for it. Just watch.
There are now more people receiving some kind of government subsidized food aid than there are full time workers in America. There are also record numbers of people receiving some form of disability payment from the government. What's going on? Have Americans become less able? Is the economy so broken that it's impossible to survive on one's own? Actually, the answer is much simpler than that.
Even economists with differing views on which economic system or model is best are familiar with what incentives are. An incentive is a reward or benefit derived from engaging in a particular behavior. A disincentive is a penalty or disadvantage derived from engaging in a particular behavior. In a free market, incentives and disincentives come about through changes in what people want and/or need, as well as other factors, such as the availability of materials, location, etc. Generally, when something is incentivized, more of it is produced and if something comes with a disincentive, less of it is produced.
In the name of being nice to everyone and getting more votes, politicians have inadvertently incentivized neediness and disincentivized productivity. It's an easy sell. After all, anyone who is opposed to caring for the needy is obviously a callous, cold hearted monster, right? Never mind that such caring often leads to dependency and a lower standard of living over the long term. Elections are usually based on knee jerk reactions, so the long term is rarely a factor.
The government actually runs ads, encouraging more people to take part in various aid programs. It's become much easier to qualify for disability. I've heard many a conversation where people talk about how hard they work to "get their disability." I actually overheard one man, standing in line at the convenience store, proudly stating that he finally got "my 100%" after 7 years. He spent 7 years diligently trying to prove that he was incapable of productive activity. Yes, he walked out of the store to his truck, under his own power, with a twelve pack in one arm and a carton of smokes in the other.
Meanwhile, the more productive you are, the more demands are place on you. Your tax rates are higher. Many government fees are based on a sliding scale, so that the more you make, the more expensive it is. If you employ anyone, the government not only sets wage standards, but working and scheduling condition requirements, and now, the health care mandate. You have to get a license for just about everything; your sign, your scale, your business name; and you have to collect sales tax from your customers on behalf of the government so you can enable all this to continue.
There is still incentive toward entrepreneurship, if you are so inclined. But it is diminishing as regulations, mandates and taxes increase. And many people are not so inclined. They'd just as soon collect a check from an employer or, absent that, from the government. The trouble is we are approaching, if we have not already arrived at, a point where the bubble has to burst. The shrinking number of producers is no longer able to meet the promises made to the ever increasing number of needy.
This is the fundamental flaw of the underlying principal of socialism "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The logical end result is a vast increase in neediness. Perhaps its a good thing to have an actual real life demonstration, not just for socialists, but for those who believe they are capitalists but also believe that some kind of socialist/capitalist hybrid is desirable and sustainable. It's not. But, don't take my word for it. Just watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)