======================= 

“It’s easy to make a buck.

It’s a lot tougher to make a difference.” 

—–

Tom Brokaw  

============================ 

“In a dream world, everyone is treated with the same amount of respect. But until we reach that goal, I will lend my ear, I will lend my voice to any boy, girl, man or woman who does not feel like they can protect themselves.”

———-

Jennifer Lawrence

===========

Well. When you get to my age you sometimes pause and think “has anything I have done really made a difference.”

I tend to believe it is a reflective thing we naturally do because most of us have invested gobs of energy in some career, gobs of energy outside of the workplace with home & family responsibilities as well as gobs of energy in at least some ‘self fulfillment’ stuff.

We kind of want to assess life in maybe an ROI type way. That ROI idea may sound a little weird, but starting all the way in grade school where they pound into your head you should be involved in extracurricular activities <on top of schoolwork> all the way throughout your career you tend to measure your Life in an “energy-to-achievement” ratio way.

To be clear <part 1>.

We draft resumes being encouraged to espouse “differences we made on a business” wherein we take basic responsibilities, shit we are paid to do, and stretch it out into some dramatic outcome. Our professional lives seem to be driven into some simplistic ‘where I made a difference’ encapsulation which sadly derives it of the true rich & royal hues.

And, yeah, that matters. It matters because it is, more often than not, in those swirling colors where you personally find satisfaction – and meaning.  Yet, almost all of us distill our differences into simplistic black & white terms, or, in other words, we are encouraged to sell ourselves as “I am a good ROI.”

Now.

To be clear <part 2>.

This ‘pause & think’ isn’t about doubting any personal ability, or smarts or even accomplishments. I assume I am not that different than most people my age that I assume I have some ability, some smarts and some accomplishments.

The ‘pause & think’ is more about the ‘degree of.’

Am I really that good?

Am I really that smart?

Are my accomplishments really that good?

You start thinking about whether you have truly made a difference or if your “wins & accomplishments” were simply pedantic grind-it-out every day shit and that your losses were losses that didn’t mean anything anyway. Or, in other words, we are encouraged to think of our lives as “was I a good ROI.”

Now.

If you truly think about that you start thinking about what you have done and ROI.

=================

“Hey, if I am going to lose, let me lose doing something.”

Sam Seaborne

=================

Ok. I say all that because I received a couple of unexpected messages recently. The kind of messages that makes you pause & think … “maybe I did make a little bit of difference in some corner of the world”:

—————

Hi Bruce! I hope you’re doing well! It’s been a little while since we’ve talked. I just caught up with +++++ and a group of <college> students in Chicago last week. You set such a great example of leadership and teaching young people, including myself, a few years ago. I can only hope to have the same impact on this new group of students. I sincerely hope you’re doing well and I hope to keep in touch!

—————————–

Thank you so much, Bruce. You know I think about the day you pulled me into that little conference room at 151 W. 4th Street to tell me you were bringing me on to +++++++ – a lot. You saved my career that day. I will always be grateful to you for teaching me so much over the course of that year. Thank you for everything.

——————–

I am fairly sure no one gets a lot of these messages so I am fairly sure almost everyone cherishes them. They reflect some “return” on whatever we have invested.

But. You know. It is quite possible I look at ‘making a difference’ and my own personal ROI a little differently than a lot of other people. I know I would love to leave behind a legacy-like idea but, maybe more importantly, I would like to leave behind a legacy of ‘he made a difference’ – however that comes to Life.

That drives me and what I do and say <and write>.

The dilemma with pursuing thinking like this is while it has a high appeal for success <because it means ‘something’>, it is difficult, time consuming, <honestly> has a relatively low chance of success and is not the kind of thinking that really pays the bills. I imagine any life ‘purpose’ decision, combined with the fact you have to sustain and maintain everyday life responsibilities at exactly the same time, makes you ponder this unfortunate dilemma.

I can unequivocally state anyone who makes a conscious decision to ‘want to make a difference’ should make sure they think that decision through. It is not one to be made flippantly and while I shared a couple of notes which makes it all worthwhile to me, mostly you do not get much positive feedback.

That said.

I will offer a thought as you think about the dilemma.

Some guy named John William Atkinson wrote Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior in Psychological Review in 1957. He suggested that if you can choose the grade of complexity <difficulty> of a task most of the decisions are taken in a mid-complexity-level. Too easy tasks or too difficult tasks can neither provoke a strong feeling of satisfaction nor a strong disappointment and vice versa.

Highly motivated people often choose a realistic complexity of tasks whereas low motivated people choose tasks that are finally to easy or too difficult for them.

But. Here is where I think I would sit good ole JW Atkinson down and have a debate. If I set aside the fact bills have to be paid at some point, I would say he doesn’t give ‘appeal of success’ enough emphasis. Especially if the appeal of success is tied to “doing something” or maybe better said ‘doing something that may truly matter.’

Huh? As Sam Seaborne says “if I am gonna lose let me lose doing something.” What I mean is that if you consciously decide to ‘go big and win big <or lose big>’ your satisfaction criteria changes and, therefore, you are willing to plow your way through more complexity and difficulty.

Look. I don’t think I am different than most people. We all want to ‘do something.’ Deep in our heart of hearts we want to know that we have done something that matters. I imagine, in a ‘big impact’ thought kind of way, somewhere in all of us we would like to leave the world a better place than the way we found it <and everyone can define the extent of ‘better place’ in their own minds>.

A friend of mine once pointed out that this ‘go big ideal’ can often simply be making a smaller difference in someone’s life. He is right. And if that is as good as it gets, well, that ain’t bad. But sometimes the desire to ‘do something’ is bigger than individuals or individual moments. That doesn’t make it ‘better’; just bigger. Bigger as in my case I take ‘world’ literally and not figuratively.

That ‘bigger’ matters because Atkinson is suggesting that the size of the ‘do something’ legacy task can often lead to a complexity that increasingly makes it difficult to be successful <but the prize more tantalizing>. I think what he misses is that a desire to make a difference can mentally shake the motivation etch a sketch.

Anyway.

At some point I think we all make some decisions on whether to compromise ‘greater purpose’ versus ‘everyday grind it out needs & responsibilities.’ Day to day responsibilities <not just bills but true responsibility to others who count on you> is a real life factor in whatever you decide to do or not do. It’s not like you have a blank Life sheet and put on it “do something that matters.”

The sheet is never blank.

You have cars, mortgages, children, mates/partners, work obligations, general shit that needs to get done. In fact, if you think about it too much, you will start thinking “holy shit, I want to make a difference but how the hell does it all happen?”

Well.

In the kindest sense you learn to balance or juggle.

In its harshest sense you compromise.

I would argue far too many of us confuse those two things and more of us actually compromise than we juggle. And I fear compromising has left far too many people numb to life or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe, more specifically, numb to ‘doing something.’ or, maybe worse, numb to making a difference.

Me? I think I have always had some fear of that numbness if I end up compromising and avoid it like the plague.

I don’t know. What I DO know is that when you get to my age you focus a lot less on the ‘what did I do’ and ‘what did I not do’ and ‘compromise’, and a lot more on “difference achieved.”

Sure. I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. Learn. And have offered some value in all that.

But, today, I’m focused on “doing something that matters.”

====================

“The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little.”

Thomas Merton

=============

Did I really do something that can leave the world a better place?

Did I really do something that made a difference?

Atkinson is/was probably a shitload smarter than I, but I gotta tell ya … even with all of his complexity & poor likelihood to succeed thinking, well, in my mind if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big … something really big … something that matters in a big way … something that someone would know really made a difference … I think you gotta go for it. It sure seems like you would want to do something, anything, which lends a voice to those who aspire to greater things themselves.

I mean, what the hell, if, in the end, I am going to lose or look like a loser, I want to know I lost doing something. In my mind I want to work hard at making a difference so that at some point, when all is said and done, there was a bunch of people saying “I wish I had sent Bruce a note.”

‘Cause I don’t need the notes. I just need to know they felt like they should have. In other words. I made a difference.

Just to close off this thought:

====================

“You know the Greeks didn’t write obituaries, they only asked one question after a man died, ‘Did he have passion?’”

quote from the movie Serendipity

====================

Even at my age making a difference can happen starting today. As I wrote in my obituary post years ago:

An obituary is not about what you can undo from what is done.  You don’t undo. It’s about moving on.

That, my friends, is a big thought.

Because a lot of people want to go back and fix or ‘undo.’

 Once again.

 You can’t. 

But obituaries can be written at any time.  In fact.  Many obituaries are written … well … when they are written … and that means they are written with “what is” as the case and point.  I guess what I am suggesting is that you can choose to unburden yourself from the past at any point. The good, the bad, the indifferent … none really matter.

Write your obituary from today on.

In other words, start making a difference today if you have not already.

In other words, seek to maximize your ROI to the world around you.

====================

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

===============

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us and a lot of it is completely out of our control. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required.  Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’  Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is most likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

This I am today, that I will be tomorrow. Words to live by.

===================

edited from original post from August 2010

——–

“I don’t think that people accept the fact that life doesn’t make sense. I think it makes people terribly uncomfortable. “

David Lynch

——-

“Compromising dreams for the stunning reality of life. 🙁 “

mnmsnickers <twitter>

——-

Well. I almost called this ‘playing the game.’ Shit. I almost called this ‘scaring the world.’

“Scare the world: Be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”
The Shock of Honesty

When I think about this I think about hollow spaces and empty people.

Why?

Well. Compromising the wrong way, playing the game as it were, is all about filling a hollow space with empty people <or an empty job or an empty anything>.

But let’s step back a second.

Once you know what you are good at, maybe even have a clear sense of what attaining your ‘dream’ would be, you kind of have a tendency to think all you have to do from that point on is to sort out the finer details.

Compromise?

Play the game?

Those words never enter your head.

Unfortunately, we soon discover that life has other plans for us. I say that fairly sure that most of us do not grow up truly believing they could have it all — all as in a great job, a viable bank balance, a perfect relationship. But I do believe all of us grow up thinking ‘big things’ for ourselves.

Call them dreams.

Call them simply being better <or going farther> than our parents.

Call it hope for a good Life.

And no matter how we grow up I tend to believe all of us find that reality is very different than what we imagined or hoped. This is where we learn the concept of compromise. Learning to compromise is okay if it brings you back down to earth, but not okay if it means compromising how good you can be.

Somewhere in-between those two things is Life, or, “the game.” Yeah. The difficult part comes in trying to play the game.

What do I mean?

Well.

You take a job because you have to.

You take a job because it ‘gets you in.’

You say something like this … ‘doing this isn’t something I would have considered before … but I have to believe that I’m bettering my chances.’

Ah.

‘Bettering your chances.’

Playing the game.

Managing your hope.

I will say from personal experience that after what seems like a zillion psychological tests in interview processes and maybe more zillions of seemingly endless resume ‘revisions to customize to specific companies and perceived needs’ and managing hope after what may seem like an eternity of unsuccessful job submissions, I have figured out all that really matters is the core. Core as in who you are and telling people what they are gonna get.

But that’s me. I won’t play the game.

Ok. How about there are certain things in the game that I will not play.

Look. I do know that research shows that compromising early on <maybe when you first hit the job market or maybe simply as you enter adulthood out of teens> when hopes are in their most nascent and fragile form, they can easily be trampled upon with devastating consequences to our self-confidence and self-esteem.

Well. It takes on a mutated form in older adulthood.

It doesn’t attack the formative stages, it actually kills healthy esteem and confidence cells.

Maybe worse? It attacks your belief not in yourself, but in society and the structure you have prospered in up to this point.

My fear in today’s business world is that in seeking employment or even working within an organization we are constantly asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in what I would call ‘psychological constructive compromise.’ Unfortunately, it is actually destructive compromise. It destroys how good you can be.

Maybe better said it destructs real expectations of yourself.

Real expectations, the ones colored with some Life experience which are not sky-high and tainted with any sense of entitlement, are being challenged intellectually, financially or emotionally as now being thought of out of reach.

Huh? Out of reach? Being who you are and being good at what you do?

That is crazy.

And therein lies how ‘playing the game’ is simply a destructive game and one which I am surprised businesses and other ‘game managers’ allow to be played.

Let me be specific <because this is what got me thinking about this>.

Customizing your resume as you apply for a job.

I know it sounds reasonable from a 40,000 foot perspective. But <and I will talk about odds later> most times we are customizing in ways that take a square peg of information and place it into a round hole of perceived need.

That’s playing the game.

Mostly because most employers are too lazy to see anything but ‘something that fits the round hole I have.’ And the prospective employee is simply thinking ‘once I get in I can be the fabulous spectacular square peg that I am.’

Simplistically you are playing the game to get in the game.

This is ludicrous. It looks ludicrous even as I type it.

Look. We all need to be taught to keep expectations in check. But in doing so we need to be sure … really sure … that our compromising isn’t simply a dismissal of our dreams to play the game. A dose of reality can be like a slap in the face. Uhm. Ok. Maybe more like an uppercut to the jaw. But sometimes you have to learn to take the punches.

And maybe give a couple back.

But you have to make some choices.

Hard choices.

No matter what anyone tells me I just cannot see how customizing your resume or ‘saying the right words’ or, well, whatever you are being told to do to get a job or get the dream actually increases the odds.

In fact I would suggest in the end it decreases the odds of getting what you really want <longer term>.

Well. The bottom line on anything to do with ‘odds’ is that the odds suck.

Bottom line.

The odds suck.

Why? Life is playing its game <even if a business or other people are trying to ‘game the system’> and you have to figure out which player you are truly playing against. I am not suggesting you should avoid considering anyone who is actually in the game. Just who is more important than another.

Why? Because you need to ask what is at stake in the real game’.

Because the one and only answer is you. Or what some people call ‘the authentic you’ <strip away the authentic bullshit and it just being true to yourself in a genuine way>.

——-

“Authenticity is a collection of choices that we have to make every day. It’s about the choice to show up and be real. The choice to be honest. The choice to let our true selves be seen. “
Brené Brown

 ——–

The “authentic you”. I just call it ‘me.’ No fancying up with adjectives. You sometimes have to draw a line with regard to ‘me.’ And, yes, this line drawing comes with consequences.

But all line drawing does.

You just have to identify what is non negotiable, i.e., what are you not willing to compromise on? In other word, find the pieces of your life vision & your character … that you want beyond all certainty. These are non-negotiable features you are not prepared to give up for anything.

While I am certainly a dreamer type, or maybe it is that I love hope, I will admit that this exercise can incorporate some foundational basic life aspects. Things beyond ‘being passionate with what I do’ <which I actually believe is useless tripe> like being a loving mother or father or traveling regularly or checking something off on your adventurous things to do on your list of things to do.

That said.

Compromising in this type of thinking invariably comes down to what you don’t mind forsaking in return for having something else. And, in general, we suck at this type of assessment. We are typically to hopeful or ‘positive thinking’ in our assessment.

“If I take this job I can show them I actually deserve this other thing.’

Yeah. Well. It typically doesn’t work that way. The whole idea of negotiating or compromising on a dream or ‘how good you think you can be’ is a challenging reality. And it is even more challenging when you incorporate the concept that I strongly dislike … the term ‘be realistic.’

I am not overly materialistic so I can focus on other things <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

I have at least a thread of altruism so I am okay with pursuing some self desires <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

Therefore. It kind of seems to me when thinking about playing the game — why should I compromise being the best I can be when some people don’t even seem to be trying to be the best they can be <for themselves or for others>?

To be clear on being as good as you can be. It is not simply waking up every day, stretching, looking at yourself in the mirror <possibly with fist raised in the air> saying something like “I know I want to achieve adventure and fulfillment in everyday life.” Optimizing your potential takes work – hard relentless work.

My own vision for life is fairly clear. And I admit that it has changed and evolved over time. And I imagine that is quite similar to most people. I also admit that it seems to get clearer every day as I figure out what’s important to me.

I know that I challenge myself to be even better. Every day as a matter of fact.

Yup.

Every.

Single.

Day.

That’s because being better or the best you can be is a work-in-progress thing. As for compromising or ‘playing the game’? I know the type of organizations and people I want to be a part of and to surround myself with. I will not apologize for how I choose to survive.

“You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”
Clementine von Radics

Oh. And by survive … I don’t mean putting food on the table … I mean character. A lot of people will argue with me on this topic.

A LOT.

They will suggest <with some truth by the way> I am not being realistic. And you know what? They may be right. But it is the line I have drawn for myself.

I don’t want to hollow myself out in some empty job. And that is what empty jobs do — hollow the guts out of you. Strangle your soul and character bit by bit. I would rather starve my body than starve my character.

I would rather “scare the world … and be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”

The stunning realities of Life force everyone to do several things.

Everyone needs to learn the line they will draw.

Everyone needs to recognize where compromise is done and ‘me’ is defined.

Ponder.

“You see, freedom has a way of destroying things.”
Scott Westerfeld

===

“the way to create art is to burn and destroy
ordinary concepts and to substitute them
with new truths that run down from the top of the head
and out of the heart”

Charles Bukowski

===

One of capitalism’s superpowers is the ability to destroy itself over and over again. This means that stagnancy is its kryptonite. It is a form or method of economic change and never can be stationary. The truth is capitalism is an evolutionary change agent should it be permitted to be so (I will return to this point). I say this because so many people talk about capitalism as a ‘state’ yet that ‘state’ is ever changing in a blink of an eye. To describe a capitalistic society is simply to describe it in a point of time (and in the past). This evolutionary characteristic is not just due to economic/business but also changing social/societal environments which as it changes alters the arc of economic action. In fact, I could argue that the social condition is more important to capitalism than any industrial/business change. The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates. This implies a large amount of qualitative change in order to beget the quantitative economic/industrial change. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that globalization is an inherently social activity from which economic activity emerges.  In other words, capitalism revolutionizes the economic structure from within destroying what exists to create something, and things, new. Schumpeter called this (in different words) Creative Destruction.

Which leads me back to “permitted.”

Every industry, every business and its strategy, is dependent upon both destruction and construction. Those who exist already maniacally create constructs in which their survival is guaranteed, i.e., they cannot be destroyed. Those who want to create are constantly seeking out opportunities to destroy what exists. I begin there to say “what is permitted”, for both aspects, dictates the success and thrivability of capitalism. The entire modus operandi of competition is actually dictated by what is permitted. Free market advocates suggest that some ‘invisible hand’ will dictate fair price competition and fair economic competition. The problem is that the competition from the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization, the competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage and which doesn’t just attack the profit margins and outputs of the existing firms, but at their foundations and survival, is negated when existing ‘rules’ permit existing businesses to monopolize or have some unfair ‘scale’ advantage which doesn’t permit ‘new’ competition to gain a competitive foothold. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is why government subsidies to innovative industries and businesses are so crucial (but that’s a post for another day). But my point here is that if we permit monopolies or oligopolies than there is no destroy and the create is incremental at best. By the way, ‘permit’ has a social function as well as a governmental/administrative function. Rules, regulations and laws by the administrative state can certainly outline what is permitted and what is not, but the public – the social contract with the economy – also has a role in what is permitted. What I mean by that is (a) people need to become just a bit smarter about the negative aspects of monopolies and oligopolies and (b) people need to better understand short term ‘pain’ with the destroying part of capitalism for the longer term gain.**

• ** note: my prime example of this was the break up of the Bell telephone company. The first 5ish years after Bell was “destroyed” were miserable as a consumer, but it led to smartphones and cellular coverage and, well, a significantly better telecommunications world.

Anyway. I imagine my larger point here is that what we are permitting in the business world today is not capitalism nor certainly how we envision the best of capitalism to work. I, personally, believe we have to actively destroy some of the things we are permitting so that capitalism can create some of the innovations and inventions and, well, better things I envision capitalism is quite capable of creating. Ponder.

==============

I used to tell people we use research to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use numbers to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use data to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Now.

I tell people we use algorithms to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Me

===============

“An idea of working based on three pillars: science, insight and faith. Science because I’m a social scientist by training. I believe in data, robustness of information, making sure you’re on the right track. Insight because if you’re not able to draw insights from research, you’re not a strategist, just someone observing the data. And faith because you never know what’s going to work, so you always need a bit of faith to get everyone started.”

Laura Chiavone

================

I believe great companies have one common infrastructure characteristic: culture. Good companies can be grounded in systems, processes, operations, etc, however, the step up to ‘great’ demands a culture (which is always implemented by people) to elevate the ‘infrastructure aspects. To be clear. “Culture” is not some ‘thing’, or values, or some nebulous feeling, it is an emergent consequence of how people interact with each other within a business. It is not what someone does or doesn’t do, it is what happens when people do things with each other. I thought of this because Mike Walsh has a new book, The Algorithm Leader, which suggests that the most successful companies of the future will support/augment/enhance that culture infrastructure – with algorithms. Now. Before anyone defaults into thinking this translates into “empty soul, technology order taker” company, or even holocracy (ponder how polar opposites could be relevant to the algorithm topic), let me share some thoughts on how I believe the thinking suggests structural value creation lift: for business & humans. To me this will occur through a balance of stability (knowledge infrastructure), uncertainty (quests versus missions) & understanding of Antifragility (selective redundancy maximizing untidy opportunities).

Let me pose some thoughts on the relationship between algorithms and antifragility upfront.

====================

“It is optionality that makes things work & grow.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time & place.

“The antifragility of some comes necessarily at the fragility of others. In a system the sacrifice of some units – fragile units or people – are often necessary for the well-being of other units or the whole.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should evaluate tradeoffs, fragility versus antifragility & well-being factors (of units & whole).

“The crux of complex systems , those with interacting parts, is that they convey information to these component parts through stressors.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should not highlight solutions, but rather stressors or what Donella Meadows called ‘leverage points.’.

“There is a category of things that we can call half invented, and taking the half invented into the invented is often the real breakthrough.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t seek new innovations but rather ‘half invented’ ideas ripe for innovation maturity.

“Meaningful progress is non-linear.” How To Lead a Quest

Algorithms should enable an organization to identify progress paths to explore and discover rather than simply meet the needs of present identified ‘paths’ of progress or solve present identified issues & vulnerabilities.

=================

Full disclosure on my business beliefs. Throughout my career I have always felt comfortable by making the less certain decisions just certain enough that someone would go “well, it seems riskier, but, if you own it, go do it.” I say all that because I believe all Future of Work discussion should be grounded on the relationship between certainty & uncertainty – for the business, the people within the business organization and people’s minds/attitudes.

Algorithm leadership.

Most people want certainty therefore they let research make decisions, use numbers to make decisions, show data to make decisions and, increasingly, will suggest algorithms make decisions.

This is just a different type of efficiency couched in efficient operations. It will be called “efficient decision making.” The problem is this efficiency is just an attempt to strip a decision of uncertainty and, well, the best, most effective; decisions always carry along some burden of uncertainty.

What made me think about this? I just finished rereading AntiFragile (Nassim Taleb) and reread Mike Walsh’s first chapter of his new book The Algorithm Leader.

The former is about figuring out how to maximize from disorder or uncertainty while the latter is not becoming too dependent upon seemingly ‘certainty.’

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

Ultimately, it will be humans who use the shapes created by algorithms to assess options, evaluate antifragile components and navigate asymmetrical uncertainty.

It within this dynamic environment in which we should note business is inherently fragile. HBR once said “business is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities.” I say that because as a pendulum swings one way it will inevitably want to swing the other way. We inherently feel the fragile pendulum swing and start seeking to build ‘un-natural’ antifragile aspects to create a sense of antifragility. Aspects like systems, process, rules, KPIs, data/dashboards and, yes, algorithms. Depending on how fragile we see, or feel, the business to be the more likely we use the created mechanisms to ‘tell us what to do.’ We must fight against those instincts.

Frankly, this is where generations DO become relevant in discussing business. Older workers, 50somethings, can be an impediment by seeing past experience as ‘certainty’ . On the other hand, some 50somethings can actually be a bridge between some certainty-type learnings and younger people who are more comfortable with disorder (but they don’t necessarily have the expertise do discern the best bridges between certainty & uncertainty).

Here is what I do know. Business people inherently abhor risk, business organizations inherently gravitate toward the ‘safest’ and numbers, research, data & algorithms look like life rafts in a risky, safe seeking business world. That said. I also know progress is rarely found without some risk and is often found on ‘not-the-safest’ path. Algorithms create a false sense of ‘right thing to do.’ any leader who leans on algorithms too much isn’t leading. Period.

Uncertainty leadership.

For this I lean in on How to Lead a Quest by Dr. Jason Fox. In times of uncertainty a business does not need business ‘heroes’ but rather people aligned on a quest and leaders who embrace the uncertainty of a complex interconnected multi-dimensional business world.

—-

“You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

—-

Contrary to popular belief I would suggest a highly successful algorithmic leader is likely a 50something who has navigated research, then data, the ‘dictating’ decisions challenge gauntlet, & who were more likely to see how seemingly unrelated disparate fragments could be coalesced into decisions and futures that the numbers/data didn’t completely support, but also did not completely discount. That was a long winded way to introduce the idea of “data decipherers”. This type of leadership invaluable to an organization more & more steeped in numbers, dashboards, data & algorithms.

Jason Fox calls this “shining a light on the path before us.” Leadership will not use algorithms for ‘squinting into the future but rather to identify the stepping stones in a sea of uncertainty. They will offer people moments of some certainty without promising a certain future nor even promising steady progress organizationally. It will be more about uncovering options, making choices to alleviate stressors, so that teams can breakthrough while others provide the organization with the redundancies to protect an organization from uncertainty vulnerabilities.

Here is what I do know. Psychologically businesses will arc toward a belief algorithms will provide an increased tidiness and symmetry to business. that is a false sense of tidiness. Business will become increasingly untidy, the paths will become increasingly complex, therefore business will become increasingly uncertain with regard to the best, and proper steps, necessary for progress. Pragmatically business will need more, and better, leadership comfortable with uncertainty despite more numbers, data and algorithms.

Antifragile leadership.

Crisis, disaster resolution is rarely about resources available, but rather people* availability.

• * ‘people availability’: this is all of physical energy, skills and mental energy combined.

Here I lean in Taleb’s AntiFragile. We tend to build redundancies incorrectly, don’t assume for disorder well & only enhance fragility in plans. We too often see AntiFragile as a “leadership concept” when in reality it is best absorbed by agile/adaptable teams.

Risk management almost always solely focuses on resources necessary to sustain, and manage, foreseen crisis. As Taleb points out the largest flaw in that is most crisis do not look similar to ones on the past (they will have similarities but still be unique). In addition. Most organizations build in redundancy safety nets as, well, a net.  Because we dislike fragility so much we start building in antifragile everywhere. We tend to think of leadership as “what if” redundancy design. Antifragile leadership should be more ‘aligning resources to meet different scenarios.” Some people would call this ‘agile.’ I would not. I would simply call this pivoting (I am old school) based on the Law of the Situation. Great businesses have always been able to pivot to meet market challenges and opportunities. This is pivoting – no more, no less.

This is where I would view using algorithms a little differently than other people. Algorithms tend to look at opportunities when I believe they could be better used to identify stress points and stressors. Most good leaders are best as problems solvers or maybe better said “removers of obstacles to opportunistic behavior.’ (that doesn’t mean they don’t optimize existing operations/situations just that where good leaders get paid the big bucks is getting moments/situations unstuck). I would also argue identifying stressors permits smarter experimenting and tinkering.

Here is what I do know. Algorithms, used properly, permit people to stop just optimizing for the present and start attempting to optimizing the future. Yes. It may mean being less efficient in the short term (sometimes), but, done well, will create a more effective long term construct.

Conclusion:

I think the smart businesses of the future will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness and permit people to be more accountable for some untidy decisions with some untidy outcomes.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. The challenge will be to not get consumed by algorithms.

To realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options.

To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather where and when to apply redundancy resources (therefore help to define how to create proper redundancies).

To realize algorithms don’t necessarily create innovation opportunities but rather find opportunities to ‘reinvent’ ideas.

And.

To realize algorithms will not replace people, but rather augment minds and skills OF people. Ponder.

=====

“Pooh looked at his two paws.

He knew that one of them was right, and he knew that when you had decided which one of them was right, then the other one was the left, but he never could remember how to begin.”

House at Pooh Corner

==========

So. I opened with this Pooh quote to talk about first words.

Not first impressions, but first words.

Sure. They can be directly related, but I firmly believe first impressions are significantly less important than last impressions. What I mean is that 99% of the time I can redirect a first impression more toward the desired last impression.

First words are trickier. And, as with most things in Life, not all first words are created equal.

There are first words which are just not articulated well. These you can recover from. These are the ones that we all think about afterwards and say “shit, I wish I had said ‘this’ rather than what I said.” And you know what? You can.

But then there are the first words which everyone knows are your true feelings. The ones which put an indelible stamp upon your character. These are, well, almost impossible to recover from. And, truthfully, you cannot recover from something which is a true reflection of who and what you are. You can stumble, mumble or offer a variety of jumbled words, but you is what you is and your first words reflect who you is.

And that is why I thought of Pooh on this topic.

You receive a question.

You think.

And the other person, or people, can actually see you think.

 You know that there is a right answer and a … well … left answer. You look at both paws and just aren’t sure which is which.

Therefore, you answer from your truest self.

It is a character answer.  

Simplistically , when I view another person’s first words when trapped in a “which paw is which” situation I attempt to bucket it into one of two buckets. Are the words a reflection from an “I” perspective <which tend to defend the “I”> or are the words a reflection from a more global view <which tend to defend what other’s may think>?

Why?

Because, to me, great character is most often driven by an ability, or desire, to view the world in someone else’s shoes. This doesn’t mean character shouldn’t be a reflection of self and what is important from your own ethical & moral compass, but rather it means you are always challenging your sense of self against what matters, or has meaning, to other people.

I will admit.

I am sure a part of me wrote about this today because of Trump. He made me, and still makes me, think about how words are used. Time after time Trump ‘first words’ response make me not only think he is hollow empathetically, but also incredibly incapable of viewing the world through anyone’s eyes, and Life criteria filter, other than his own. I often reflect back on his response to Mr. Khan’s emotional, but articulate stance on the patriotism of Muslim Americans. Trump’s response, his words, were so unenlightened, portrayed an absurd lack of empathy let alone showing a depth of obliviousness to the real issue at hand and so defensive, well, suffice it to say that first words matter and often create an indelible imprint as an impression of who and what you are. Where Trump truly is a master is in the follow up to his first words, his attempts at either managing the words or actually arguing you didn’t hear what he actually said.

That said.

I imagine he will send out a variety of tweets trying to explain how his first words were misconstrued.

That said. First words are first words. And first words matter. First words are a true reflection of character maybe 99% of the time.

Look. We have all been asked a question and sat there looking at each paw wondering where to begin. Just listen to me on any podcast and you will envision me looking at paws – a lot. But.

99% of the time, even if we do not get the words exactly right, the words will be in some form or fashion a reflection of how we truly feel.

99% of the time, even if we do not get the words exactly right, the words will be in some form or fashion a reflection of our character.

I do not sit here today writing to suggest anyone should be more careful with regard to what they say first. I do not because I believe most of us are pretty careful with our first words.

I will, however, suggest that everyone should pay attention and think about the first words that they hear. Not to say that someone cannot revise something said at first but rather because not all first words are created equal.

And the first words said by someone who cannot remember which paw is right and which is left and isn’t sure where to begin?

Well. Most likely those first words will be a reflection of who and what they truly are. Ponder.

==============

“America is great because she is good.

If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

============

“We Americans are a do-it-yourself people.

We are an impatient people.

Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy.”

Nixon from his Silent Majority speech

==============

Nationalism, populism, and “America First,” and economics are inextricably linked. The Trump administration simply embodied the dull axe version of nationalism economics so we have some indications of what it means in terms of implementation as well as consequences. That said. It is a little difficult to unpack everything happening with regard to “America First” and what it means for America economically short term and long term.

Alternatively. The Biden administration is (mostly) returning to the economic path the Obama administration implemented with the twist that the pandemic permits them, because of the global supply chain shakeup, to redesign global structure a bit. But the main thing the Biden administration is doing, significantly different than the Trump administration, is the balancing of short-term results and long term desires/needs. As I pointed out before, the Obama administration never got enough credit for doing this. it is a trickier path because it does sacrifice some short-term metrics in order to be able to retool for a healthy future economy. The truth is America is now on a much healthier path going in the right direction (one does wonder what a better place we would be in if we hadn’t had to endure the dull axe policies of the Trump administration which set us off the path) and supply chains are shaking out, businesses are reshaping (too slowly in my mind) their economic structures, there are some significant strides in retooling for a future economy and a globalized economy is taking on a new healthier shape. Yes. Contrary to alarmist headlines the American economy is in really good shape, (particularly compared to other countries) and we should not confuse systemic consequences like inequality with a poor economy or inflation with poor domestic policy because inflation is not an American issue, but rather a global issue, therefore, it is not a reflection of any American ‘flaw’ but reflective of a global response to a myriad of issues.

I have a lot to suggest on the America First Economics topic, but because there is so much let me offer some overarching ways of viewing it all. I will also note that I am purposefully using Trump and not Republican or Trump administration because I believe we would be incredibly shortsighted to think that his personal views on how the world exists <in his mind> do not drive his behavior and the administration decisions being made:

• How Trump views the leadership concept of dragging up versus dragging down
• How Trump views rules & regulations
• How Trump views I versus team
• How Trump views uncertainty
• How Trump views life only through a dollars & cents lens <driving an economics first, and only, view>
• How Trump views infrastructure (building)

All of these views drive America First all of which <I would suggest> actually encourage an America Alone strategy. In addition, to a larger extent, all actually encourage an “every man for himself” attitude <kind of an extremely perverse version of traditional conservative ideology>.

Dragging up versus dragging down

America didn’t stay in the Paris Climate agreement, among other transnational alignments, so I will use it as an example of how Trump views America leadership and leadership in general <because it applies to almost everything the administration did>.

Leaders understand that to lead you need to ‘drag up’ behavior. This comes at an expense in that you are demanded to do more things without any real compensation or obvious immediate ROI. For example, part of the Paris agreement was that United State had higher standards. This certainly places a burden on American companies. It also translates into an innovation push to meet those standards. And, ultimately, because we lead in innovation the rest of the world will eventually buy our innovations. As noted earlier this is an example of sacrificing some short term results for longer term structural value creation and, ultimately, a stronger economic presence. This leadership also encourages other countries to ‘play up’ as close to United States as possible.

Conversely, if United States drops out of the overall leadership, standards drops and, as any organizational study will tell you, the overall tide of standards will be lower as things get dragged downwards. This is, simplistically, why leaders have higher standards in business. It drags the organization up and not down. As for businesses, as I will highlight again later, without normalizing stanards a business will typically align with the lowest possible standard that optimizes profits. That’s why businesses need to be given some guardrails if we want new standards of behavior/operations.

Trump does not understand this. Nor does he believe in this. I believe ‘America First,’ generally speaking, understands this, but ignores this.

Rules & regulations

I took a lot of big gulps during the Trump years as I viewed lists of regulations the Trump administration eliminated. I viewed this as general incompetence <they appeared to follow an “if it exists it should not exist” strategy and not “a thoughtful consideration of its impact” type decision> or general lack of understanding of how business works. What I mean by that is business has a fairly simple objective; profit making. It is within that simplicity that a lot of bad things, and bad behavior, can occur. Government has always been in the business of ‘guardrails to ensure the populace benefits’ and, generally speaking, do fairly well at that. I am certainly not suggesting governments shouldn’t be reviewing regulations all the time and eliminating, or editing, existing regulations that have served their purpose. The Trump administration applied the dull axe version of my last sentence. One could ponder if at the core of their deregulation there was some corruption, but let’s just say they embraced unfettered free market (which almost any eminent economist would tell you is a bad idea).

That said. Trump believes if there had been no rules & regulations, he would be the wealthiest man in the world. He has never found a rule or regulation he has ever liked. He also believes that if he thinks that everyone should think that. I have written about capitalism a zillion times and I have argued that unfettered capitalism simply brings out the worst in people and increases inequality. Rules & regulations, done well, tend to herd behavior.

Trump doesn’t think rules apply to him so why wouldn’t we expect him to eliminate rules so he doesn’t even have to pretend he plays by the rules.

I versus team

Economics, whether we admit it or not, is about people. More specifically, it is about people working together and communicating with each other. There really is no such thing as a ‘sole business person’ because in order to achieve any profits, at scale or not, that one must interact with others (the market). That said. Trump has never been part of a team nor does he have any desire to be a team leader. How this translates into his decision attitude is that the global interconnectedness is irrelevant to him. No. He actually thinks it is a negative. We are not a global team seeking to win, but rather it is ‘every man for himself.’ Unfortunately this attitude also cascades down into domestic policy.

And because I used the Paris Climate deal earlier to make a point on something else I will do so again here. One would think it would be remarkable that someone who has not appointed someone to run the White House Office of Science and Technology <a person who traditionally serves as the President’s chief science officer> or has the majority of posts on the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology <a group of civilian science and tech leaders who advise the president> unfilled would feel qualified to make his decision.  However, if you do not value a team effort and believe “I” is all that matters then the qualified support doesn’t really matter and, in fact, could negatively affect “the I.” Trump is a focus group of one making decisions. And it has become apparent he believes the ‘best of the best’ work that way. Once again, effective economies do not work that way.

All that said. Everything Trump does and supports gives the finger to anything that could be construed as a team effort. It is “I” in the world. “I” as a country. “I” as a business and, well, “I alone” is the mantra. The problem is that every “I” in the American economy is dependent, and connected, with a variety of other resources, distribution partners, and customers. Basically even the American economy is a system nested within a larger global system and attempting to optimize a part, or an “I”, will never improve the system nor optimize the return.

That said, “it has always been about me and just me” bleeds into everything Trump believes and does.

Uncertainty

Solid economies tend to lean on some certainties – monetary systems, distribution systems, partnership systems, resource systems, etc. as the pandemic reminded us, when these certainties become less certain, bad things happen. Trump views uncertainty as a positive <with regard to everything>. This attitude undergirds behavior. For example, whole sale immigration changes disrupts the entire workforce and negatively affects a variety of industries. His appositive view of certainty upends industries within his actual behavior – and he doesn’t care. It seems to me that wrenching the entire system 180degrees creates what I offered up as the biggest flaw in Trump’s way of doing business — uncertainty. He believed everyone was like him and every business would thrive if he created the uncertainty and he thrives on the belief America will ultimately benefit from uncertainty. He believed America will swoop in now that is it is free from the shackles of the ‘old order’ <way of doing things, deals, regulations, etc.> and dominate what, uhm, we already dominated.

The country that had spent decades erecting an international order based on free trade, multilateral cooperation, a global alliance network, and the promotion of democratic values had now chosen as its leader a man who detests any structure supporting all those things.

What a bad idea. Very bad. And, once again, while I am disappointed in Trump, I am even more disappointed a business man <his 1st secretary of state> thought this way because it ignores business 101.  Well. It ignores business 101 depending on whether you think America is special, exceptional in some way or that part of what makes America distinct in the world is not the bigness of our economy but rather the bigness of our idea.

That said, Trump doesn’t believe in big ideas he only believes in big money. Oh. If you have no ideas the only way to make money is to take advantage of uncertainty. The problem is that America is built on an idea, ideals and a system of implementing those to the benefit of the economy (in a globalized interconnected economy) and not just “more money” and while we may <if we are really lucky> benefit economically, under this Trump philosophy we would do so at the sacrifice of our ideas, ideals and leadership in this uncertain world Trump desires to play his dangerous game in.

Leaders don’t act with uncertainty as their compass, they use certainty, or degrees of, to lead. Of course, Trump wouldn’t know how to lead even if given an instruction manual with lots of pictures.

The dollars & cents lens <economics first>

I am not a diplomat or some foreign policy expert, but I admit that I took a big gulp when early on in the Trump administration I saw the secretary of state suggest that America should make economic and security needs above American ‘values.’ It seems to be that everything will be decided on an exchange of money and not on an exchange of ideas <where value is a combination of economics and values>.

US foreign policy, Tillerson said, is guided by fundamental values, but he cautioned: “If we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.”

Well. It seems to me while USA is in the ‘doing & making & selling shit” business we are also in the “doing & making & selling with values” business.

It seems to me that USA is not particularly in the “partnerships of convenience “business where we can conveniently set aside our values & ideals but rather we are in the “partnership with ideals” business where we are delighted to do business with you but you are gonna have to accept the fact we are gonna showcase freedom, democracy and what we believe people deserve.

To Trump everything is marginalized excepting economics <money>.

Let’s be clear. American ‘values’, or a belief in winning the right way, doesn’t get in the way of our economic interests. To believe that is to not believe in ‘value’ <in which premium price relies on some value equation above a dollar is a dollar>.  As Gen. George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, commented in 1945, Washington could no longer pursue a narrow conception of national interest or limit its strategic horizons to the Western Hemisphere: “We are now concerned with the peace of the entire world.” I would be remiss if I didn’t point out peace is, well, certainty, and certainty, through peace, is good for our economic interests.

To me, the pursuit of “America First” can often be accomplished best by protecting and defending the rights of others which actually includes economic relationships. I dug up a speech made on December 20, 1951 by Dean Acheson which laid out a view of American foreign policy very different from Trump’s first secretary of state Rex Tillerson:

——————–

The greatest asset we have in all the world—even greater than our material power—is the American idea. No one needs to tell an American audience all the things that this holds for us. It is so much a part of our everyday lives that we do not stop to define it, or to put it into packages for export. But throughout the world, wherever people are oppressed, wherever people dream of freedom and opportunity, they feel the inspiration of the American idea.

What we are trying to do, in our foreign policy, is to make possible a world in which our own people, and all people who have the same determination, can work in their own way toward a better life, without having to bear the yoke of tyranny.

—————-

I have always known the Trump administration would be putting economy, money, above all and I did outline some concerns I had about attacking a foreign policy based on transactional relationships, but it now had become a reality; it is commerce over conscience.

=================

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.

Steve Maraboli,

=================

Money is the currency of survival in today’s world and offers an ongoing temptation for “well, just a little bit more would be nice.” 90% of us know money isn’t everything, but that same 90% knows money is something. I mentioned it that way because it becomes easy to think money as a ‘this or that’ thought, everything or nothing, and, yet, in this case it is not everything, but is certainly still something. That said. I think Trump yielding the high ground to simply gain some perceived temporary ‘economic advantage’ was simply wrong and is haunting us now.

To be clear. Trump wouldn’t recognize the high ground if it smacked him in the face.

           The myth of being a builder

As noted above, America is the business of making and selling shit. Now. While that has certainly shifted over the decades (we do significantly less ‘making’ and significantly more ‘services economy’), the core of any country’s economic resilience resides in manufacturing (large, medium and small sized businesses). That said. Trump always claimed he was a builder and America must have had a dozen “infrastructure weeks” espousing a growth in manufacturing that never occurred. While it is easy to chuckle over ‘the infrastructure week that never was’ it is actually sad because it was a reflection of a cascading number of issues surrounding an “American first” belief. You need money to build infrastructure – government money. Government money subsidizes innovation and growth for which it gets paid back in tax revenue (business and individual wages) over time. Governments get crucified when they make a bad bet or ROI isn’t clear upfront, but the reality is for every ‘bad bet’ government has made that bet has evolved into, well, economic progress. In other words, you need government money for infrastructure. Which leads me to the Trump tax decreases. Ignore the fact it benefited the wealthy, it increased deficits as America gained less in tax revenue which, as a consequence, they didn’t have for, yes, an infrastructure week. In addition, the tariffs. I am neither anti nor pro tariffs. They can be used tactically quite effectively to help specific industries compete. The Trump administration implemented tariffs like a dull axe in combination with the fact they didn’t coordinate with the EU so tariffs hurt the US doubly as that business went elsewhere. But the tariffs situation got a bit worse as we think about money to invest. Trump, in the attempt to limit the bad news domestically, began subsidizing the American industries he crippled with the tariffs. Basically, the government money wasn’t being used to innovate or invest but rather to prop up industries he was hurting with his policies. To be clear, I am not opposed to doing that when warranted, but this was a self-inflicted deficit increaser which capped any opportunities to invest elsewhere.

Trump really was never a builder, he just likes to own things, and the American economy got trapped in the wretched hollow in between his ‘builder myth’ and the reality of how a country actually builds shit.

In the end.

“The U.S. is, for now, out of the world order business.” <Robert Kagan>. After more than 70 years, American internationalism was pronounced politically dead during the Trump administration.

What is really stunning, and upsetting, to people like me is that the United States started going backwards. It is simply beyond me that we began steering ourselves toward antiquated systems and antiquated thinking rather than moving forward to leading in innovations and ideas. I can only feel a sinking feeling in my stomach as the rest of the world understood what Trump, and his administration, apparently did not; that the United States was about to give away the markets, the technology, the innovation, the jobs and the leadership. The unifying thread through Trump’s agenda appeared to be an attempt to resurrect an earlier antiquated world which marginalizes future considerations and maximizes short term considerations culminating in a stunningly self-destructive United States act of diplomatic and economic isolation.

“Our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect.”

Donald Trump

Well. That in a nutshell summarizes a naïve view of Life.

For in those words, he implies the only way to gain respect is to act only as an “I” and that within a “we” world a country, or a person, no one can be first. And, well, first is all that matters. For in these words, he implies globalism is a hollow idea and that first can never be achieved, at any time, by creating a rising tide for everyone, but rather if it is only our tide that rises.

During the Trump administration Pew surveys showed United States became less and less popular and while popularity is not the best measuring stick I could suggest <in looking at the information> that the decline is a reflection of our growing indifference to democratic values and increasing interest in economic values.

They see United States assuming a transactional based relationship with the world and not a democratic based relationship with the world.

There is a price to pay for such positions – both morally and economically.

Here is what I believe.

Trump’s attempt to reverse the shift toward the future is not sustainable. Going backwards never is. And while his quasi-insane onslaught against any rule and regulation under his belief that rules and regulations were the only thing that kept him from being the wealthiest man in the world, he is actually going to be a horrible temporary “aberration” in the world’s long march toward the future.

I also believe the aberration came at a terrible cost to America.

Trump is a profoundly mediocre man with a profoundly dangerous idea of how to make America First.

I personally don’t believe Trump has ever known what America First meant, it was simply a slogan to him and he would laugh if he ever read this “If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” <Alexis de Tocqueville>. An Economics First strategy sacrifices “the good” which inevitably means America will cease to be great.

For that, even beyond the economic malpractice, I will never forgive Trump. Ever.

==========

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

=============

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at, but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

So, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

=========

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

Stephen Crane

============

“Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

Johannes Kepler

==============

The universe has no real obligation to us. Period.

Yup. That actually means we are on our own. We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

That said.

Let me make sure we are all on the same page with regard to ”rights” which means you need to ponder rights, freedom, liberty, prerogative and privilege. All of these are words which refer to the fundamental claims a person can properly make or his unfettered ability to choose <Use The Right Word: S.I. Hayakawa>.

• Right suggests a concrete claim established by legal, ethical or religious sanctions <e.g., right to equality before the law>. Although … someone claiming a right tends to argue it is inherent, a person’s rights are differently spelled out in different cultures & countries.
• Liberty is a more abstract and general notion suggesting the opportunity to choose among alternatives. A document such as the Bill of Rights spells out these conditions a citizen may construe as his rights. However … these liberties may sometimes in fact refer to an unwarranted breach of someone else’s right to consideration <we do not enjoy unbridled liberty without regard for the rights of others>.
• Civil liberty is understood to refer to all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments.
• Freedom is close to liberty in its abstract generality but stresses a total lack of constraint more than the opportunity for choice.
• Prerogative and privilege are much more specific in their meanings than the other words here. Prerogative refers to a right that one has by virtue of age, sex or position. Privilege suggests advantages given as favors or added luxuries rather than necessary rights.

I share all that to point out that while we may complicate our lives by confusing all these dynamics we also complicate our lives unnecessarily.

Anyway. We tend to complicate our lives in a number of ways.

Sometimes it is we feel like Life, or the universe, should be a little more helpful.

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

Sometimes we seek an easier path because the way we are going seems a little too hard.

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

Sometimes we assume privileges with regard to desire of good things.

============

“People tend to complicate their lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

=============

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

Far too often we view freedoms as freedom to be stupid, idiotic or thoughtless.

Specifically, far too often we view freedom of speech as a way to shared well-articulated insightful thoughts to better the world around them simply because, well, we were fortunate enough to be nearby when speech, freely given, was shared.

Well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say only smart things. It also means freedom to be stupid, idiotic and thoughtless.

Yeah.

Freedom is a sticky wicket. It permits freedom to say stupid things, factual things and nonfactual things.

And, yet, as John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty,” freedom of expression is the freedom on which all other civic rights are based.

Now. Two things.

First. I do believe those who speak have a responsibility to be responsible. Freedom of speech, and expression, is a privilege not to be abused. But that is my opinion.

Just mine.

However, stupidity aside, I would rather someone speak, regardless of what is said opinion wise, than for there to be silence. In a world in which we complicate our lives and confuse liberties and freedoms and privileges … we shouldn’t shut up. And we shouldn’t simply shut off someone because they confuse all these things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down lies <because we should> but, generally speaking, if someone wants to say something stupid, we should let them because of this universal truth:

“Idiocy thrives in the dark, not in dialogue.”

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

I have had this debate, sometimes argument, with several people.

I want neo-Nazis speaking on campuses.

I want feminists raging through megaphones on stand at street corners.

I want pro Life & pro Choice advocates debating on stages throughout America.

I want the most extreme of all sides and dimensions and directions to publicly have the opportunity to speak out.

First of all.

We should all want that.

We, here in the USA, actually live in a country where unless you shout “fire” in some movie theater or seriously offer harmful threats you actually have the privilege & right to speak your mind. This is a gift that USA gives its citizens — a gift many of the 192 countries around the world are not so quick to give their citizens.

Second.

We should abhor silence.

It seems to me that we are quickly  heading down a path where the only opinions safe to say out loud  are the benign most milquetoast ‘safe havens’ of speech — Hitler was bad,  genocide is bad, beets are bad <oops, that last one was just a personal benign opinion>.

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

And yet we are relentless in chastising those who choose to speak and the words they choose to speak are wrong, maybe even stupid and possibly ignorant.

Uhm. This makes me say …

“I have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

I do believe we are in the midst of a crisis of truth, ignorance and enlightenment … and freedoms, rights & privileges.

And it is an odd crisis in that we may actually speak up and out, but constantly get trapped in some simplistic dualisms/binaries — liberalism versus authoritarianism, Islam versus … well … Christianity/America/constitution/etc., white versus non white,  intellectual versus nonintellectual, urban versus rural and any other dualism thing you want to add.

But our issues seem to be more complex than ‘if this or maybe that.’

Our issues get compounded by the natural ebb & flow of “rights” <speech, religion, press, etc.> and what we believe is ‘right’ all combined with the unfortunate situation that the everyday person struggles to discerns fact from fiction <I would be remiss if i didn’t point out that 5+ years of Trump where he created his own fictional alternative universe in which his ‘facts’ exist and he wanted to manage the narrative as ‘his universe depicting reality’ didn’t help any of this>.

We complicate our lives needlessly.

And while Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in the 1830s that the American promise of meritocracy, its uniformity of culture and manners, and “equality of conditions” would make for immoderate ambition, corrosive envy and chronic dissatisfaction and could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties all leading to a longing for the rule of a strongman … I do not agree.

No matter how divisive we may get and no matter how much we complicate our own lives and how much we may confuse what we deserve and what we earn, what is a privilege and what is a right, all of our freedoms & rights are grounded in the one unchangeable thing we have … the constitution.

That said. I am reminded of some words written by William Martin in his fabulous book “The Lost Constitution”:

=======

“A real American will tell you that our Constitution is not a tool for politicians hoping to make points, whether it is a cynical Republican pushing flag burning amendments because their poll numbers are down or a do-gooding Democrat who decides to protect ourselves by banning guns. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made the Constitution difficult to amend, so let’s think hard before we mess with it. 

What it says is what t said two hundred years ago. I think the men who set their thoughts down here were men who cared about America. Some of them believed in a strong central government, some believed that government governs best which governs least, but all of them believed in the ability of thinking Americans to get up in the morning and resolve their differences and solve their problems. And we have lost that in this country.

The framers created a means of changing this document because they understood that the world would change. But they didn’t want to make it easy. So it up to you, the people, pick up your newspaper and read them, and think about what you read, and don’t always believe what you hear just because it is what you want to hear,. And don’t listen to what you want to hear because you hear it from somebody who shouts it loud or makes you laugh. The constitution demands more. Don’t believe the people who vote straight democrat any more than you believe the people who befoul the airwaves with rightist rhetoric every day. The theme, on every night, is that we are all American. “

==========

All that said, I circle back to where i began by saying I wanted to say two things. The first had to do with individual rights and choices, the second has to do with amplification <the megaphones of the world – tv networks, podcasts, social media>.

While I believe any individual has the right to be an idiot I think we would all be idiots if we didn’t acknowledge we are in a universe in which the amplification universe is not indifferent. In addition the amplification universe has the ability to exponentially share idiocy – not additively or even multiplicatively. Therein lies the accountability and responsivbility issue. While it sounds nice to say every platform can say whatever it wants to say <kind of a misplaced freedom of speech play> the reality is it isn’t about saying iodiotic things or lies or disinformation, its about teh amplification. So without any rules on how things get amplified <usually this comes down to algorithms> we inevitably have to talk about the source of the things that are getting shared. I, personally, think twitter, Facebook, instragram, whoever, should clamp down on disinformation and lies. Will they always get it right? Nope. Will in most cases , even in their errors, benefit society? Yup. Anything at this point which slows down amplification, or mutes what may take some time to be proven, is good. we do not need to “know everything” immediately. Give some time to vet everything. Let idiots speak but maybe limit how far and wide their idiocy spreads <at least initially>. That actually seems to protect the privileges and freedoms of citizenry more than it limits it.

Which leads me to end with the thought that it is an odd place we are in today.

It seems like never have so many free individuals felt so helpless and in their helpless feeling many people seem almost desperate to wrest control from anyone, and institutions in particular, they can blame for their feeling ‘lostness’ <however you would like to define lost>.

As I finish up this piece today it seems important to remind everyone that freedom of speech is just that … freedom of speech – and that freedom of speech is the foundation upon which all civil liberties reside.

I would rather idiocy, our confusion about what we deserve and do not deserve, be discussed rather than have to thrive in the darkness of silent strength.

Because all speech does is to start a dialogue.

It forces people to talk.

Personally, I don’t want to read, or watch, only whatever validates my beliefs.

I want to challenge my assumptions.

Personally, I know I get confused about what is a right, what is a freedom and, sometimes, what is a privilege.

The only thing I am 100% clear on is that I am privileged to exist in a country in which I can be confused on all those things and still be able to speak out.

And, lastly, I am absolutely clear that the universe has no real obligation to me … or us.

We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

What this means is that only we can complicate our lives and/or uncomplicate it.

Let’s be a little bit easier on each other.

Let’s listen a little bit better with each other.

Let’s become the universe in which we become obligated to each other rather than worrying about where my freedom begins and yours ends. Ponder.

======

“The combination of technology and capitalism has given us a world that really feels out of control.”

Jonathon Franzen

=====

 “Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis.”

Martin Luther King 1967

====

Why am I writing my umpteenth article on capitalism?

I keep seeing research in the United States that says something like 50% of people under the age of 30 do not believe in capitalism.

Ok. Let’s get this out of the way:

Capitalism is good.

Capitalism is not bad.

But that does not mean there isn’t always a tension between good and bad in the soul and system of capitalism. It is an incredible wealth-creating & life bettering mechanism and, yet, left to its own devices can run off the tracks <morally and financially>. Capitalism needs guard rails or, as some smart guy called it,“embedded countervailing power.” It needs guard rails because humans will be humans.

When business is good, human beings become greedy.

When business is bad, human beings become fearful.

And I would like to remind everyone that culture is created by, uhm, human beings. I say that not to be a smart ass but to suggest there is a real culture war in America, maybe the world, and it is occurring in the business world. I purposefully use ‘culture’ because it has to do with some ethics or moral fortitude, some personal responsibility and some pragmatic hope for the future. In fact, if we fix how capitalism works <systemic & infrastructure aspects>, the net result is addressing income inequality, wage stagnation and overall economic prosperity as well as some individual “self-stuff” like meaning and mattering <kind of all the big societal issues we tend to discuss>.

Anyway.

A moment on the role of government.

It is both a fallacy to believe Government is not the problem nor believe they are the solution. We have a mixed economy < I stole that term from Foreign Policy magazine>.

Capitalism is not supposed to be a system which is about maximizing corporate profit at the expense of the citizenry. Therefore, effective governance curbs greed objectives & regulates capitalism so that it bends the arc of the system to encourage the good things it is supposed to do <innovate & bring prosperity to many> and doesn’t do the bad things <be driven solely by greed & self interest>.

Let’s be clear.

America is not based on an unfettered capitalism nor has it ever been <nor was it ever meant to be by the founding fathers>. It is a managed capitalism system <always has been — I say that to head off any of the ‘government is too involved’ today talking heads>.

Government attempts, sometimes better than other times, to put reins on humans within a capitalistic society.  Let’s say it’s something like giving enough range for wild horses to run free, but not to trample the gardens and lawns of the surrounding areas. This ‘fettered’ managed capitalism idea is not perfect. It ebbs and flows and morphs into different shapes as time passes, but it IS an effective economic and political system.

I would suggest that, while polarizing, capitalism is balanced – when balanced.

That said. A better version of capitalism really is not dependent upon governance and laws <and putting banks out of business>, but rather personal decisions, choices & responsibility.  Yes. I just suggested <again> that people, not the system, will define the better version of capitalism. Adam Smith suggested the three pillars of a society are: prudence, looking after oneself as best as one is able; justice, keeping the law of the land; and beneficence, caring for others and society where there is need. Yeah. Adam Smith deceived in the collective interest beyond self interest.

Clearly our main issue is not how to survive on true scarcity <that is not a perceived scarcity or a “less than” scarcity> but rather how to live well with plenty.

To date we have chased double digit growth and higher GDP all the while seeking higher material happiness <sometimes confused with higher standard of living>.

We have become societally insatiable. In other words, we cannot have enough and are reaching what Hirsch called “the social limits of growth“.

This funny Maslow chart reflects that as additional personal needs are fulfilled it induces new needs <which we, as humans, constantly improve ourselves in order to further attain these ‘self actualization’ activities>.  Think about this from a non-funny sustenance perspective in growing from poverty to non poverty <but the dimension perspective will always reside in the human mind>. This is also called ‘hedonic adaptation.’

Yes. Capitalism has certainly vastly improved our lives and our means to live. But it has also fed this insatiability.

Some guy named Sandel wrote in “what money can’t buy … the moral limits of markets:”

• the more things money can buy the more the lack of it hurts.
• buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived (he used “giving children money as incentive to read a book may make reading a chore rather than a simple pleasure”).

This all leads to an overall attitude that endless <and double digit> growth is essential to maintain and improve our quality of life. While I will not go into the detailed debate … that is simply not true <this is the typical efficiency versus effectiveness argument>.

Now. All that said. The issue is really about the attitudes & attributes we are attaching to capitalism.

As I share some thoughts to try and address the young’s lack of belief in capitalism I will lead with two things:

• Communism promises to make everyone equally rich and instead makes everyone equally poor.
  

• Youth thinks it invents the world. Maturity respects the world it finds.

Suffice it to say that Capitalism is becoming some evil entity in the minds of many young people. In addition, aspects of other ideologies <communism being one> are being used relatively flippantly as ‘better than’ what is occurring within capitalism. I actually believe it is a lack of understanding, but it is also quite possible there is a deeper lack of faith with capitalism.

If you step back you can see why the young <and the shallow thinkers> feel this way:

• Real unemployment is nearly in double digits and young people are struggling to gain a positive financial foothold.
• On average, according to Gallup, Americans believe that 50 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is wasted. Democrats, who are supposed to believe in big government, guess that 41 cents of every federal dollar is wasted. Republicans think it is 54 cents, and independents put the number at 55 cents in the dollar.
• A poll found that most Americans would rather their government did less. Some 57% said it was doing too many things that were better left to individuals and businesses. Only 38% thought it should do more.

And many people have genuine complaints. Many working-class men have lost their jobs. Those who are still employed have seen their wages stagnate/decrease. And overall they don’t trust government not to make it worse.

This is a sad state of affairs <for government who CAN make shit happen> because regulations can positively address stagnation & inequality without intervening in entrepreneurial decisions or in the price/profit mechanism. The harsh black & white truth no one wants to say is that regulation is what makes free markets, well, free <free markets cannot sustain themselves and constraints actually benefit fresh ideas>.

Anyway.

I have been thinking about capitalism for a while nudging my mind toward discussing morals and character <society & culture>. In doing so I found it interesting to think about Schumpeter when addressing the youth capitalism challenge.

• what Joseph Schumpeter called ‘the cultural contradictions’ of Capitalism

One of the cultural contradictions <I believe he outlined 5> was Rationality. In that Capitalism encourages rationality in behavior and that culture creates, and demands, a natural conflict by insisting on some ‘irrational’ behavior. Rationality comes to life as the “maximization” of particular interests of individuals and groups. This same rationalization concept then bleeds into both personal lives <family & home> and ultimately becomes embodied in some form or fashion into cultural forms. Children become quasi economic assets <or their rearing incorporates rational ‘maximization’ theory embedded in capitalism>. At its extreme, maximization bleeds into soulless wealth and extreme consumption thereby substituting saving and societal salvation. Oddly, but fairly, Schumpeter suggests consumption wins against accumulation. This leads to a certain diminishing of the desirability of incomes above a certain level. At the same time, however, when the breaks of certain values associated with ethical or religious tradition fail <called the sophrosyne: Greek philosophical term meaning healthy-mindedness and from there self-control or moderation guided by knowledge and balance. Roman poet Juvenal later interpreted sophrosyne as “mens sana in corpore sano” – “a healthy mind in a healthy body”> individuals and groups come into natural conflict with capitalism. The basic human instinct is one of core values <in some degree within everyone> and therefore the natural contradiction forces some balance within capitalism.

This means that the irrational components of behavior are critical for capitalism to emerge and withstand rational arguments especially when based on long term considerations.

But. That said.

===

“This is the genius and the Achilles’ heel of American culture. We … have a strong belief in self-determination and agency, even when our expectations fly in the face of reality,”

Katherine Newman, who studies social mobility

====

Capitalism in America is not functioning efficiently for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t make it bad.

Which leads me to the issue of Confused capitalism … or being confused by capitalism.

No matter how altruistic and non-materialistic you may be the psychological issue is simple — as we sit perched on a stool at the bar of society where we can scan the room and see the danger of those who have nothing or little … as well as those who have the most <and lots of most>.

If the majority of us begin to look like we are either nearing the dangerously ‘nothing people’ or, contrarily, appear to be too distant from those who ‘have the most’ <no matter what your exact status is> we get nervous if not angry. Materialism, culturally, is therefore naturally cyclical in that it will always seek to balance itself or find some equilibrium. For we always ‘want’, but most of us want it to be within the realm of ‘hopeful that we can get more’ … without appearing too greedy. Hence that is fairness <in an irrational sense>.

In other words.

Give me a chance for something more than I have and give me more and I won’t be too greedy.

While everyone can debate the role of money with regard to people’s happiness it is true that economic health does make people happier <more secure, more comfortable, more sustenance>.

This actually means that free-market capitalism is not devoted to integrity and a reliance on trust but rather economic growth. And this suggests the people need to be regulated.

Why do we balk at regulation?

The US has always been a wide-open, free-wheeling country, with a high tolerance for big winners and big losers as the price of equal opportunity in a dynamic society. Even though the US brand of capitalism has rougher edges than other democracies, most citizens inherently believe it is worth the trade-off for growth and mobility. Yet, at the same time, while we like the free wheeling we also recognize that we are going through some type of crisis, therefore, it just becomes a discussion on what type of crisis.

Some think it is a crisis of capitalism. <I don’t>

Others think the crisis is moral. <I do>

====

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

Bertrand Russell

====

First there is attitude. What is maybe a disregard for societal fairness versus what could be construed as individual ‘winning’ or ‘what I deserve.’ A lot has been written about the effects of globalization during the past generation. Much less has been said about the change in social norms that globalization enabled. Many people, particularly people in power positions, took the vast transformation of the economy as an excuse to rewrite the rules that used to govern their behavior. I say that because while there will always be isolated small groups of lawbreakers in high places what truly destroys morale is a systemic corner-cutting, rule-bending, self interest behavior type of construct.

I have thought about how and why this happens.

It starts early.

As young children we start off with a healthy core of greatness, but before long it gets covered in layers of doubt, fear and guilt. Often this is caused by people we trust most like parents, teachers and managers who put us down in subtle and less subtle ways. It’s as though people were flicking bits of mud at us until our core of greatness is totally covered. Even worse, we flick mud at ourselves by accepting smaller versions of ourselves through negative self-talk and poor thinking; and we become a tiny fraction of the potential that once existed.

Once potential is curbed we seek to find success in other ways sometimes circumventing “what is right” to make small excusable steps in our behavior to attain ‘small personal successes.”

Second is our propensity to consume <and its self perpetuation>.

Our propensity to consume without thought for the planet, the poor or even the person next door is a sign that greed and fear are the motives of the moment <or self interest trump collective interest in a zero sum world>. Freedom certainly creates problems (inequalities most notably), but it also solves them.

But the central aspect of freedom advanced by these thinkers was the market, or what Adam Smith had described as the propensity to truck, barter and exchange. In this area, freedom allowed dispersed individuals—disposing of their own resources and choosing for themselves what they want to buy—to generate a level of prosperity that has had no precedent in human history. And the pricing system that emerges from the market—that is, from the push and pull of supply and demand—provides the indispensable knowledge needed to guide the economy.

So. All that said.

I would tell young people that Capitalism is not the issue.

It is the people within the system <and young people can fix that by entering the system>. The system can work just fine it is simply being abused at the moment. Capitalism needs to be managed to be more oriented to the long term and socially more responsible.

Interestingly, Richard Branson has formed an initiative to do just this. I found it amusing that initially he sought to have a board of Business Elders — but there were too few candidates from the business world of sufficiently unimpeachable character to staff it <insert ‘oh my’ here>.

Anyway <to conclude part 1>.

Since World War II in particular, America has been on a consumption surge/binge. While wages have certainly stagnated, family disposable income has grown, life standards have improved, health has improved and overall quality of life has improved <and showed a continuous growth>. Unfortunately, at the same time, while families busily lived their lives they also had access to the finest inventory of toys capitalism could provide. Each generation was doing better than the one before, life was good and standard of living acquired a layer of ‘non essentials’ as part of how the people lived a successful & happy life.

At the same time. Televisions starting bringing news, influential people talking and capitalism toys into the family living room. Television allowed busy families the opportunity to be exposed to complex issues through professionally crafted sound bites and talking points. People were now becoming more informed from a larger perspective, not just local perspective, and we ushered in the inevitable “keeping up with the Joneses” aspect.

What we face is the natural rising tide of ‘better than before’ facing the ebb and flow of time. The ebbing waters are not appreciated by those who drink from the current place. Is it greed for most people? No. It is simply a desire for the status quo – “better is a right not a privilege.” Therein lies the social & cultural task at hand. Ponder.

Anyway <to conclude part 2>.

Doing something.

Me? I write and post on my blog. And speak about it wherever and whenever I can <especially to young people>.

It is easy to talk about it because it seems like if we take a moment and reflect on the problems in the world today we might easily come to the conclusion that it is mainly due to deterioration of our morality compass.

It seems like everywhere we see people filled with greed and intent on self-gratification. It seems like people are always willing to compromise on values/morality to make personal gains. That means we need to start talking about values and create some sort of awakening in the minds of people.

Will everyone do it? Of course not. But someone has to go first. Someone has to become the catalyst for change.

Why not the youth? We should encourage them to enter the system and build what they desire from the inside out rather than simply breaking the system as unfixable. Ponder.