RE: Where to now?
How about Hayek? Half of the article that I'm giving a link to talks about him. It is written by another Nobel prize winner, and gives a very interesting account how his professional and popular works differ. I like the comparison of him to Marx, it makes a lot of sense to me...partially because Marx was both way off the mark on predicting the future as well as someone who made major contributions to econ and basically was the first sociologist. http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/110196/hayek-friedman-and -the-illusions-conservative-economics Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: OK, I'm not at all clear on how you got top-down management out of what I said. I'm getting tired of correcting all this nonsense, I strongly believe that the attitude that fragment reflects - that what another person says is nonsense and you are correcting them - drives people away from any community in the long run if it persists and dominates. A few will engage with you for the same unfortunate reason (to try to correct you), but then it just becomes a matter of who can be a bigger bully. Do whatever you want with my opinion, but I, for one, will be quite grateful if you choose to present your words as though they were just your thoughts and opinions and to treat others with much greater respect. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
A few will engage with you for the same unfortunate reason (to try to correct you), but then it just becomes a matter of who can be a bigger bully. I'm not sure about that. Kevin, for example never struck me as a bully. And, I've never seen a counter-argument with facts and logic as bullying. I'll admit, I'm not particularly polite with John, but after someone has insulted me on a number of occasions, I tend to be a bit less careful. It's not that I try to insult people, I just don't reread things for politeness quite as carefully when dealing with a person who pontificates without reason. In other words, I'll take Feynman as condescending, but not John. And, living in Grove, I also admit I get very very frustrated with folks who are on Social Security and Medicare going on and on and on about the evil of government. When I point out they get much more than they paid in (if they are in their 70s, that is overwhelmingly true for the age group), I'm told that's absolutely false. I have to be polite, because my wife's a minister here, and I have to worry about my speech reflecting on her, but I've had to go to the emergency room a number of times to get teeth marks sewn up on my tongue. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: A few will engage with you for the same unfortunate reason (to try to correct you), but then it just becomes a matter of who can be a bigger bully. I'm not sure about that. Kevin, for example never struck me as a bully. And, I've never seen a counter-argument with facts and logic as bullying. Me neither. You took a bit of a logical leap there, to the idea that I meant that responding at all takes it that direction. The only generalization I'd make is that most people get sick of it eventually. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: Do whatever you want with my opinion, Thank you, I will. ^^ politeness ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Half of the article that I'm giving a link to talks about him. It is written by another Nobel prize winner, Without commenting on Burgin's book, I will point out that Robert Solow (bad Solow?) writes an extremely biased commentary about the book. What would you expect from a co-author of the textbook that extolled the virtues of the economy of the Soviet Union? Here's a short commentary on Solow's commentary: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/11/robert-solow-on-hayek-and-friedman-and-mps.html ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/24/2012 11:08 AM, Dan Minette wrote: How about Hayek? Half of the article that I'm giving a link to talks about him. It is written by another Nobel prize winner, and gives a very interesting account how his professional and popular works differ. I like the comparison of him to Marx, it makes a lot of sense to me...partially because Marx was both way off the mark on predicting the future as well as someone who made major contributions to econ and basically was the first sociologist. http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/110196/hayek-friedman-and -the-illusions-conservative-economics Thanks for the link, Dan. A most interesting article. It reminded me of a journal article I read in graduate school wherein a distinguished professor presented his model of consumer behavior, then noted that consumers don't actually behave that way, which led to his call for measures to make consumers conform to his model. I find that a lot of neoclassical economics reads like an analysis of how people should behave if only they were as wise as economists.g I also note in passing that a study done a few years ago about charitable giving found that economists were the stingiest group in the study, which I found not at all surprising. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: I also note in passing that a study done a few years ago about charitable giving found that economists were the stingiest group in the study, which I found not at all surprising. Would you be referring to the study published by Bauman and Rose in 2011? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268111000746 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Degeneration? Re: Where to now?
Okay, back to my discussion with myself ;-) This, of course, a tendency only. But it's sufficient and it surely kills innovation. I wonder how much further this tendency will go. I always found it hard to swallow when SciFi authors wrote about old degenerate races. Not only Dr. Brin; it also appeared in the Perry Rhodan pulp. I always wondered why there was no single brilliant, energetic, innovative member of this degenerate species who would turn the tide. Yup, that's naive. Probably read too many stories and/or watched too many movies where the hero would save the world/universe/everything, either singlehandely or with (or despite) the help of his/her idiotic sidekick. But now I wonder if we haven't already reached the goal of becoming a degenerate race. Progress mainly happens in marketing, not in research and development. And while we have a lot of hero material in our population, none of them is apparently able to make a difference. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Degeneration? Re: Where to now?
Ok - my take on it is that old, degenerate refers to the institutions of the culture, not the biology of the race, and that those institutions strangle the energy and desire to innovate of most bright people in the cradle. First of all, there would be widespread corruption, and probably absolutist government if there was government at all. Second, the rulers would have been strip-mining the economy from time immemorial, and the tech level would show it. Why innovate when anything you have can be taken from you because somebody wants it? Far better to focus on your own safety. Finally, there would be wdespread fatalism, probably backed up by popular religion - and believe me, it would be popular because it would offer an explanation of the way things were. Priesthoods preaching and enforcing this fatalism would be a bonus. Cultures like this have been known throughout history, and they often appear brilliant as long as there is anything to steal, and fall back into the pattern above when the loot runs out, so add in a sense of a bygone golden age that they are living in the ruins of. Is this not the description of these old and degenerate races so beloved of the writers you mention? Picked apart here with an eye to political science? Certainly it describes a lot of the ones so described by Western explorers in our own 17th-19th centuries. Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:17:58 +0100 From: k...@stock-consulting.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Degeneration? Re: Where to now? Okay, back to my discussion with myself ;-) This, of course, a tendency only. But it's sufficient and it surely kills innovation. I wonder how much further this tendency will go. I always found it hard to swallow when SciFi authors wrote about old degenerate races. Not only Dr. Brin; it also appeared in the Perry Rhodan pulp. I always wondered why there was no single brilliant, energetic, innovative member of this degenerate species who would turn the tide. Yup, that's naive. Probably read too many stories and/or watched too many movies where the hero would save the world/universe/everything, either singlehandely or with (or despite) the help of his/her idiotic sidekick. But now I wonder if we haven't already reached the goal of becoming a degenerate race. Progress mainly happens in marketing, not in research and development. And while we have a lot of hero material in our population, none of them is apparently able to make a difference. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/20/2012 4:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote: BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved banking and monetary issues. One of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what they are talking about can say it it plain English. Well, that just makes you as suspect as the non-financial faculty of HBS :-) Don't you know that those who are educated in a subject are very suspect, just look at all the biologists who promegate that leftist propaganda: evolution. Actually, it's sad that folks like Mario Rubio have to bow to creationists by likened teaching anything that makes what's taught at home look foolish to Castro having kids spy on their parents. It doesn't make my ideas any better than anyone else's, I am quite aware. I got annoyed by Mr. Williams condescending attitude. Some of the biggest idiots I ever met had PhDs. When I was Faculty Development Officer I actually had a Physics prof seriously argue that since the software would calculate GPAs to 4 decimal places that we should submit grades accurate to 4 decimal places. The problem I have with a lot of what passes for economic commentary these days is that it is evidence-free. It is one thing to speculate before you have done the experiment, indeed it is almost mandatory to do so if you want to know where to experiment. But when the experiment has been done, repeatedly, and always gives the same result, acting as if none of that ever happened is just plain wrong. And I note that the Republicans are at it again with the nonsense that somehow cutting tax rates will increase revenue. That has been tried, repeatedly, and it just doesn't work that way. So at this point I can only conclude that the Republicans are congenital liars. On a more serious note. I don't know anyone who can explain electroweak theory in plain English and be accurate. I've tried for years to explain parts of QM as clearly and simply as possible, and find myself going over the heads of folks. It's frustrating. Yeah, that can be tough. As Feynman pointed out, the problem is that the universe is absurd, and we are not wired to work with absurdity. But economics is not that hard. Most of the difficulty comes from people who are trying to twist things to fit their interests. Offhand, I cannot imagine too many people who have a personal stake in how QM works. But tax policy affects everyone's wallet. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: So at this point I can only conclude that the Republicans are congenital liars. You are wearing selective blinders. All politicians are liars. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
So at this point I can only conclude that the Republicans are congenital liars. You are wearing selective blinders. All politicians are liars. But not all are congenital. Luckily, most voters do not care if the lies are plausible or at least delivered convincingly. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Klaus Stock k...@stock-consulting.com wrote: So at this point I can only conclude that the Republicans are congenital liars. You are wearing selective blinders. All politicians are liars. But not all are congenital. Ha! Luckily, most voters do not care if the lies are plausible or at least delivered convincingly. I'm would not say it is lucky, but in my observation the most effective lies are the ones where the politicians tell people exactly what they want to hear. Plausibility is not so important. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Nov 19, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Klaus Stock wrote: And...we got the iPad, where you actually have to flip pages the old way. FYI -- you *can* turn pages the traditional way, but you can also tap the right edge of the page to turn it, so in effect, the whole right edge of the page is a next page button. (Likewise with the left edge for previous page.) We could have an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin debate about whether it's better to use up CPU cycles doing the page-turn animation, but I personally find it a useful visual cue, your mileage may vary considerably. That is true of iBooks, at least. Don't know much about the Kindle's GUI. I'm not sure the iPad has enough CPU moxie to be able to run eye-tracking yet. It's theoretically possible, but it would involve some high-efficiency coding. Or server-sourcing, which I'd just as soon do without .. it's annoying enough that Siri does it. And without a *very* good implementation of it, it could be extremely irritating with pages turning unintentionally or not turning when expected. *Lot* of tuning involved in that problem, and everyone's eyes move differently and the way our eyes move changes subtly over time and when drinking, etc. So it's very much a non-trivial problem with regard to several variables .. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Nov 19, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Klaus Stock wrote: We need a black swan. Maybe we already have it. The wiki model is working for editing wikipedias (not only _the_ Wikipedia, but many other clones, parodies, porn sites or just silly stuff), It began with IMDB and if they hadn't been such stupid jerks IMDB would have turned itself into what Wikipedia became. Why can't we apply the wiki idea to _engineering_? Patents. Perhaps the patent equivalen of GPL? Because the answer to why can't we apply the wiki idea to publishing information? was copyrights and licenses until GPL became a viable solution .. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/19/2012 4:56 PM, D.C. Frandsen wrote: But I also have a problem with the idea that creating new customers by which I guess, Kevin, you mean demand, is the only solution. I believe our problem has been that we have been fixated on creating demand only, not on the type of demand we are creating. I only wish we had been fixated on creating demand. Instead, everyone is fixated on something they call the fiscal cliff, which is largely a non-issue. We had budget surpluses as recently as 2000, and there were people back then who worried about what happens the the bond market when the federal government is paying down debt. Would it reduce the supply of bonds to the point that it might destabilize the bond market? Then Bush came along, put a huge amount of money in the hands of the wealthy, then started a couple of wars without any provision for paying for them. Changing the situation is mostly a matter of returning to the sensible policies we had before Bush came along, when adults were running the show. The problem is that doing it all at once is going to cause serious economic problems. Right now, there is a ton of cash that is mostly on the sidelines because the people who have it do not see opportunities for productive investment. The Republican answer is to give those people even more cash on the grounds that they are the job creators. That is complete hogwash. There is already tons of investible cash out there now. It will get invested only when there is demand for the products that could be produced. I would prefer that these products be the right kind, which for me would include renewable energy, efficient transportation, etc. because that global heating problem is still out there. But as Keynes pointed out, whether the right products are produced is irrelevant to the problem of getting the economy going again. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Perhaps the patent equivalen of GPL? Because the answer to why can't we apply the wiki idea to publishing information? was copyrights and licenses until GPL became a viable solution .. There is a difference. I have an unused trade secret in my back pocket. When I came up with it, it was a solution to an unsolved problem that was costing millions of dollars. I didn't patent it because it would have just been copied. And, unless you have millions in a war chest for legal, large companies will sue you for scores of patent infringements for things you've never heard of and you will lose your retirement trying to defend yourself against these lawsuits that are not technically frivilous. (I know someone who was the coinventer of the first bioengineering patent and when a large company copied the idea, they took the life savings of his coinventer who invented the patent when he aske for royalties). But, I still have hope that a company with a legal fund and good lawyers will be interesting in an agreement to own my IP, so I can make money on it. What you are asking is for millions of IP to be given awayand the people who will use the Wiki will be large corporations who will hire engineers and tell them copy it. So, why work hard to hand over your work to a big multinational for free? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/20/2012 2:12 PM, John Williams wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: Right now, there is a ton of cash that is mostly on the sidelines because the people who have it do not see opportunities for productive investment. Cash on the sidelines is a useless concept, and perhaps worse than useless, actually misleading. It works quite well for what I am describing. I did not see the point in going into a long analysis of where the money is, since the main point is that it is most definitely *not* going into anything that remotely creates jobs. Neither will giving those people even more money in the form of a tax cut. Top-down management of a $15 trillion economy is virtually impossible, and despite constant claims to the contrary by politicians, the best that can be hoped for is to provide incentives that might possibly, in some indefinite amount of time, nudge some parts of the economy slightly in the direction some people might like. OK, I'm not at all clear on how you got top-down management out of what I said. I'm pretty sure I never used the phrase. My only point is that people who have a lot of money now and do not invest it productively are not likely to suddenly discover productive uses for the money if you give them more of it. Another dollar in the hands of an average person is likely to result in another dollar worth of spending, which goes to products that a company must produce. In addition, if producing that product requires additional labor, there is a multiplier effect. Take that same dollar and give it to someone whose main interest is in feeding Cayman Island bank accounts, and you get bupkis. And if you find that dollar to give them by taking it away from someone who would have spent it, the result is actually negative. This result is not purely theoretical, either, since Europe is proving it on a daily basis. Anyone who keeps up on the news can see that Europe is having a much worse time of it than the U.S. right now. I don't really want to see us emulate that policy. BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved banking and monetary issues. One of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what they are talking about can say it it plain English. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved banking and monetary issues. One of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what they are talking about can say it it plain English. Well, that just makes you as suspect as the non-financial faculty of HBS. :-) Don't you know that those who are educated in a subject are very suspect, just look at all the biologists who promegate that leftist propaganda: evolution. Actually, it's sad that folks like Mario Rubio have to bow to creationists by likened teaching anything that makes what's taught at home look foolish to Castro having kids spy on their parents. On a more serious note. I don't know anyone who can explain electroweak theory in plain English and be accurate. I've tried for years to explain parts of QM as clearly and simply as possible, and find myself going over the heads of folks. It's frustrating. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved banking and monetary issues. One of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what they are talking about can say it it plain English. Which makes it ironic that you are potentially misleading people with the absurd concept of money on the sidelines. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: OK, I'm not at all clear on how you got top-down management out of what I said. I'm getting tired of correcting all this nonsense, but I thought I'd respond to this at least. You are the one claiming you know better how to allocate resources than the millions of people who are currently handling it themselves. If that is not an attempt at top-down management, then I don't know what is. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved banking and monetary issues. One of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what they are talking about can say it it plain English. Which makes it ironic that you are potentially misleading people with the absurd concept of money on the sidelines. John, differing from you does not mean one is automatically misleading people. I've seen that phrase from folks who write on the stock market all the time. It's a phrase with a meaning that's well understood. Proving pedantic points is, by a definition that goes back to the time before Tommy Aquinas, sophomoric. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
I didn't see this, so I'm resending it. Apologies if others had: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:42 PM To: zwil...@zwilnik.com; Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Where to now? On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: OK, I'm not at all clear on how you got top-down management out of what I said. I'm getting tired of correcting all this nonsense, but I thought I'd respond to this at least. You are the one claiming you know better how to allocate resources than the millions of people who are currently handling it themselves. If that is not an attempt at top-down management, then I don't know what is. Oh, I know the answer to this one, as do most ecconomists and business school faculty. You change the regulations of the parasites on Wall Street so they can't have leverage more than 40-1, can't hide toxic assents, can't pay off folks who assign ratings to give junk bonds AAA status, and can't be so big that they'll cause the whole system to crash if they fail. Don't you remember what happened when Melon followed your suggestions. The name of it is The Great Depression, as I've been reminded by my buddy at HBS. The Great Recession is not so bad, compared to this. And, it's been shown that filtered leaders are easily replaced and do not add much value. The analysis involved includes calculations that rigorously show a 4000 to 1 odds of the results being due to random fluctuations. And, they are very robust. You should read more. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: You change the regulations of the parasites on Wall Street... ...You should read more. If only it were that simple. Regulators have been trying to manage things for decades. Between regulatory-capture and the law of unintended consequences, creating regulations to accomplish a certain goal is exceedingly difficult. You should think more. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:06 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Where to now? On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: You change the regulations of the parasites on Wall Street... ...You should read more. If only it were that simple. Regulators have been trying to manage things for decades. And the suceeded for 60+ years. The repeal of Glass-Stengle (sp) had unintended consequences. One of which was giving banks a workaround of the reserve rule...by bluring the line between banks and investment houses. Between regulatory-capture and the law of unintended consequences, creating regulations to accomplish a certain goal is exceedingly difficult. And, when something has worked for 6 decades, be careful when you remove it. There is a reason we didn't have financial panics like 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 between the Great Depression and the Great Recession. The regulations worked. Would you like me to compute the odds of this being random chance for you. :-) You should think more. Certainly, I often miss things. But, I'm lucky to have brillient friends and family who I debate these issues with. It helps me find my stupid mistakes fairly quickly. Now,I know this is radical for you, you should contemplate the idea that you are not 4 sigma smarter than everyone else in the world. You would benefit by occasionally listening to other people. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: And the suceeded for 60+ years. Ha, hahaha, ho ho ho. Very funny. You would benefit by occasionally listening to other people. How about Hayek? The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. --Friedrich Hayek ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
OK, you found someone with a Nobel prize to follow. Why not the score of Nobel prize winners who don't believe in the gold standardsand wasn't he a cowinner of the prize with someone with strongly differing views. :-) Are you really that big a fan of deflation? An, how can you explain that the 30 year T-bill and gold are both at all time high prices. :-) Believe it or not, actual debate with living people is a good idea too. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:34 PM To: Jonathan Louis Mann Subject: Where to now? Now that the election is past and Obama doesn't have to worry about his re-election, will he finally stand up to Wall Street, put the brakes on corrupt, corporate capitalism, and stick to his guns on taxing the rich? If that were the problem, we'd be lucky. There is a natual self regulating mechanism in capitalism, which Clay Christensen has found, that has not worked in the last 20 years or so. The problem is that we've played out the last big innovation, and are have Apple winning market share on style instead of companies providing innovation that turns the world upside down (e.g. electricity, radio, automobiles and tractors, computers). He has a nice article on this at: http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/09/clayton-christensen-disruptive-innovations- create-jobs-efficiency-innovations-destroy-them/ I've been, responsible for a few efficiency creating innovations that saved hundreds of millions of dollars in costs, but destroyed jobs. Friends of mine have been responsible for over a trillion in wealth creation, and the destruction of thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs. Another bad by-product is that Wall Street and overpaid CEOs of companies that win by playing the game better, instead of providing jobs and services win in this enviornment. We need a black swan. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
Dan, Interesting article, thanks for the link. I am reminded of this, which came out in April, a preview of the EPI's State of Working America: 12th Edition — http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ Until the early 1970s, hourly compensation rose with worker productivity. Since then, hourly compensation has been pretty much flat, while productivity has continued to rise. This is largely the result of a shift to capital gains income, rather than productivity-based income among the top few percent, who have gobbled up the growing gap between productivity and income. Dave On Nov 19, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:34 PM To: Jonathan Louis Mann Subject: Where to now? Now that the election is past and Obama doesn't have to worry about his re-election, will he finally stand up to Wall Street, put the brakes on corrupt, corporate capitalism, and stick to his guns on taxing the rich? If that were the problem, we'd be lucky. There is a natual self regulating mechanism in capitalism, which Clay Christensen has found, that has not worked in the last 20 years or so. The problem is that we've played out the last big innovation, and are have Apple winning market share on style instead of companies providing innovation that turns the world upside down (e.g. electricity, radio, automobiles and tractors, computers). He has a nice article on this at: http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/09/clayton-christensen-disruptive-innovations- create-jobs-efficiency-innovations-destroy-them/ I've been, responsible for a few efficiency creating innovations that saved hundreds of millions of dollars in costs, but destroyed jobs. Friends of mine have been responsible for over a trillion in wealth creation, and the destruction of thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs. Another bad by-product is that Wall Street and overpaid CEOs of companies that win by playing the game better, instead of providing jobs and services win in this enviornment. We need a black swan. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
This is largely the result of a shift to capital gains income, rather than productivity-based income among the top few percent, who have gobbled up the growing gap between productivity and income. There are two problems that face workers. First, productivity has outpaced demand. Second, the world has gotten flat. So, while steel and auto workers could demand high wages in the 60s, and the first half of the 70s because they were in demand, the demand for workers is down now, except in marginal service jobs. Gautam's book may prove unpopular with CEOs because it shows that a filtered leader is not that unique, there are many other candidates who would make the same decision. This would indicate that there is no business basis to pay, for example, Apple's new CEO a 600 million bonus, other contenders for his job would have done just as well. Steve Jobs is different, he's an unfiltered leader. But, he started Apple, and if he failed, then a small company would have failed...as probably many small computer companies failed in the '70s, and many Internet companies failed in the late '90s and early '00s. The good news is that we can, if we have the political will, change the money going to the parisites in the financial sector (and there are a lot of folks in business and business schools who are not in finance who see them as parasites). And, we could cut leadership team income with minimal effect on companies. But, we cannot create many jobs where there is a reason to pay someone a good income. That is a challanging problem. It might best be faced by spreading ownership of corporations, but doing that without the law of unitended consequences bighting us is going to be difficult. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Nov 19, 2012, at 8:11 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Gautam's book may prove unpopular with CEOs because it shows that a filtered leader is not that unique, there are many other candidates who would make the same decision. This would indicate that there is no business basis to pay, for example, Apple's new CEO a 600 million bonus, other contenders for his job would have done just as well. Steve Jobs is different, he's an unfiltered leader. But, he started Apple, and if he failed, then a small company would have failed...as probably many small computer companies failed in the '70s, and many Internet companies failed in the late '90s and early '00s. It's sounding more and more like I need to get a copy of Gautam's book… Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
Dan Minette prayed: We need a black swan. Maybe we already have it. The wiki model is working for editing wikipedias (not only _the_ Wikipedia, but many other clones, parodies, porn sites or just silly stuff), It began with IMDB and if they hadn't been such stupid jerks IMDB would have turned itself into what Wikipedia became. Why can't we apply the wiki idea to _engineering_? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Dave wrote: It's sounding more and more like I need to get a copy of Gautam's book. Well, I admit I'm very biased in this, so I think my comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. But, to have a book that considers Lincoln as a near singular example of excellence in a unfiltered leader and then get the following as a book blurb: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian- Indispensable provides a masterly, absorbing, and exceptionally original approach to the age-old study of leadership. is a fairly objective indication that the book is worth reading. That's not a bad blurb from the author of A Team of Rivals. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Why can't we apply the wiki idea to _engineering_? Because wikipedia is a collection of knowledge. Breakthroughs are typically done by a few people. It's seeing what no-one has seen before, not compiling all the stuff people have seen. It would be akin to having a masterpiece painted by 10,000 people. Nothing is impossible, what you are talking about is highly filtered. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/19/2012 11:11 AM, Dan Minette wrote: But, we cannot create many jobs where there is a reason to pay someone a good income. That is a challanging problem. It might best be faced by spreading ownership of corporations, but doing that without the law of unitended consequences bighting us is going to be difficult. Dan M. There is one and only one factor that creates jobs, and it is not wealthy people. That one factor is customers. Which is why the number one priority should be to get the economy going again. Instead, we have two sides negotiating on how bad the damage to the economy will be from their austerity policies. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
There is one and only one factor that creates jobs, and it is not wealthy people. That one factor is customers. I differ here. Not that middle class consumers are not more important than the top 0.1% getting more money, I agree with that. But, Clay's article is deeper than that. Look at all the jobs that existed in 2000 that didn't exist in 1900. They employ most of the people now working. The reason for this is whole industries were developed from disruptive innovations. But, since we have't had an earth shattering disruptive innovation in more than 50 years (for 50 years our ecconomy boomed off the invention of the transistor), we are now at the point where we are just more efficent build cars, drilling for oil, etc. Thus, fewer people are needed for the same job. One potential disruptive innovation would be a process that coverts CO2, sea water and sunlight into petrol, at a cheaper price than we pay at the pump. That would create tens of thousands of good new jobs. But, the next ipad will not create many US jobs, no matter how many consumers buy it. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Dave wrote: It's sounding more and more like I need to get a copy of Gautam's book. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian- Indispensable provides a masterly, absorbing, and exceptionally original approach to the age-old study of leadership. is a fairly objective indication that the book is worth reading. That's not a bad blurb from the author of A Team of Rivals. For me, that's close enough to this quote, which does not appear on the jacket: Dave Land, you must buy this book! — Doris Kearns Goodwin Thanks for yet another vote for Gautam's scholarship. I may have had pointed disagreements with him way back, but I look forward to reading his book. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On Nov 19, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: One potential disruptive innovation would be a process that coverts CO2, sea water and sunlight into petrol, at a cheaper price than we pay at the pump. That would create tens of thousands of good new jobs. Sounds like this, about which I first heard the inventor speak at TEDxSanJoseCA in 2011: http://tedxsanjoseca.org/2012/10/jonathan-trent-phd/ I saw Dr. Trent speak about this in 2012 while hosting a TEDxGlobal viewing: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_trent_energy_from_floating_algae_pods.html Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
Hi, last big innovation, and are have Apple winning market share on style instead of companies providing innovation that turns the world upside down I vaguely remember that I the past it took about 50 years from an innovation to appear until it became mainstream. Okay, my favourite example (again) for a counter-innovation: reading books on the iPad. In the 1970s, I read books, real book. A lot of them. And, especially when reading in bed, I found that were room for improvement. First of all, the need to flip pages. It would have been cool if books had a button next page. Or, even better, a video camera which tracks eye motion to flip pages automatically. When not reading, I sometimes watched TV (when there a TV program, back in these days TV stations were only transmitting a few hours a day). One of my favourites was Raumschiff Enterprise (Raumschiff being the german word for spaceship). Yup, that was the german title of Star Trek. And there they had the electronic book reader which could flip pages automatically! In the 1980s, computer keyboards began to sport a next page key (nowadays most commonly labelled Page Down or so). In the 1990s, portable computers began to appear. E-Books remained rare - the technology was there for page flipping via buttons, but not the content. The time was not yet right. Nowadays, built-in cameras are commonplace in portable computers. There is a market for E-Books, the content is there. And...we got the iPad, where you actually have to flip pages the old way. Competing devices, like the Kindle, follow suit with models with touchscreen comping up in response to the iPad. WTF? Simple. Star Trek ran from 1966-1970. If a new idea takes 50 years to become commonplace, we can expect user-friendly book to appear no earlier than 2016. ... Or maybe it's just that someone figured out that it's easier to develop sub-par products and sell them to people with below-average intelligence than to develop something for an audience which knows what it wants. Quite a bit different from the visions of many SciFi authors, which envisioned that mankind would evolve towards higher intelligence. Instead, we've an industry which makes being dumb more favourable... - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Dave Land, you must buy this book! - Doris Kearns Goodwin Sounds like your interest in Lincoln has gotten connected to one of the experts on Lincoln. I'm happy for you. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
We need a black swan. Maybe we already have it. The wiki model is working for editing wikipedias (not only _the_ Wikipedia, but many other clones, parodies, porn sites or just silly stuff), It began with IMDB and if they hadn't been such stupid jerks IMDB would have turned itself into what Wikipedia became. Why can't we apply the wiki idea to _engineering_? Patents. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Sounds like this, about which I first heard the inventor speak at TEDxSanJoseCA in 2011: The group I was thinking of has a slightly different biological approach. It is Joule Unlimited I really don't have a dog in the fight over which company wins, I just hope someone does. It should take long enough for me to be able to retire before oil is obsolete, no matter how fast it works. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Klaus Stock Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:56 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Where to now? Hi, last big innovation, and are have Apple winning market share on style instead of companies providing innovation that turns the world upside down I vaguely remember that I the past it took about 50 years from an innovation to appear until it became mainstream. Huh? It took geosteering 3 years to drop the price of oil by a factor of 3. It didn't stay down because Chinese demand started up thenbut its one of the major reasons oil isn't going through the roof and why natural gas reserves doubled. Or, the transistor. The transistor radio came within 10 years of the invention of the transistor. Computers were used by institutions soon after that. It took about 60 years to wring most of the potential for additional innovation from the transistor, but now we are left with little innovation, so style sells. 50 years is closer to the back end of reaping the harvest of an innovation. Your idea worked only after cheap screens that printed characters that looked like writing, not glowing images, were developed, and when you could buy a book in a minute wherever you lived. Sometimes the initial idea isn't enough. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
I agree with you, Dan. Newer and better versions of tablets or iphones are marginal improvements and will not provide the stimulus to the economy to change the direction we are following. But I also have a problem with the idea that creating new customers by which I guess, Kevin, you mean demand, is the only solution. I believe our problem has been that we have been fixated on creating demand only, not on the type of demand we are creating. Much of our economy in the world today is built around building demand for throw away products that merely replace previously created products. Thus the value added by labor is wasted in terms of creating lasting wealth. As you saturate the widget market you must create artificial demand to create turn over and continued demand for the widgets. Thus, the birth of the advertising industry and designed obsolescence. Now think of all the time and effort we spend on developing advertising content which is ephemeral. Most of it is used once and discarded. Add that to the inevitable loss of raw materials to land fills as people scrap the old models and we have to ask, are we building lasting wealth or merely making work for our population? If all we are doing is recycling wealth and at the same time we allow that wealth to be siphoned off and sequestered by fewer and fewer people we have a problem. Now the idea of a black swan that would make a difference would be something that would incrementally increase wealth by adding lasting value to labor. The computer initially did that by allowing increased productivity of knowledge workers. Then by assembly line robots, etc. Or perhaps another example of what we need is something like a breakthrough in access to space and all the resources of the solar system. I apologize for jumping in late to this conversation. but you all have been fascinating. I think that these are fundamental issues that have created a flaw in our economic model and if not remedied we are facing a slow decline in the standard of living everywhere as populations change and resources become constrained. Great fodder for science fiction, of course. Chris Frandsen On Nov 19, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: There is one and only one factor that creates jobs, and it is not wealthy people. That one factor is customers. I differ here. Not that middle class consumers are not more important than the top 0.1% getting more money, I agree with that. But, Clay's article is deeper than that. Look at all the jobs that existed in 2000 that didn't exist in 1900. They employ most of the people now working. The reason for this is whole industries were developed from disruptive innovations. But, since we have't had an earth shattering disruptive innovation in more than 50 years (for 50 years our ecconomy boomed off the invention of the transistor), we are now at the point where we are just more efficent build cars, drilling for oil, etc. Thus, fewer people are needed for the same job. One potential disruptive innovation would be a process that coverts CO2, sea water and sunlight into petrol, at a cheaper price than we pay at the pump. That would create tens of thousands of good new jobs. But, the next ipad will not create many US jobs, no matter how many consumers buy it. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
I vaguely remember that I the past it took about 50 years from an innovation to appear until it became mainstream. Huh? It took geosteering 3 years to drop the price of oil by a factor of 3. snip My rant about the 50 years wasn't really meant seriously. Just the preparation to the conclusion at the end: Or maybe it's just that someone figured out that it's easier to develop sub-par products and sell them to people with below-average intelligence than to develop something for an audience which knows what it wants. Quite a bit different from the visions of many SciFi authors, which envisioned that mankind would evolve towards higher intelligence. Instead, we've an industry which makes being dumb more favourable... Or, in other words, we don't have inspired leaders in the industry any more. A manager has to maximize profits, especially the profits which are measured in hard dollars. There are two ways to achieve this: (a) be innovative, open new markets, invent (b) cut costs Approach (a) is risky. It also requires a bit of brain. So everyone chooses the safe way, (b). This, of course, a tendency only. But it's sufficient and it surely kills innovation. I wonder how much further this tendency will go. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
