Mike: I watched Jamie Dimon again; he has been featured on C-Span
this weekend. That is "Jamie," not Jeremy. He does sound somewhat like a Saint-Simonian, more than I gave him credit for until now. To the extent that he can be believed -this is the real question- he seems to be moving in a very positive direction. His comments bring a number of matters into better focus. And where he sounded most like a Radical Centrist was his recommendation that to break the partisan deadlock in DC the best course of action would be to have the president meet regularly with leaders of his political opposition. Over dinner, specifically, but it could be other venues. Dimon was thinking about Obama, who clearly was a disappointment and did nothing of this nature, and he was thinking past Trump. Can anyone imagine Trump being civil with his opposition, or, if he might be civil, does he have any capacity at all to learn something of value from them? The emphasis should be on learning from one another, hearing out the other side with the purpose of picking up useful, practical ideas. Doubtless people would still disagree about any number of issues, but seeking to "borrow" good ideas nonetheless. For Dimon himself, this has meant listening to his major clients, who are not opponents but who often are not listened to in board rooms where profitability is all that matters. But the mayor of a city, certainly a factor of consequence economically, might have social objectives that a banker could learn from -to help solve problems for a city but also as business opportunities for a major bank. Dimon also emphasized the fact that any kind of plan will necessarily need to take into account all serious problems that stand in the way of success. He was talking about national productivity, and he has identified 10 factors that obstruct greater productivity, but the principle applies to other issues. Listening to Dimon also has been a help in adding a new dimension to my current project, my own version of Buckminster Fuller's "World Game," which, of course, at least in its first iteration back in the 1950s, preceded the World Game. But Fuller showed that the general idea I had been working with has far greater potential than I had imagined. The project is much further along than it was in mid Summer. There is much more involved than I thought would be necessary back then, but my only choice is to persevere because: (1) no-one else has the same idea and no-one else understands all the moving parts, and (2) it is pointless to seek anyone's help until the project is at least at the 80% completion plateau, not any sooner. It is highly visual and there are visual elements of the game that I need to create (actually, re-draw in many instances since the first versions need revisions, on reflection) for which no-one else is qualified. This may be an optimal course of action generally, for all of us, going forward. One person does virtually all the basic work, even if this takes a long time, and only when a project is nearing completion should he seek to recruit anyone else. In which case recruitment would be asking others to "get on board" if they so desire; to help sail the ship. Which applies to you as well as me, or to Ernie or Chris. But what I now need to do is to think about are the economics of the game. I can afford to do it all, that is, get the game to the 80% mark. My costs, besides time, are art supplies, that is pretty much it. These goodies are not cheap, each professional quality color pencil, for example, costs me approximately $2, cheap color pencils that kids use are not at all adequate, this is professional level art work, and I have already gone through a couple dozen color pencils just for the preliminary designs, but I don't need to buy them all at once, nor all other art supplies of which there are many. The game can be played for next-to-nothing in dollar costs. That is, a Beta version would be very inexpensive. Even for others at my income level. BUT the game could benefit enormously if it was funded with serious money. And it has the potential of going global. Thanks to Jamie Dimon, I can now far better conceptualize the need to spell it all out, and to show bankers -or other potential investors- not only how the game can benefit players, which is a major achievement by itself, but how it represents opportunity for people who are looking for some place to invest their money. The game ties in directly with RC, as you will see sooner or later, at least if I can stay healthy for a while, and hopefully for a long time. What I have done so far "looks good" in my subjective opinion. The objective is to make money for myself -for obvious reasons since my budget is a sick joke as things are- but also to become a source for funding some version of Radical Centrism. Could be Centroids, could be something else. It has been the great failing of our group that there is no budget for anything at all. This simply cannot remain standard operating procedure; it is totally absurd that this situation has continued as long as it has. Monetizing RC has got to become a top priority. One thing is for sure, once the game is at the Beta stage, there will be a real need for people who understand the principles of RC. Billy -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
