Category Archives: Trends

Mother Nature vs. Capitalism

I was recently reading a transcript of a speech that theologian Sallie McFague gave on religion and ecology. In the speech McFague works her usual metaphor magic, discussing how language drives thought, and thought drives actions. Specifically, she called for a reimaging of the Christian worldview, from one in which the world is seen as a thing, a machine in which humans live, to one in which the world and the humans therein are seen as shared parts of a holistic body of God. This view – “that the world is from the beginning loved by God and is a reflection of the divine” – would forefront the inherent value of the environment and the religious importance of its conservation.

Interestingly, McFague claims that this reimaging is not new, but instead a return to a traditional worldview, held by Christians and non-Christians alike. The concept of earth as machine, she claims, “is an anomaly in human history, for until the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, the earth was assumed to be alive, even as we are.” McFague is not calling for a return to pre-scientific thinking, in which we must appease tree spirits and illnesses are caused by foul humours (although the current use of medicinal leeches is totally cool), but rather a recognition that all of creation is equally part of God.

For McFague, the culprit is less the scientific revolution than the drive toward individualist consumption that the market economy has engendered. Consumption of goods is linked to consumption of the earth’s resources.

“From the time of Aristotle to the eighteenth century, economics was considered a subdivision of ethics; the good life was understood to be based on such values s the common good, justice, and limits. Having substituted the insatiable greed of market capitalism in place of these values, we are now without the means to make the qualitative shift in thinking that is required.”

While I would not be inclined to say “insatiable greed,” there is no question that a market economy is inherently consumptive and that it drives people to focus on the individual rather than the common good. McFague would have us work within the current system, but temper its impact on our behavior by changing how we think and speak about the world.

To McFague’s argument from metaphor I would only add that it’s not nice to fool mother nature.

Where Does Wall Street Add Value?

I had lunch today with a guy I share office space with. He is a partner at a small investment bank and has spent his entire career at various investment banks, helping companies raise capital. He is part of Wall Street, and Wall Street pays for his house and his kids’ private schools. And yet even this insider, when our conversation turned to proprietary trading and hedge fund, he remarked “What do those guys really add to society? They don’t build anything. They don’t allocate capital. They just make money from gaming the market.”

It’s true. When we discussed Renaissance Technologies’ 45% annual return since 1988, I noted that there are 90 PhDs, mostly in physics and computer science, working there. Think of the great things those guys might invent if they were trying to grow something other than their bank accounts.

The Crazy Corner of the Tea Party

I understand the feeling of the Tea Party that government isn’t responsive to the public, and that government is too big. I even understand, although strongly disagree with, the Tea Party view that government just transfers money from hard working Americans to lazy ones. But as this NY Times article makes clear, there are parts of the Tea Party movement that share the paranoid, New World Order fears which have populated certain right-wing movements for decades. When reading the quotes from some of these people, I find it difficult to conclude anything other than that they are unhinged from reality.

Corporate Boards Need Better Members

Felix Salmon at Reuters savages Ruth Simmons, the President of Brown University and a member of Goldman’s board of directors. He points out how completely unqualified she is to provide governance to a financial firm, and how she seems more interested in the benefits her board membership can bring to her than she is in her fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. His points are true for many members of corporate boards. Board members need to provide tough, knowledgeable oversight, not a comfortable pillow for management’s decisions. The lack of strong boards is a major component in both corporate malfeasance and ludicrous executive pay schemes.

Why Americans Hate Congress

This is just one example, but of course there are zillions. Richard Shelby, Senator from Alabama, has put a blanket hold on 70 Obama nominees. Not because he has any concerns about those nominees, but because he is pouting that funds haven’t been released to build an FBI explosives center in Alabama and because he thinks the Air Force tanker procurement system isn’t fair to Northrup Grumman, which has facilities in Alabama. So let’s be clear: despite the massive deficit, Senator Shelby wants pork for his district, and he is willing to let all sorts of government agencies go unmanned until he gets his way.

And let me remind you that Alabama has 4.7 million people, or 1.7% of the US population. So one guy, representing 2% of the population, can put big chunks of government on hold until he gets his share of wasteful spending. And then he will give speeches about the importance of fiscal discipline. This is why polls show that Americans no longer respect Congress.

Read the story here, complain on his website here.

Shareholder Governance and Technology

In many of the discussions about executive compensation and Wall Street bonuses, it has been noted that shareholders are, theoretically, supposed to exercise some control, at least via election of directors. However, retail investors rarely take the time to read their proxy statements, let alone vote. This morning Eliot Spitzer (yes, that Eliot Spitzer) wrote an article in Slate listing several websites that are trying to use technology to both educate shareholders and to inspire them to get active and take control of the companies they own.

Who Rents What Movies?

Check out this totally cool map that shows the top 10 Netflix rentals by zip code for 12 metropolitan areas.

Business Schools Adding Creative Thinking

The NY Times recently wrote a story about how business schools are, in the wake of the financial meltdown, realizing that they need to teach future business leaders to think in creative, flexible and interdisciplinary ways. This is news? I’m no captain of industry, but to me it seems incredibly obvious that in business, like in the rest of life, the right way to make decisions is to pull together disparate data points to draw a conclusion, and then be willing to change that decision as new data comes in. Maybe the fact that this is news is what has been wrong with business schools all along.

Is Twitter Destroying Civilization?

Vanity Fair recently ran an article about “tweethearts,” who are women leveraging their popularity on Twitter (and their looks) into more popularity, and potentially business opportunities. Apparently the article is somewhat controversial, since it makes the women appear to be twits more than twilebrities, but given how the women posed for the article photo (see below), I’m not sure they can complain.

But I want to focus on how these women emphasis the speed and brevity of Twitter. Read these two quotes:

  • “Facebook is just way too slow,” says Stefanie Michaels, a twilebrity from Brentwood, California. “I can’t deal with that kind of deep engagement.”
  • “Sometimes,” says Julia Roy, a 26-year-old New York social strategist turned twilebrity, scrunching her face, “when you’re Twittering all the time, you even start to think in 140 characters.”

Um, hello? Facebook is too deep? You think in 140 characters? That sounds like the brain of a Golden Retriever, not a businessperson. So using Twitter makes you shallow and unable to think complex thoughts? If constant Tweeting turns people into vapid soundbites, making us a nation of Tila Tequilas instead of George Wills, then we are on the road to ruin. There are serious challenges facing this country, and they won’t be solved through discussions made up of 140 character Tweets. We need more depth, not less.

Tweethearts, courtesy of Vanity Fair

Terrorism: As Dangerous As A Tornado?

The Wall Street Journal this weekend ran a very interesting article about terrorism, and how incredibly unlikely it is for an American to die in a terrorist attack, and how Americans should maybe toughen up and look at the numbers instead of spending billions of dollars and millions of hours taking off their shoes at airports to prevent something that is statistically rare. The main article is here, and the sidebar that runs the numbers in detail (by Nate Silver!) is here.

The chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack is 1 in 3,000,000, or about the same as being killed by a tornado. Every day, 50 Americans are murdered, but we certainly aren’t spending the time and money to prevent those deaths that we are spending on the much less deadly terrorism. Obviously, this is a complicated issue that can’t be decided purely on statistics, but the point that we are maybe not focusing on the right things, and that we are maybe giving the terrorists a bigger psychic role than they deserve, is a good one.