Thoughtbasket Goes Green

Posted on July 27, 2010 | 1 comment

Your humble correspondent has recently started writing for Ecopreneurist, a publication focused on clean and green businesses. You can read my first post here.

1 Comment

Posted in Business, Pop culture, Trends

Tagged , , , ,

More on Taxes & Government Services

Posted on July 20, 2010 | 1 comment

In a timely follow up to my piece this week on the inherent relationship between taxes and government services provided, Anne Applebaum wrote a great article in Slate about the general hypocrisy of Americans who demand smaller government while castigating their government for not preventing or solving problems like the underwear bomber or the financial meltdown or the BP oil disaster. Ms. Applebaum doesn’t put it this way, but I will: if you want your government to do things, you can’t continually agitate for, and only fund, a small government. Doing things requires resources.

1 Comment

Posted in Business, Philosophy, Politics

Tagged , , , , ,

Being Successful Doesn’t Make You Right

Posted on July 20, 2010 | 2 comments

No, this isn’t some sort of epistemological exploration of what “right” really means, or whether such a thing can exist at all in a post-modern world. Quite the opposite: it is a blog entry on corporate culture and how that culture works, or doesn’t work, at successful companies, in this case Google and Microsoft.

Peter Sims wrote a piece about why he thinks Google is potentially past its prime, on the way to becoming the next Microsoft. I don’t know if he’s right about that; I suspect he is, but I hope not, since I have friends who work at Google. But in the course of his article, he talks about Google’s corporate culture and how it might be hindering current success:

“Product manager candidates, for example, are told they must have computer science degrees from top universities. But while Google’s core algorithm was a brilliant feat of engineering innovation, a growing chorus of voices question whether it can be sustained. That cookie-cutter approach to people misses important opportunities for diversity and creates glass ceilings for non-engineers, both of which stifle innovation. Cultural hubris, another pattern Jim Collins in particular raises, is of foremost concern. It is often said that at Google the engineers lead engineering, product, and even marketing decisions. But when the company has failed, such as with Google Wave or Google Radio , critics have questioned whether the company really understands people.”

Google has been incredibly successful, and folks at Google will say “our culture must be right; look how successful we’ve been.” But maybe Google wasn’t successful because of its engineering-led culture. They launched with a great search solution right at the time the market was ripe for contextual advertising. So maybe their success was due to luck. Or maybe the engineering culture was important early, but not now. After all, it’s not like Google has been spewing out successful new products (hello Orkut). In fact, Google still makes the vast majority of its revenue from the same search business it’s been running since launch.

In the same way, people at Microsoft used to say about their culture: “It must be right; look how successful we’ve been.” But Microsoft was successful mostly because it had a monopoly on operating systems, which it brilliantly leveraged into applications success. Perhaps it was successful despite its culture, not because of it. In fact, I would argue that Microsoft’s historic corporate culture of aggression was in fact counter-productive, leading directly to the antitrust actions that have hampered the company ever since.

The point is that companies, and the employees therein, should recognize that there may not be a causative relationship between the corporate culture and success, or if there was once such a causative relationship, it may have been severed as the strategic landscape changed. Companies would thus do well to avoid resting on their laurels and to instead constantly examine practices and cultures and see if they need revision based on current conditions.

2 Comments

Posted in Business, Technology

Tagged , , , , ,

No Taxes = No Government Services

Posted on July 19, 2010 | Leave a comment

There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday about cash-strapped counties letting their rural roads decay from pavement to gravel, since gravel is much cheaper to maintain. It seems telling and appropriate that we are going back to 1940’s road conditions, since we’ve spent the six decades since then overspending, undersaving and generally acting like idiots.

Several of the counties mentioned in the article have put the gravel decision up for a vote, with ballot measures that give citizens the opportunity to choose higher taxes and pavement or lower taxes and gravel. I dig that: let the people decide. But of course, this being America, some people want it both ways.

“Judy Graves of Ypsilanti, N.D., voted against the measure to raise taxes for roads. But she says she and others nonetheless wrote to Gov. John Hoeven and asked him to stop Old 10 from being ground up because it still carries traffic to a Cargill Inc. malting plant.”

So Judy doesn’t want to pay taxes to cover the cost of the road, but she wants the road paved anyway. OK people, let me explain some basic math to you. If you don’t pay taxes, you don’t get services. It’s that simple. If you don’t pay the cashier at Safeway, you don’t get to take your groceries. If you don’t pay at Home Depot, you’re not able to walk out with paint and brushes. Why should government be any different? If you don’t pay for it, you’re not going to get it.

Serious libertarians know this. Their approach is that government shouldn’t provide most services. Cool. I don’t agree, but I get it. Unfortunately, the common approach in our society is more Judy Graves and less libertarian, calling for lower taxes but more services. Less money in, more money out. This is unsustainable, and it’s why Judy and her Ypsilanti neighbors are going to be driving on gravel instead of asphalt.

Leave a comment

Posted in Business, Politics

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Palestinians Try Nonviolence; Will They Stick With It?

Posted on July 16, 2010 | 1 comment

Two articles recently, one in the Wall Street Journal and one in the NY Times (by Thoughtbasket plagiarist Nicholas Kristof), both discussed nascent efforts by Palestinian activists to use non-violence as a tactic against Israel, departing from the usual Hamas trope of violence against Israeli civilians and military targets.

As the WSJ article notes, violence clearly hasn’t worked for the Palestinians. “‘When we use violence, we help Israel win international support,’ said Aziz Dweik, a leading Hamas lawmaker in the West Bank.” Well, duh. The amazing thing is that Hamas is still using the same violent tactics that have clearly proven ineffective. It’s as if they’ve never bothered to examine their own history. Or, frankly, any other history. Because generally speaking, violent separatist movements don’t work very well. Why doesn’t Hamas go talk to the folks from the Tamil Tigers, or the Shining Path, or FARC, or the IRA? Those guys tried violence for decades, and it mostly got them killed or jailed. None of those movements achieved their aims.

Or, the Palestinians could look at political movements that did work, in India or Poland or South Africa or the American south. These movements were all built on non-violence. Moreover, they were all led by paragons of non-violence: Gandhi, Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, respectively. Who do the Palestinians have? Yasser Arafat. You can see their problem. Had the Palestinians spent the past 15 years sitting peacefully in front of Israeli bulldozers instead of throwing rocks and shooting rockets, they would probably have their own state now. Instead, Hamas is the worst enemy the Palestinians have.

And yes, I know all these situations are more nuanced than I make them out to be. The ANC did use violence, and the IRA now has seats in Parliament. And the greatest independence movement of all, the American secession from England, was indeed violent. Of course, nothing is black and white. But the general trend is clear. For the past century, non-violent movements have been more successful than violent ones. If they Palestinians really want a state, rather than just wanting power, or wanting to kill Jews, they should follow Gandhi’s lead, not Arafat’s.

1 Comment

Posted in Politics, Trends

Tagged , , , , , ,

Soccer Is Too Random for America

Posted on July 6, 2010 | Leave a comment

Like many Americans, I have been watching a lot of soccer during the World Cup. Also like many Americans, I won’t watch soccer again until the next World Cup in four years. Despite the popularity of youth soccer across the US, the game has just never really caught on as a spectator sport here.

A number of theories exists as to why soccer isn’t more popular in America — no timeouts for commercial breaks, not enough scoring, ridiculous faking of injuries, generally boring*, too European, etc. — all of which are probably true (I am drinking my own explanation Kool-Aid here). And there are, I’m sure, plenty of other good reasons, including my personal uber-theory of sports, which I will save for a later post, after I have trademarked its awesome parts.

But watching this World Cup I came up with a new idea. Relative to the big American sports, soccer is way more random; players don’t have as much control as they do in our sports. The players thus lack agency, which I use here in the philosophical sense: “human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the world.” Americans like sports with heroes, and heroes require agency. All the great American sports narratives are abut players who took control (Babe Ruth calling his homer, Michael Jordan in the clutch) of their game. Randomness gets in the way of this control.

When I say that soccer players are not in control, I don’t mean this as a criticism. The guys in the World Cup are the best at what they do. But using your feet to move a ball is simply less precise than using your hands, as you do in football, basketball and baseball. Shots and passes regularly go awry in soccer; this is the randomness of which I speak.

For example, in Sunday’s game between England and Germany, at around 59 minutes a German player was breaking away. Although English defenders were closing in fast, the German had an open shot at the goal. He took the shot from not far outside the penalty area (ie. from 54 feet…pretty close) and yet he missed the goal by three feet. Why? Because kicking is not hugely accurate. Compare that to an NFL quarterback, who, even with giant players rushing in to clobber him, will rarely miss a 19 yard pass by three feet. Why? Because throwing is accurate. Note: I am watching the Uruguay vs. Netherlands game as I post this, and the same thing just happened.

True soccer fans probably like this randomness. And over time, the randomness will be evened out: even if players only make a fraction of their shots, the better team will likely take more shots, and thus score more by the end of the game. But Americans are far more Newtonian. We want action, then result. We prefer a narrative of consistent forward progress, not random fits and starts. We want our action heroes not to follow the flow of Brownian motion but to seize the day and execute, whether they are Peyton Manning or John McLane.

* I tried to find the brilliant bit from the Simpsons where the ball just gets kicked back and forth for about two minutes, fully encapsulating the American view of soccer, but the internet failed me.

THIS JUST IN: Check out this set of Get Fuzzy comics for a classic take on the American view of soccer as boring.

Leave a comment

Posted in Pop culture

Tagged , , , , ,

Not Either/Or, But Both

Posted on June 30, 2010 | 1 comment

If you spend any time reading about current affairs, whether you read newspapers, magazines or blogs, you tend to see that issues are discussed in dualistic terms. Most authors say the matter at hand is the result of either X or Y: two oppositional explanations.

For example, in this Atlantic article about obesity in America, the discussion tends to fall in one of two camps: either X) the obese are weak-willed, or Y) the obese are victims of the US system of cheap corn subsidies and for-profit food companies with their manipulative marketing and clever chemists.

Or in this NY Times article about why the military is awarding fewer Medals of Honor, the reasons given are: either X) the nature of current war doesn’t create as much of the close-in combat that tends to lead to Medals of Honor, or Y) the military system that awards medals has become so risk averse and bureaucratic that someone in the chain rejects even worthy Medal of Honor recommendations.

I understand why authors do this; it’s easier to bundle complex systems into single narratives, and creating oppositional tension makes an article more interesting. But rarely in real life are there two mutually exclusive and oppositional reasons for something. It’s not either/or; it’s both.

Life is complicated, and in virtually all situations there are multitudinous reasons for any phenomenon. Take obesity: of course some people simply won’t restrain their appetites. But it’s equally obvious that the nexus of policies and food companies greatly increases the likelihood of people eating fattening food. X and Y. And there are plenty of other likely causes too.

This shouldn’t be a great revelation to anyone – “oh, you mean there usually isn’t one simple cause for everything?” – yet journalists and pundits continue to employ the binary analysis. Does this matter? I think it does, because popular dialogue ends up framing the debate. If all people ever hear about is either/or, then they will look for a single solution, which will inevitably be insufficient. If the public instead hears about both, then they will look for more complex solutions that can address the multiple causes, and which will be far more likely to succeed.

For example, take the ballooning federal deficit, please. Pundits and politicians would like you to believe that the cause is either too much government spending or tax rates that are too low. If the public buys into that dichotomy, then the public will assume that simply cutting spending or raising taxes will solve the problem. But it won’t. The problem involves both federal spending and insufficient taxes, and it will only be solved by addressing both causes.

Discussion matters because it ends up circumscribing actual policy. So let’s make sure our discussions are accurate, even if complicated, because life is complicated.

1 Comment

Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Pop culture

Tagged , , , , , ,

CEO Pay: Out of Control

Posted on June 23, 2010 | Leave a comment

I was reading an article the other day about executive pay in America. This article said that in 1980 the ratio of what the CEO made to what the average worker made was 44:1. By 2007, that ratio had risen to 344:1. In other words, CEO pay went up 7.8 times as much as average worker pay.

That got me to thinking: has the average American company gotten 7.8 times as complex since 1980? That seems unlikely. So I searched for data that would answer my question, and I couldn’t find any. Therefore my assumption that companies have not gotten 8 times more complicated will have to stand.

But even if that assumption is wrong – even if companies HAVE gotten 7.8 times more complicated – that doesn’t mean that the ratio of CEO pay should have gone up that much. The ratio compares CEO pay to average worker salary. And if companies are getting more complex, then lots of worker salaries should be going up. Maybe not folks on the factory floor, but the guys who run the factory. Basically, everyone at director level and above should have their salaries going up to reflect any increasing complexity. Thus CEO pay is going up even faster than any increase in corporate complexity.

So what is the explanation? You’ll have to read the article, which discusses the invidious system of compensation consultants and interlocking boards. But the bottom line comes down to greed. CEOs get as much as they can, without concern for the impact of their compensation on the company or the workers below them in the hierarchy.

As many pundits pointed out after the financial meltdown [see examples here, here and here], American companies used to have a public service obligation; they were expected to provide some value to society, not be purely profit-making vehicles. The authors of the article (who are both, I should note, professors at Harvard Business School, the American epicenter of corporate greed) call for a return to that earlier attitude, with societal obligations providing a normative check on unrestrained greed. Their money quote (sweet irony!) is here:

“Every corporation is embedded in a social matrix, and is accountable for multiple factors within that social setting: obligations to the society that provides it tax advantages or public goods, such as public schooling, publicly financed research, or basic infrastructure such as roads and airports. In a democratic society like the United States, the general public expects responsible and ethical practices and the exercise of self-restraint among business leaders in exchange for vesting an extraordinary amount of power that affects society’s well-being in private, corporate hands.”

Leave a comment

Posted in Business, Politics

Tagged , , , ,

On Sacrifice: Eliot Spitzer, Moral Leader?

Posted on June 4, 2010 | Leave a comment

Disgraced New York governor Eliot Spitzer has a great article in Slate about how Americans have lost their commitment to shared sacrifice, referencing Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and the exhortation to all Americans to work hard so that the soldiers of the Civil War “shall not have died in vain.” I know it’s ironic to be lectured on sacrifice by someone who couldn’t even sacrifice his own orgasm for the good of his family and his state, but he makes some excellent points.

Spitzer talks mostly about taxes and energy, discussing for example how reading the Gettysburg Address makes  investment bankers arguing for millions in additional compensation seem petty. But I would go further than Spitzer; the need for all of us to sacrifice to solve some pretty big problems could be extended from investment bankers to union members. Shared sacrifice should apply to those who sue for millions when they trip in the grocery store, those who are always looking for a government handout, those who hate sharing. During World War II women stopped wearing stockings because the silk was needed for the war effort. My guess is that we all have a metaphoric stocking we can give up for the good of the country.

Leave a comment

Posted in Business, Philosophy, Politics, Pop culture

Tagged , , , , , , ,

GOP vs. Democratic Messaging

Posted on June 4, 2010 | 2 comments

E.J. Dionne recently wrote a piece about the open Supreme Court seat covering some of the same issues of Republican vs. Democratic messaging that I covered here and here. And a few weeks ago he wrote another article even more explicitly criticizing Democrats for continually losing the war of messages. Why are Democrats so terrible at this game? How is it possible for Frank Luntz to single-handedly kick Democratic ass time and again? I’d be willing to bet that the majority of folks at ad agencies are Democrats….so get them on the team.

You might think, and certainly we would all like to think, that policies and results are more important than messaging. Oh, how sweetly naive! If you lose the messaging battle, you never get to implement the policy and see the results. Messaging is how you get the support of the public, and since most people have very little time and/or attention for politics, your message has to be short and sweet.

Since Democrats can’t seem to get it together to develop appropriate messaging, I thought that I would take a crack at some of the key issues of the day. I don’t claim genius for any of these efforts – I’m a blogger, not a fighter – but maybe they will spark a little conversation and get some more talented folks to chip in.

Judges respecting individual rights
GOP

  • Judicial activism
  • Non-elected officials creating laws

Thoughtbasket

  • Understanding the meaning of the Constitution
  • Following in the Founding Fathers’ footsteps
  • Looking at the spirit of the law if the language is unclear

Estate taxes
GOP

  • Death taxes

Thoughtbasket

  • Monarchy prevention policy
  • Asset transfer payment

Regulation
GOP

  • Government control
  • Business killer
  • Job destroyer

Thoughtbasket

  • Public safety measure
  • Children’s health initiative

Aid to Poor
GOP

  • Socialism
  • Promoting dependency

Thoughtbasket

  • Safety net
  • Short-term help for the most vulnerable citizens

Economic Equality
GOP

  • Threat to liberty

Thoughtbasket

  • Promoting American capitalism

Questioning Security Policies
GOP

  • Unpatriotic

Thoughtbasket

  • Keeping America safe
  • Developing the best security system in the world

Healthcare Reform
GOP

  • Government takeover

Thoughtbasket

  • Preventing the deaths of innocent citizens

Finance Reform
GOP

  • Enabling taxpayer bailouts

Thoughtbasket

  • Stopping taxpayer bailouts

Raising Tax Rates
GOP

  • Destroying individual initiative

Thoughtbasket

  • Fiscal responsibility

Reaching Out to Non-allied States
GOP

  • Appeasement

Thoughtbasket

  • Realpolitik

Cap & Trade
GOP

  • Energy tax

Thoughtbasket

  • Grandchild Safety Act

Immigration Reform
GOP

  • Amnesty

Thoughtbasket

  • Continuing the American melting pot tradition

Nuclear Arms Treaties
GOP

  • Weakening America’s defense

Thoughtbasket

  • Making America safer by reducing nuclear proliferation

2 Comments

Posted in Politics, Trends

Tagged , , , , ,