6 ms·

He's right that we need to reboot -- but the irony is that it's his generation (and his mentality itself) that is forcing this. The I-got-mine, greed-is-always-

by sabat 18y ago

He's right that we need to reboot -- but the irony is that it's his generation (and his mentality itself) that is forcing this. The I-got-mine, greed-is-always-good, me-first, I'm-entitled generation of baby boomers (circa 1940-1958) is directly responsible for this mess. And, as usual, it's up to us Xers to clean up. Friedman is emblematic of his generation. He likes to make blanket statements like "the world is flat!", leaving out precious details (like the fact that cultural differences mean that a guy in Mumbai cannot so easily start the next Amazon), and expects parental-like approval from all of us. Look what I did! Look at me! Same attitude -- self-satisfied under-achievement -- created this gigantic CF we're calling an economy. Reboot? Yes. That probably means forcing all these codgers into retirement homes where they can bitch and moan about how we Xers aren't doing well enough recovering from their disaster.

kirubakaran 18y ago
> cultural differences mean that a guy in Mumbai cannot so easily start the next Amazon Why do you think so?
Hoff 18y ago
Blame is wasted effort. Agism (either way) can be legally hazardous. Bailing out a failed business model is wasted investment. Given your perception of the older folks, I'd suggest pursuing a business model based on catering to and profiting from those entitled boomers you appear to despise. But trust me on this one: some of those older folks are looking to profit from the perceptions of and the views of the younger folks, too. Whether US-based or international, looking forward at what might change - what an upgrade from Acela to service competitive with TGV might mean, for instance - would be my preference. I'm looking at where I can improve, and how I can best deal with and can profit from the changes that are inevitably coming. At what and where the target is going to be. At what products and services I can milk or can sell off or can retire, too. Changes are underway in the world economy. And I'd prefer to profit from both the "Xers" and from the "codgers" if I can manage it, as you'd termed these two large pools of potential consumers. Blame? There's enough of that to go around. Profit? Positioning for that in the current chaos is far more interesting.
- russell 18y ago
  Indeed! I am on the leading edge of the boomers and I can tell you we are just as concerned and just as angry. When I was growing up the WWII generation was lamenting how badly they had screwed it up (Vietnam, etc.) and were hoping we could do it better. Well we didn't and the generation after us, the current screw ups, didn't either. If anyone, I would blame Isaac Newton. His legacy is the mechanical universe and the philosophy the everything is perfectible. Hence the endless series of ideological laws and regulations and deregulations that will fix the problem du jour. What we need to understand is that people are greedy, short sighted, and selfish. They are also altruistic and caring. We need to diminish the unfavorable traits and emphasize the favorable. That's what antitrust and regulation do, keep the destructive side from becoming dominant. But we also need to avoid stifling society by tamping down the ability to innovate. The fixing of all this is cross generational. If we don't fix it, every one will loose, including those who have it. Have you seen the projections for social security? The angst isn't fatal. We survived the depression of the depression, we survived the post-Vietnam crisis of confidence, and we survived the crisis that Japan was going to suck up all our mojo. (OK the auto industry didn't.)
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    "...That's what antitrust and regulation do, keep the destructive side from becoming dominant..." People game systems. It's odd that you mention Newton -- the idea that some combination of regulations/deregulations will engineer a better economy is why our tax code is currently incomprehensible. Perhaps it might work if we try it again for the 50 thousandth time? It might be better to look at the economy like a chaotic system, with billions of independent agents all working randomly yet somehow creating a greater whole. The trick is a minimalist yet-changing set of constraints to allow the chaos to continue and be productive. Once you start trying to put it in a box, or choose special parameters, or try to understand or constrain the entire thing in some fashion that you can understand, you're kidding yourself. My opinion only. I can tell you that history is littered with really smart people, governments, and political parties who thought they could understand/control economics. Sometimes people mistake what I'm saying for laissez-faire or free-market philosophies. It's not. It's simply acknowledging that the over-engineering of things we don't understand usually ends up in stagnation and corruption, not growth and opportunity. We're in quite a mess now in the U.S. because politicians get elected promising more things than they can deliver. If you ask me, we started heading down this track once the federal government usurped the states back in the 1860s. There's no more sharing of power -- people slowly are figuring out that they can directly vote themselves whatever the government can borrow. No kind of market or tax policy is going to be able to get us out of this larger problem. That's the meta-issue.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
stop blaming greed. greed is universal. you think the baby boomers invented greed? the problem was INCENTIVES. The federal reserve pumped up the money supply starting in 1995, then when the bubble popped in 2000 they pumped up the housing market in order to disguise the true severity of the crash. In an environment of practically free money you'd be an idiot NOT to grab your piece.
tokenadult 18y ago
"He's right that we need to reboot -- but the irony is that it's his generation (and his mentality itself) that is forcing this." I grew up just a few miles away from where Friedman grew up, just a few years later. Friedman and a lot of his neighbors in his generation were early in urging their fellow Americans to have environmental concern and to be aware that America is just part of the world. I have good evidence for this, because my fifth-grade class made a time capsule in 1969 to be opened in the year 2001, with predictions of that year. Perhaps Friedman's elementary classmates and my elementary classmates were part of a minority in America, but maybe people who share those concerns are still part of a minority in America. Anyway, these days it's easier for more Americans to see what is going on in the rest of the world, and there is plenty to learn from. P.S. People in Friedman's generation and mine will be retiring at substantially older ages than our parents did--that's already a settled change in the Social Security law.

by sabat 18y ago

kirubakaran 18y ago

> cultural differences mean that a guy in Mumbai cannot so easily start the next Amazon Why do you think so?

Hoff 18y ago

Blame is wasted effort. Agism (either way) can be legally hazardous. Bailing out a failed business model is wasted investment. Given your perception of the older folks, I'd suggest pursuing a business model based on catering to and profiting from those entitled boomers you appear to despise. But trust me on this one: some of those older folks are looking to profit from the perceptions of and the views of the younger folks, too. Whether US-based or international, looking forward at what might change - what an upgrade from Acela to service competitive with TGV might mean, for instance - would be my preference. I'm looking at where I can improve, and how I can best deal with and can profit from the changes that are inevitably coming. At what and where the target is going to be. At what products and services I can milk or can sell off or can retire, too. Changes are underway in the world economy. And I'd prefer to profit from both the "Xers" and from the "codgers" if I can manage it, as you'd termed these two large pools of potential consumers. Blame? There's enough of that to go around. Profit? Positioning for that in the current chaos is far more interesting.

russell 18y ago
Indeed! I am on the leading edge of the boomers and I can tell you we are just as concerned and just as angry. When I was growing up the WWII generation was lamenting how badly they had screwed it up (Vietnam, etc.) and were hoping we could do it better. Well we didn't and the generation after us, the current screw ups, didn't either. If anyone, I would blame Isaac Newton. His legacy is the mechanical universe and the philosophy the everything is perfectible. Hence the endless series of ideological laws and regulations and deregulations that will fix the problem du jour. What we need to understand is that people are greedy, short sighted, and selfish. They are also altruistic and caring. We need to diminish the unfavorable traits and emphasize the favorable. That's what antitrust and regulation do, keep the destructive side from becoming dominant. But we also need to avoid stifling society by tamping down the ability to innovate. The fixing of all this is cross generational. If we don't fix it, every one will loose, including those who have it. Have you seen the projections for social security? The angst isn't fatal. We survived the depression of the depression, we survived the post-Vietnam crisis of confidence, and we survived the crisis that Japan was going to suck up all our mojo. (OK the auto industry didn't.)
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  "...That's what antitrust and regulation do, keep the destructive side from becoming dominant..." People game systems. It's odd that you mention Newton -- the idea that some combination of regulations/deregulations will engineer a better economy is why our tax code is currently incomprehensible. Perhaps it might work if we try it again for the 50 thousandth time? It might be better to look at the economy like a chaotic system, with billions of independent agents all working randomly yet somehow creating a greater whole. The trick is a minimalist yet-changing set of constraints to allow the chaos to continue and be productive. Once you start trying to put it in a box, or choose special parameters, or try to understand or constrain the entire thing in some fashion that you can understand, you're kidding yourself. My opinion only. I can tell you that history is littered with really smart people, governments, and political parties who thought they could understand/control economics. Sometimes people mistake what I'm saying for laissez-faire or free-market philosophies. It's not. It's simply acknowledging that the over-engineering of things we don't understand usually ends up in stagnation and corruption, not growth and opportunity. We're in quite a mess now in the U.S. because politicians get elected promising more things than they can deliver. If you ask me, we started heading down this track once the federal government usurped the states back in the 1860s. There's no more sharing of power -- people slowly are figuring out that they can directly vote themselves whatever the government can borrow. No kind of market or tax policy is going to be able to get us out of this larger problem. That's the meta-issue.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

stop blaming greed. greed is universal. you think the baby boomers invented greed? the problem was INCENTIVES. The federal reserve pumped up the money supply starting in 1995, then when the bubble popped in 2000 they pumped up the housing market in order to disguise the true severity of the crash. In an environment of practically free money you'd be an idiot NOT to grab your piece.

tokenadult 18y ago

"He's right that we need to reboot -- but the irony is that it's his generation (and his mentality itself) that is forcing this." I grew up just a few miles away from where Friedman grew up, just a few years later. Friedman and a lot of his neighbors in his generation were early in urging their fellow Americans to have environmental concern and to be aware that America is just part of the world. I have good evidence for this, because my fifth-grade class made a time capsule in 1969 to be opened in the year 2001, with predictions of that year. Perhaps Friedman's elementary classmates and my elementary classmates were part of a minority in America, but maybe people who share those concerns are still part of a minority in America. Anyway, these days it's easier for more Americans to see what is going on in the rest of the world, and there is plenty to learn from. P.S. People in Friedman's generation and mine will be retiring at substantially older ages than our parents did--that's already a settled change in the Social Security law.