3 ms·

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 o

by 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.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Ok, I think you are really on to something with the "it's impossible to calculate things" (the economic calculation problem postulated by some Austrian economists in the 30ies and 40ies), but where I split from the libertarians is that I don't think that means we should throw up our hands in the air and do nothing at all "gosh, it's too complicated!", but do the most direct, least invasive things to solve those problems that do need to be solved collectively. For instance, I think schools ought to be available to everyone, so that no matter who you are born, you have the means to become who you want. And that doesn't mean "just let the free market do it". I think introducing some market mechanisms might make sense - lessening the power of the teachers' unions and giving more money to good teachers - but I very strongly believe that even though most of our economy ought to be decided by a free market, not all of it should. I think that lack of simplicity grates on a lot of nerd/geek types who want a clean, simple, beautiful rule that will make everything work. However, people are messy, complex, contradictory creatures that don't function in a world of black and white. If I'm not mistaken, this is similar to the Warren Buffet view of the economy: yeah, get the government out of the market where it makes sense, let the market do its work, but then whoever wins needs to share some of that with the poorest in our society.
lutorm 18y ago
Blame is not a wasted effort, if it leads you to think about what policies are to blame for where we are now and think about what needs to change. I'd say that profit is much less interesting, people find ways of enriching themselves without caring about improving society or doing anything useful. I'd wager that that mindset is at least partially to blame for the current state of affairs.
- skmurphy 18y ago
  I think that Hoff is suggesting that creating value is better than blaming. As an entrepreneur I seek to create value, this enables me to make a profit. Adjusting my business to changed circumstances is a requirement for survival.
  - sabat 18y ago
    I agree with Hoff that creating value is better than blaming. OTOH an occasional rant might make us all feel a little better while we're creating all that value. :-)
  - Hoff 18y ago
    Correct. If you're looking to assign blame, then do evaluate your own particular motivations. You have probably already made or you are now about to make a mistake; you've taken your eye off your particular goals of creating value for your customers. Certainly don't repeat (unprofitable) mistakes. Do learn from your own mistakes, and do particularly learn from the mistakes of others. Competing against an organization that seeks to place blame on others? Now that's a potential business opportunity. That individual or that organization is not competing effectively. They're dissipating their competitive efforts. They're potentially vulnerable. Do you have a wedge here? An opening? Use it. Do continue to move toward where the target business will be, regardless. Whatever goal or profit here you might view as your motivation. Blame doesn't move you toward that goal.

by Hoff 18y ago

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.
- davidw 18y ago
  Ok, I think you are really on to something with the "it's impossible to calculate things" (the economic calculation problem postulated by some Austrian economists in the 30ies and 40ies), but where I split from the libertarians is that I don't think that means we should throw up our hands in the air and do nothing at all "gosh, it's too complicated!", but do the most direct, least invasive things to solve those problems that do need to be solved collectively. For instance, I think schools ought to be available to everyone, so that no matter who you are born, you have the means to become who you want. And that doesn't mean "just let the free market do it". I think introducing some market mechanisms might make sense - lessening the power of the teachers' unions and giving more money to good teachers - but I very strongly believe that even though most of our economy ought to be decided by a free market, not all of it should. I think that lack of simplicity grates on a lot of nerd/geek types who want a clean, simple, beautiful rule that will make everything work. However, people are messy, complex, contradictory creatures that don't function in a world of black and white. If I'm not mistaken, this is similar to the Warren Buffet view of the economy: yeah, get the government out of the market where it makes sense, let the market do its work, but then whoever wins needs to share some of that with the poorest in our society.

lutorm 18y ago

Blame is not a wasted effort, if it leads you to think about what policies are to blame for where we are now and think about what needs to change. I'd say that profit is much less interesting, people find ways of enriching themselves without caring about improving society or doing anything useful. I'd wager that that mindset is at least partially to blame for the current state of affairs.

skmurphy 18y ago
I think that Hoff is suggesting that creating value is better than blaming. As an entrepreneur I seek to create value, this enables me to make a profit. Adjusting my business to changed circumstances is a requirement for survival.
- sabat 18y ago
  I agree with Hoff that creating value is better than blaming. OTOH an occasional rant might make us all feel a little better while we're creating all that value. :-)
- Hoff 18y ago
  Correct. If you're looking to assign blame, then do evaluate your own particular motivations. You have probably already made or you are now about to make a mistake; you've taken your eye off your particular goals of creating value for your customers. Certainly don't repeat (unprofitable) mistakes. Do learn from your own mistakes, and do particularly learn from the mistakes of others. Competing against an organization that seeks to place blame on others? Now that's a potential business opportunity. That individual or that organization is not competing effectively. They're dissipating their competitive efforts. They're potentially vulnerable. Do you have a wedge here? An opening? Use it. Do continue to move toward where the target business will be, regardless. Whatever goal or profit here you might view as your motivation. Blame doesn't move you toward that goal.