Dispatches from the New World of Work

Perspective, As the New Year Begins

A good friend of mine, Steve Millard, a true modern telecoms-data movement pioneer, among many other things, keeps me on his intriguing mailing list. Last night (1230.07) I got what follows. As a kid who, in the early 50s, was subjected to "get under the desk" drills in the face of Soviet nucs, perhaps this has special resonance.

But I think the issue is broader than that—fact is, what follows kept me up most of last night (Sunday 1230). In a hyper-rank-conscious society (the Soviets), one incredibly thoughtful Red Army Colonel may have saved the world courtesy one and only one thing—common sense.

My message, though, is not just a tribute to applied common sense. As the new year approaches, I'd urge you to use this story as a reminder of how precious and precarious life is. Last year I touted a wonderful book, The Manager's Book of Decencies: How Small Gestures Build Great Companies, by Adecco exec Steve Harrison. I suggest using this Big Story of impending Nuclear Holocaust to remember small gestures. That is, take the time, with family and friends and colleagues and, indeed, strangers on the street, to smile or say thanks or somehow or other go the extra inch to introduce humanity into your moment-by-moment routines. Do this especially when you are harried and "don’t have a second to waste." Between this amazing story about you and me and Colonel Stanislav Petrov and planetary nuclear incineration, and Dickens' Christmas Carol (I re-read it every Christmas), we should be humbled—and moved to give serious thought to the ways in which we transit the world on any given day, at any given moment.

[What follows is the beginning of an article re-printed from dailymail.co.uk. See the original here, and more by author Tony Rennell here.]

"September 26th, 1983: The Day the World Almost Died," by Tony Rennell

Stanislav Petrov, a lieutenant-colonel in the military intelligence section of the Soviet Union's secret service, reluctantly eased himself into the commander's seat in the underground early warning bunker south of Moscow.

It should have been his night off but another officer had gone sick and he had been summoned at the last minute.

Before him were screens showing photographs of underground missile silos in the Midwest prairies of America, relayed from spy satellites in the sky.

He and his men watched and listened on headphones for any sign of movement—anything unusual that might suggest the U.S. was launching a nuclear attack.

This was the height of the Cold War between the USSR and the U.S. Both sides packed a formidable punch—hundreds of rockets and thousands of nuclear warheads capable of reducing the other to rubble.

It was a game of nerves, of bluff and counterbluff. Who would fire first? Would the other have the chance to retaliate?

The flying time of an inter-continental ballistic missile, from the U.S. to the USSR, and vice-versa, was around 12 minutes. If the Cold War were ever to go "hot," seconds could make the difference between life and death.

Everything would hinge on snap decisions. For now, though, as far as Petrov was concerned, more hinged on just getting through another boring night in which nothing ever happened.
Except then, suddenly, it did. A warning light flashed up, screaming red letters on a white background—"LAUNCH. LAUNCH." Deafening sirens wailed. The computer was telling him that the U.S. had just gone to war.

The blood drained from his face. He broke out in a cold sweat. But he kept his nerve. The computer had detected missiles being fired but the hazy screens were showing nothing untoward at all, no telltale flash of a missile roaring out of its silo into the sky. Could this be a computer glitch rather than Armageddon?

Instead of calling an alert that within minutes would have had Soviet missiles launched in a retaliatory strike, Petrov decided to wait.

The warning light flashed again—a second missile was, apparently, in the air. And then a third. Now the computer had stepped up the warning: "Missile attack imminent!"

But this did not make sense. The computer had supposedly detected three, no, now it was four, and then five rockets, but the numbers were still peculiarly small. It was a basic tenet of Cold War strategy that, if one side ever did make a preemptive strike, it would do so with a mass launch, an overwhelming force, not this dribble.

Petrov stuck to his common-sense reasoning. This had to be a mistake.

What if it wasn't? What if the holocaust the world had feared ever since the first nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, was actually happening before his very eyes—and he was doing nothing about it?

He would soon know. For the next ten minutes, Petrov sweated, counting down the missile time to Moscow. But there was no bright flash, no explosion 150 times greater than Hiroshima.

Instead, the sirens stopped blaring and the warning lights went off.

The alert on September 26th, 1983, had been a false one. Later, it was discovered that what the satellite's sensors had picked up and interpreted as missiles in flight was nothing more than high-altitude clouds.

Petrov's cool head had saved the world.

He got little thanks. He was relieved of his duties, sidelined, then quietly pensioned off. His experience that night was an extreme embarrassment to the Soviet Union.

Petrov may have prevented all out nuclear war, but at the cost of exposing the inadequacies of Moscow's much vaunted early warning shield.

Instead of feeling relieved, his masters in the Kremlin were more afraid than ever. They sank into a state of paranoia, fearful that in Washington, Ronald Reagan was planning a first-strike that would wipe them off the face of the earth.

The year was 1983 and—as a history documentary in a primetime slot on Channel 4 [UK] next weekend vividly shows—the next six weeks would be the most dangerous the world has ever experienced. ...

[Read the remainder of the article at dailymail.co.uk.]

Must Watch!

Saturday. 8PM. The History Channel. The True Story of Charlie Wilson. (A couple of reviewers say the same thing: Charlie Wilson's unvarnished story is so good-amazing-bizarre that you don't need Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts to spice it up; this is the killer version.)

Mother Lode!

The Atlantic this month (12.07) is loaded with my favorite sort of analyses; namely, those that reveal counter-intuitive truths (or decent speculations, at any rate). Consider:

*SLUMS ARE GOOD. Today's burgeoning slums are the product of people pouring into the cities from the countryside—in pursuit of jobs. (In 2008, cities' population will surpass countryside population.) While eyesores and cause of appropriate concern, said cities are in fact the source of jobs, and overall poverty reduction is significantly attributable to the migration—burgeoning slums notwithstanding. The assertion is that no nation has grown wealthy since the start of the Industrial Revolution until the country-city migration was in full flower. ("Bright Lights, Big Cities," Matthew Quirk)

*HOME OWNERSHIP IS BAD. There are indeed enormous benefits to home ownership. But the big drawback, especially in times of economic revolution, is that home ownership measurably slows migration from where the jobs were to where the jobs are. ("Housebound," Clive Crook)

*WE HAVE TOO MANY DOCTORS. The supply of doctors to an area is significantly determined by the wealth and insurance coverage of the population. Hence there are more docs per capita in well-off areas—where, in fact, medical problems are less intense per capita. This also leads in particular to an excess of specialists—lots of docs prescribe lots of tests and make lots of referrals. As to the "bottom line," healthcare, per several sound measures, is no better in places with lotsa per capita docs than in places that are doc-deprived. It gets more interesting: The more specialists, the worse the outcomes. (More or less.) Specialists trip over one another, give conflicting advice, and are notoriously bad at cross-communication. More on specialists: The glamour and pay accorded to specialists comes at the price of less and less well-paid primary care docs—it is the vanishing primary care docs who are primarily responsible for good healthcare outcomes. Dr Elliott Fisher, Center for Evaluative Clinical Sciences at Dartmouth Medical School: "If we sent 30 percent of the doctors in this country to Africa, we might raise the level of health on both continents." ("Overdose," Shannon Brownlee)

*Less AID, more aid. "Scents & Sensibility," by Sarah Chayes, is the saga of helping Afghans successfully build a soap and body-oil business. It's also the umpteenth repeat of the story of how such "on the ground," practical, human-scale efforts are slowed or halted by the ham-handedness of USAID. [Web-only slideshow]

*THE LATE-BIRD STARTS THE CREATIVE ENTERPRISE. From "How You Sleep Is Who You Are" [not available online]: "Early risers prefer to gather knowledge from concrete information. They reach conclusions through logic and analysis. Night-owls are more imaginative and open to unconventional ideas, preferring the unknown and favoring intuitive leaps on their way to reaching conclusions." Morning people are more self-controlled, more formal, respect authority, and obsess on making a good impression. The late bunch are more independent and have less respect for authority. (Research source cited by the Atlantic: "Morning and Evening Types: Exploring Their Personality Styles," by Juan Francisco Diaz-Morales.) (TP note: Sounds like we need a night-owl CEO matched by an early-bird CFO.)

Scariest News of the Day

One of my favorite business books from the last few years was Chris Anderson's The Long Tail. It showed how, in a marketplace characterized by small customer-interest niches and unfettered by the constraints of limited retail space, products can succeed without being "hits." One example: Wal*Mart carries only the top 750 CDs, but consumers can find millions of other titles through online music sellers.

Over the past few days there was news that Britney Spears' new CD was #1 on Billboard's charts. That, itself, is a scary piece of news. But here's what caught my attention: Billboard later changed their list, putting the new album by The Eagles on top.

Why is that scary? The Eagles record is only available at Wal*Mart, and Billboard had to change their rules to include sales in limited retail distribution. Britney had sold about 300,000 copies, but The Eagles had sold 711,000 copies at Wal*Mart/Sam's Club in six days.

Personally, I can't wait to hear the new Eagles CD. And, I'm not one of those anti-Wal*Mart types, by any means. But it does catch my attention when American buying behavior can be so concentrated in one place. I'll admit it. I want to be part of the fragmented, interesting marketplace The Long Tail, describes.

"How to Spend It"

I will stack my practical credentials as "avowed capitalist pig" up to anybody's; say, Steve Forbes. Among other things, how could one have lived in Palo Alto-Silicon Valley for three decades without "turning rabid capitalist," even if one had not been before? Likewise, today, capitalism unleashed in India and China is, I am quite certain, good for the world's prospects for some modicum of peace—and is enhancing the welfare of additional millions by the month.

On the other hand, anyone who does not believe in "market imperfections" is a loony. For instance, I believe that globalization, whatever that is, is a good thing—in fact, a very good thing. On the other hand, its impact is as messy-uneven as one would imagine, given the enormity of what's afoot. And indeed we (the Chinese and Indians at home, big time, and the rest of us, as well) must squarely address said imperfections—or pay an enormous price.

Which brings me to my point—though I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say. If there is anything I believe in more fervently that capitalism, it is its social twin, free speech. Hence I am inalterably opposed to muzzling ... of any sort.

But I also think that even if one is a free speech and capitalism nutter, as I am, that one can vote for the occasional dose of good taste—"manners," my Mom might have called it. Which leads me by the backdoor to the purpose of this Post. Though I wish not to muzzle, I must admit to being a little bit revolted by Saturday's Financial Times magazine, which I read in the Frankfurt airport. The issue was devoted to a single topic. The cover read: "How to spend it." (A regular feature!) I am no enemy of luxury goods—as you know from recent previous Posts, Susan gave me a Kubota 4-wheeler for my birthday. But when "one" (me) reads of the world's strife in the news section, much, if not most, of it at least an indirect product of real or perceived inequities and disaffections of some sort, "one" (me) sometimes—e.g., yesterday—wishes we, the hyper-privileged, weren't so apt to shove, de facto, our joys and toys down others' throats. It's also why I'm no fan of the new Portfolio magazine, despite excellent reporting.

I don't know how I want this Post to end. Not with a recommendation, to be sure. Just as it is, as a personal "footnote" of sorts, declaring that this certified capitalist pig feels "troubled" at times by our tendency to "flaunt it" in a way that seems distasteful ... to me. (I acknowledge, too, that it's "just" human nature—I recently read somewhere, maybe Forbes or Fortune, about the billion-dollar (!) house that India's richest dude is building outside Mumbai. Ah, well ...)

Mr Secretary

The Financial Times (09.18) had an article on Hank Paulson; in the newspaper the accompanying picture is Paulson with France's economy minister, Christine Lagarde. I had the oddest sensation. I realized how content I was to have Secretary Paulson running our economic policy. I rarely (never?) get that sensation when reading the declarations of a public figure. To the extent that anyone can keep a steady hand on the economic tiller, I think Paulson is the pick of the litter. (I felt the same way about Robert Rubin—maybe it's a Goldman Sachs thing—partially, it is indeed that.) I hardly endorse every action that comes from Wall Street, but Paulson's long track record is such, in a very tough environment that requires the utmost ballet skills, that he will deal with issues with conservatism and flair—and guide us as best as anyone can. Yup, I just felt mostly okay amidst the current volatility—courtesy Hank Paulson.

Churn, Baby, Churn!

The U.S. of A. created 500,000 new jobs in Q4 of 2006, according to Barron's (09.10). Not bad at all. One imagines a raft of firms starting or expanding to give us those jobs. Well, sorta—but mostly "no."

To get to a net of 500,000 we actually created 7,700,000 new jobs—and lost 7,200,000. Now that's a whole different kettle of fish! America's longterm economic strength is hidden here, or not so hidden—we are an insanely dynamic economy, growing and shrinking with near reckless abandon, but the net is a job creation record that is peerless in, and the envy of, the developed world.

More later.

Chinese Hegemony?

Economist and former MIT biz school dean Lester Thurow has been wrong about a bunch of things per my assessment. Nonetheless, he is smart and undoubtedly worth reading. And in yesterday's New York Times Week in Review section he offered a fascinating hypothesis in "A Chinese Century? Maybe It's the Next One." Thurow argues clearly, without resort to economist double-speak, that Chinese productivity figures are probably wildly overstated. The point is not to dismiss China's amazing progress, but to suggest that we not base micro- or macro-economic policy or security policy, especially in the short term, on the idea that China will eat our (American, European, Japanese) lunch economically, and thence geopolitically, in the next couple of decades. Thurow does not offer the "China will make mistakes" scenario, but instead says that even if China does not make mistakes, it'll probably be 100 years, or even more, before they "catch up" with the likes of us Americans.

Dismissing China's progress would be a disaster. Wildly overstating China's "inevitable march to Global Hegemony" would also be a disaster. Thurow may be wrong, but his argument is worth absorbing in some detail.

The "Wall Street" Journal, Right?

I have no idea what Rupert Murdoch will do with the Journal. But I do know hilarity when I hear it. On the road to Boston (on the way to São Paulo) this morning, at about 5 a.m., I listened to some interviews with editors and writers at the Journal following the announcement of the decision to sell to Mr M. One editor, fit to be tied and clearly expecting the immediate end of the world as he's known it, summarized his chagrin and disgust: "It's all about money."

I just about ran off the road as I choked with laughter. It's not that I doubt that Murdoch will make ideological changes, nor do I expect to agree with some of those changes. No, my response, the life-endangering laughter, is tied, no more and no less, to the name of the beleaguered editor's paper per se. This is the WALL STREET journal. And, last I heard, Wall Street is precisely and by design "all about money." (Albeit aiming to produce economic well-being.)

The WSJ is ... and has been ... and doubtless always will be ... by definition ... all about money.

(My thanks to that discombobulated editor—anything that can produce a laugh at 5 a.m. is worth a salute.)

"You're fired"?

A $10,000 investment in "Mr Trump's empire" in 1994 when it went public would result in a valuation of $636 today. (Source: NY Times/Business Day 0706.2007)

Comments?

Who Woulda Thunk ...

Who would have bet that 2 of the top 3 capitalist growth stories from the first 7 years of the millennium (or ever, for that matter) would have come from an Islamic autocracy and a Communist-to-the-core nation? I refer, of course, to Dubai and China. (India, the third story.)

Recommending Re-imagine!

Apparently there's more to YouTube than exploding soda and lip-synching. We've discovered a couple of guys who enjoyed Re-imagine! so much, they decided to share their opinions with the world. Here's a recommendation from Rick Hicks and here's one from Allister Fugill. We'd love to see more of these. So grab your video camera and tell us what you think. What's your favorite book by Tom? Favorite slide? Punchline? If you don't have a camera on hand, feel free to just let us know in the comments.

Thatcher's Shadow, Flat World, Etc.

• Tony Blair yesterday gave a speech asking business to be more aggressive in the EU. This is a Labor PM? Mrs Thatcher started a pro biz tsunami beyond the (1980) imagination, and has cast an enormous shadow. (Financial Times headline 0522: "Blair calls for louder business voice in Europe")

• The Chinese bought a significant share of our largest private equity group, Blackstone. (Financial Times headline 0522: "Chinese agency charts bold path")

• The Saudis bought GE Plastics. (International Herald Tribune headline: "Era ends as Saudis buy GE plastics")
  

Just another ho-hum day in the Global Economy, circa 2007.

(Speaking of the global economy, above is a charming picture of my view from the Heathrow Terminal 4 Hilton, where I'm hanging out for 10 hours between my Boston to London flight and my London to Johannesburg flight. A little different from Vermont in full Spring bloom at this time yesterday. So, why do I do this?)

Gloom Settles on Ankara

As you can see by the headline (above) on Ankara's English language newspaper for 0508.2007, the Turks are not exactly thrilled with the French election results. Sarkozy bluntly declared on the campaign trail that there was no way in hell his government would support Turkey's membership in the EU.

(For what it's worth, and the answer is "not much," I think it would be an epic strategic mistake to shut out this moderate Islamic country. Of course there are a jillion ramifications—but my vote is a crystal clear "Yes" for membership.)

Congratulations!

The election was important—and fully 85% of the French voted yesterday. U.S.A. 2008?

Grace

Queen Elizabeth has ruled with grace for over a half century. Her meeting with Virginia Tech people today is just one more example of that. Of course some handler suggested it—but she agreed and, I have no doubt, expressed sympathy as few could.

God save the queen.

The Meaning of 91%????

I have spent a lot of time in Muslim nations and enjoyed it and felt of value and felt very welcomed and made friends and hopefully been a statesman of sorts and a useful representative of the United States of America—as well as perhaps providing some suggestions about the effective management of human resources and enterprises in a way that contributes to global prosperity and stability. In the last year I've been to: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Dubai, Bahrain, Turkey, Malaysia. Next week my schedule includes return trips to Turkey and Dubai, the former experiencing political turmoil over the maintenance of Atatürk's state.

I look forward to my visits.

And yet on the way home from Italy yesterday, I read results of a poll revealing that 91% of Egyptians, our longtime "allies," feel that attacking American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified. Obviously this pisses me off at Egyptians. But it also pisses me off at me. This is not a political Blog. I bend waaaaaaay over backwards to keep my deeply held political views to myself. But stuff such as the 91% figure demand comment.

In short, in response to very legitimate issues, we have nonetheless exacerbated the most Godawful mess imaginable in the Middle East. And in the process screwed up almost beyond recognition, hopefully not beyond repair, America's reputation in the world as a beacon of hope and decency. (To want to shoot American soldiers is, at least metaphorically, to want to shoot at me. I am an American, and regardless of how I cast my vote, I am responsible for my government—that's the way it is in Democracies. Why do they want to shoot me? Because they're hopeless? Because I'm hopeless? Both?)

The situation is ridiculously complex, the enmities thousands of years old, and ready solutions there are not.

Still ...

I intend to go to Turkey and Dubai. I will try to be of service. (Jaw jaw beats war war, per Churchill.) And I must declare that, in the process, I will be almost as pissed off at "Washington's" "blunders"—manifest incompetence—as at the 91% of Egyptians who are maddened by us.

So/but: Do I indirectly support the 91% of Egyptians who want to kill our troops by going to Turkey and Dubai? You may say, "Of course not." I think I agree—but, frankly, I'm not sure.

What do you think?
Should I go?
Or not?
Why?
Why not?
(No simplistic, sloganistic answers please.)

(A State Department report released yesterday concludes that our "liberation" of Iraq has increased global terrorism—not ameliorated it. This is "news"?)

True Global Harmony & Hegemony

(And Happy Birthday!)

The world is a mess and getting messier.
Chaos reigns—and will get more chaotic.
America has no friends.

And on it goes. (I've been a drummer of some of this litany of woes ...)

But let's pause, for a day, anyway.
Let's wish Europe, that is the unprecedentedly peaceful and enormously prosperous European Union, a Happy Happy 50th Birthday!

Today—March 21—is the Big Anniversary. Six nations signed the very limited (mostly about steel and coal) Treaty of Rome on 21 March 1957, little more than a decade after WWII ended. Now the EU has 27 member nations and 500 million people within its confines. There's never been an alliance like it in history.

But it's so "old economy" ... right? Don't be so hasty.

E.g.: "Absurdly" high wage Germany has the highest positive trade balance (and growing) in the world—surpassing China's. The Nordic countries, so burdened by social welfare costs, are thriving and then some. And, yes, France has higher output per hour than ... the U.S.A. (Ours is higher per year—since we work a lot more hours.) London, some say (Manhattanites are in a not-so-mild panic), may surpass New York, New York, as a financial hub.

(My more intimate report on EU prosperity, or something, was made graphic at the currency exchange counter in the Lisbon airport—where I got back 139 Euros for my two-hundred dollars.)

So the EU peace & prosperity Report Card at age 50 is quite healthy.
But that's not actually the point of this Post.

My point is to speak about a broader and equally inseparable union that gives new historical meaning to the word "mighty"—namely the EU-US Dynamic Duo.

Many of "them" are irritated (or worse) at many of "us."
And vice versa.

But the point is, like it or lump it ... bachelorhood (isolationism) is behind us, and we're now an old married couple. Our politics may differ (not about the most important stuff of course—Big D Democracy, variety of flavors notwithstanding). But our economic destinies are those of Siamese twins, or close to it. Daniel Hamilton, Director of Johns Hopkins' Center for Transatlantic Studies, told Newsweek that our de facto cross-oceanic union "is by a wide margin the deepest and broadest between any two continents in history." (That's a mouthful, especially from a professor!)

Sixty percent of U.S. foreign investment, Newsweek also reports, goes to Europe—and even our investment in the smaller European nations such as Belgium and Ireland is more than our investment in China or India. In turn, or return, fully two-thirds of European foreign investment is in the U.S.A. In one of those "cute factoids," Newsweek informs us that Europe's investment in Georgia, Indiana, and Texas is greater than U.S. investment in China and Japan combined.

Hmmmm ...

So spits and spats aside, "we" are in it, and in it deep, together; and our destinies for years to come are unimaginably intertwined. And, as to the rise of China and India and the turmoil in the Middle East, well, it may well create chaos—but the EU-US colossus dwarfs any other combination and will for a long time to come.

(And add in, as I think one should, our deep partnership with Japan ... and think US-EU-Japan ... and the idea and dimensions of "colossus" stagger the imagination, a billion-and-a-quarter Chinese notwithstanding.)

We have a lot to do. But "they," and especially "we two," have come a long, long peaceful and prosperous way, baby. Yes, it does stagger the imagination—especially if you were born in Baltimore in November 1942 on the day, I believe, General Eisenhower landed, along with his raw farmboys, in North Africa while Europe lay in tatters for the second time in 25 years.

(I got to Lisbon in the late afternoon, and I was determined to get my own pic of the EU flag for this Post; I did, but thanks to lousy light, it isn't very good—but it's mine, and thence gen-u-ine, relative to this Blog.)

Whadda World ...

18% of Iraqis express confidence in U.S. troops—and over 50% condone violence against us. In a wide-ranging survey, results show that only Kenyans, Nigerians, and Filipinos think America does more good than harm in the world.

And British Air took a person who died in coach, on a Delhi to London flight, and strapped the corpse into an empty seat next to a sleeping passenger in first class for the remainder of the trip. (Article title: "Woman dies on flight, gets upgraded to first class")

Notes from the Road: As the World Turns

Went to London yesterday (there-here as I write.) Yesterday's paper was more loaded than usual:

End of the World as the English know it. An unexpected Commons vote to, after 700 years, turn to an elected House of Lords. The end is nigh for the ultimate oxymoron ... "hereditary excellence"? Quite possibly.

The Chinese are seriously considering real property rights—the right to OWN one's property. Headline (from Tom): "Today the Sun Rose in the West."

Hooray: The Brits are seriously considering severe penalties for the BAA if security lines, especially in hell (a/k/a Heathrow) are too long. Five MINUTES, on average, would be the new standard, and >20 minutes would be treated a Capital Offense. Fingers crossed, hope it happens—and exports across the Atlantic.

No less Important for being obvious. Headline, the Times (London): "A friend is loyal, kind, true ... and probably a woman." An academic study based on 10 years of data. Conclusion: "Friendship between women seems to be fundamentally different from friendship between men." "Friendship is much deeper and more moral for a woman. Women tend to keep their friends through thick and thin, across geography and social mobility. Men, on the other hand, are more fickle with their relationships and seem more interested in asking 'What's in it for me?'"

Below, welcome signs of spring, daffodils in Green Park, London, March 8.

Is It Just Hot Air?

The debate on global warming is, shall we say, heating up? Ominous warnings seem to be coming in from everywhere these days. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report last week claiming at least a 90% probability that rising temperatures are due to increased carbon emissions, while a "call to action" was heard at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, stating "in the last five years the situation has gone from bad to worse." Many agree that we have the technology and talent to deal with it, but wonder if we (in the U.S., at least) have the ambition.

Yet before we get ahead of ourselves, there are scientists who remain skeptical that greenhouse gases (human-caused) are the major source of global warming. They argue that this warming is due to natural cycles or other variables, such as sunspot activity. While the number of these skeptics is shrinking faster than the polar ice caps, we shouldn't forget that a majority opinion is no warranty of scientific truth (ask Copernicus). And ideological claims ("they're all paid off by Big Oil") are no substitute for fact-based discourse, even if the big clock is ticking.

So, a couple of questions for this esteemed business community:
1. Are you convinced that human activity is causing global warming? Why or why not?
2. If yes, what would make the biggest impact in reducing CO2 buildup?

Big League Inequality

The New York Times (Bob Herbert) reported yesterday that the 93 million non-farm production and nonsupervisory workers in the U.S. saw their real earnings go up by $15.4 billion between 2000 and 2006. That's half of the Wall Street bonuses paid by just five firms in 2006.

I believe in markets—and I also believe that we are on the verge of backlash of a magnitude seldom seen.

(Add to the above the Pfizer and Home Depot CEOs' combined separation packages of about one-half bil—one was fired, the other lost over $100B in market cap. That is, two underperforming CEOs are paid for leaving 3% of the raise of 90+ million workers over a 6-year period.)

To Be or Not to Be ...

I know Dick Cheney and former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond—and for that matter, Michael Crichton—say no deal. Maybe you do, too. That is, global warming—or not. Hence the picture above is a report, not an OpEd. Apple blossoms, Boston Public Garden, 1 January 2007. (And the bears are waking up in Russia—metaphorically and for real.) The ice sculpture picture below is from First Night Boston, the oldest FN in the country.

Thanks Arnie & Gang

No, I don't like regulation. But I do actually like the California law that makes it illegal to leave a dog in a hot car or to allow a dog to be chained somewhere more than three hours. In fact, I hope it's a felony to do either of these things!

Fry In Hell

Forget O.J. Whoever produced or airs "If I Did It, Here's How" deserves to fry in hell.

TP's Summary Response to "San Francisco" "Liberals" Post

Comments have been great! [To the "Fed Up and Pissed Off" post of 11.08.06.] Here's what I wrote on Sunday as a Comment, included here as a separate Post:

I re-read the Post, and for the life of me I can't find any defense of so-called "liberals," whatever that word means. (In fact, I thought I went way out of my way to avoid-evade the topic.)

My Tuesday-Election Day hope-expectation was-is, first and foremost, the restoration of checks-and-balances. Even that, however, does not mean "taking sides"—I'm not at all sure how things ought to turn out. I'd just like two powerful sides to issues rather than, effectively, one, which amounts to submission of Congress to the Executive; among other things, concerning the threats to Privacy (always capital P). And to say that sure as hell—despite what Rove & Co, has tried to feed us—does nothing to suggest "soft on terrorism." I'm a defense hard-liner, perhaps Joe Lieberman or John McCain flavor; AND a Privacy fanatic. (Almost all my liberal, whatever that means, friends, such as my wife (!), shudder at my hawkish-ness.)

While I personally love every aspect of SF's diversity (e.g., woman fire chief and woman top cop; women in virtual all top jobs), that is not the point. If SF is "liberal" (whatever that means), I was mainly pointing out it's a helluva lot more than "liberal." E.g., home to matchless capitalist-pigism (wealth, financing, entrepreneurs, innovation, research universities). Now I happen to think—as do Richard Florida and Juan Enriquez cited in the original Post—that the evidence clearly suggests that Diversity (capital "D," all flavors) is an essential correlate of off-the-charts innovation—and, per me, a lot more fun and enriching in general. (As opposed to Vermont where diversity—lower case "d"—means white male deer hunters and white male non-deer hunters.)

I am hardly endorsing Pelosi-ism. Parts I applaud, but I am HORRIFIED at her apparent anti-China bias—since I believe that an open, friendly relationship and minimum trade restrictions between the USA and China are at least as important as sorting out Iraq. And Charles Rangel heading the de-facto trade committee makes me nauseated. (My fellow Vermonters, without my help, just elected Bernie Sanders to the Senate. Among many questionable things, he wants to tax corporations for sending jobs offshore—what a dangerous jerk.) (Then there's my pal Sherrod Brown, the Senator-elect from Ohio, who ran on a platform of protecting manufacturing jobs—how foolish.)

Like most people—typically called "the all-important independents," which I think includes upwards of 80% of us—I feel free to choose from Column A and Column B as I see fit. I surely "admit" to being left of center on many so-called "social issues" such as "choice," but also near-loony "right" on any and almost all economic-trade stuff. Absurdly free trade (starting immediately with CAFTA)! End of "earmarks"! Balanced budget! Welcome most every immigrant! (Is that "left" or "right"? Not sure.) Just enough protection of intellectual property to encourage innovation, but not so much as to stifle innovation. Etc. Etc.

Good God, could we lighten up on the bullshit labels, acknowledge that all sane people are mixed bags, and get down to work!

Fed Up and Pissed Off

When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker-designate of the House last night many of the TV hosts asked interviewees what she'd be like. To paraphrase, but not by much, most all said, "San Francisco." (No modifiers, just "San Francisco.") One had the feeling that SF was the name of a deadly disease.

For 30+ years I lived in the "diseased" Bay Area. That included eight years in the Den of All That Is Ill ... San Francisco. At the time I was working for the ultra-liberal consultancy ... McKinsey & Co.

Forget the emotional fact that my heart and soul will forever be in Northern California, and that I count the SF years as among the most wonderful in my life.

Is San Francisco, home to former Dead Dude Jerry Garcia among other filthy rich nutters, "liberal"? Absolutely. Is that the totality of SF? Don't make me laugh—or choke. We know all about the beauty. But what about the fact that this "liberal" bastion is, along with its "liberal" neighbor Silicon Valley-San Jose, probably the Wealthiest Place on Earth? What about the fact that there is more successful entrepreneurial activity and funding therefore in said SF-Bay Area, by far, than anywhere else in the world in the history of the world? What about the conclusion that many "conservative" analysts have reached that the "nutty culture" of SF, and schools like Stanford and Berkeley, are pretty much directly responsible for the "culture" that spawned Apple, Yahoo, and, um, Google. I wouldn't be surprised if the (probably) "liberal" Google founders are ... God forbid ... Democrats. Maybe they should form a "liberal" "club" called Liberal Entrepreneurs Under Thirty with Net Worths of Twenty-five Billion Dollars or More. Is San Francisco diseased? Absolutely! It is the breeding ground of a Virus called Matchless Business & Research & Financial Success.

My "feelings" are hardly hurt by the barbs. It's just that I'm not comfortable listening to Maliciously Ignorant Idiots.

Will Speaker Pelosi be "ultra-liberal"? Who the hell knows. What we do know is that if you erased a few "liberal hotbeds" such as Cambridge MA, Boston MA, Pelosi's San Francisco, and Silicon Valley this great country of yours and mine (most readers) would economically be in the tank.

The genius demographer Richard Florida and the genius polymath Juan Enriquez demonstrate the stunning fact that most of our entrepreneurial activity and patents, the leading indicator of longterm economic health, come from an astonishingly small # of ZIP Codes. Virtually all of them are "liberal hotbeds" such as SF, Boston, Palo Alto, Cambridge, and Seattle. (Washington State yesterday sent Maria Cantwell back to the Senate—she's a rather "liberal," under 40 I believe, Microsoft Millionaire.)

Just shut up. I'm pretty typical of the lucky ones from that glorious area ... pretty "liberal"-libertarian on many contentious social issues (stem cell research, working on the environment) and a pretty well-off Entrepreneurial American Capitalist Pig Small-Business Owner.

Just shut the hell up.

Partisan Politics!

I cannot pretend to be neutral about the Ohio senate race. Back in 1985, I'd guess, a bright, energetic, determined, idealistic young state legislator from Ohio came on "scholarship" (as I recall) to one of our first 5-day "SkunkCamps," at Pajaro Dunes, near Santa Cruz California. By next Wednesday he stands a good chance of being Senator-elect Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

I wish him the best of luck next week. If he does win, Grandpa Tom plans, when the dust settles, to send him a short note: "Congratulations, Sherrod (Senator!). Current political madness notwithstanding, I believe the United States Senate is and remains the world's most extraordinary legislative body. As you take on your enormous responsibility, I pray that you will be an American first, an Ohioan second, and only third a Democrat. That is, a true national legislator. I would like to dream-believe that you will become one of those cranky lions of the Senate such as, in my generation, the late and great and independent-minded Daniel Patrick Moynihan."

Oh Boy ...

Yes, I know Jeff Skilling. (I've never hidden that fact.) He worked directly for me on a study for Frito-Lay in his early days at McKinsey. And, yes, he is as smart and clever as advertised. And, yes, I still think the nub of the "Enron model" makes sense. Hey, at every turn today (think eBay) the idea is to reduce the abiding friction in every sort of market transaction; and that was Enron's guiding idea.

Here's a quote from an AOL posting a few minutes ago on Skillling’s 24-year sentence: "The former CEO's arrogance, belligerence and lack of contriteness under questioning made him a lightning rod for the rage generated by the collapse of Enron in 2001."

All true. Skilling, not Lay, created a "culture" of swashbuckling that I'm not unfamiliar with given 30 years' residence in Silicon Valley. But the swashbuckling got out of hand—and I'm not surprised at that in a Skilling venture. And then "out of hand" drifted, then plunged toward illegal, then egregiously illegal (think California).

It's easy to say that if JS had curbed his arrogance-belligerence he'd at least be facing less jail time. But then he wouldn't be the Jeff who got in trouble in the first place.

So, with Grasso last week and Skilling this week, perhaps it's mostly done.

I know Jeff, and thence I am sorry about his future, such as it is. Alas, I fear it was deserved—and I am even more sorry that Kenny Boy Lay won't be in the cell next door.

NB: With some degree of regularity, comments at this Blog rail about Sarbanes-Oxley. Well, fine ... but rail against Skilling & Fastow & Rigas & Rigas & Ebbers & Grasso. Don't lay it off on Congress. Congress is by design (we call it the Constitution) late to act—and then moves, inevitably, to over-correction. It will ever be thus.

The Morning After, But There Ain't No Pill

I am lethargic with depression. The bombardment at home, and now as I travel, in Europe, of news from every political and military as well as civilian quarter that apparently signals the final unraveling of the Iraq "adventure" is, literally, mentally debilitating.

I find each additional loss of a soldier's life to be almost physically unbearable.* It seems there is no good, or even half good, exit strategy; and no positive scenarios attendant to sticking around.

(*And why does such a statement not include the monthly thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths? For shame—on me.)

Part of my almost clinical depression is the nightmarish parallels to the Vietnam War in which I fought, and which we lost—though, frankly, I think the stakes are much higher this time. Much higher, at worst borderline apocalyptic.

Whichever political party wields the gavel as of 8 November is confronted only with Hobbesian Choices.

Here's the content of a slide I use from Blair advisor Robert Cooper's 2004 The Breaking of Nations:

"This is a dangerous world and it is going to become more dangerous. ... We may not be interested in chaos but chaos is interested in us."

How prescient.

(NB: Much to the chagrin of my closest friends, and upon deep reflection, I supported the war initially. What was I smoking ...)

A Scold

Despite Jet Lag Majoris, I had an absolutely delightful time on Wednesday participating in Catalonia's annual day of homage to innovation. Once more the reception was overwhelming. And the "new friends" role ballooned. I felt so good, in fact, that my "feisty gene" kicked in.

For instance, I rejected the conventional idea that for a modest-sized geographic area to be successful there's a need to attract Giant Enterprise. To the contrary, I argued for entrepreneurialism and a central role for medium-sized enterprise.

I also questioned the need to depend on "leading edge" industries. Significant participation in such industries is a plus, no doubt—but once again, it is the excellence of enterprise that matters most. There is, as I see it, almost no such thing as an "old industry"—most every industry is ripe for new approaches. Think, for example, Wal*Mart, discount retailing and Bentonville-Rodgers AK.

Warmed up, I took on the European issue of declining or stagnant populations. I extolled the historically immigrant-DEPENDENT U.S. approach to growth. I surprised myself with my vehemence. "Who better an entrant than someone with the nerve to leave their roots behind, and swim across a river while dogs bared their teeth on the desired bank?" The issue is hyper-controversial, and I am hardly urging blanket amnesty for millions upon millions. Yet it is true that America's surprisingly sustained vitality is spurred mightily (mostly?) by new waves of those who "want it more" than the stagnant scions of the past. Hey, such untrammeled hunger is what rightfully scares us about the Indian surge. Moreover, waves of new & different "immigrants" are the only possible route to that rarest of corporate accomplishments—renewal. It surely is the trick of tricks at the likes of PepsiCo and GE.

Still on a roll, I questioned the future of the EU, taking that easiest of targets—the French. It's not the degree to which the Airbus fiasco reveals the problems of "picking 'national champions'" that bothers me. Instead, it's the absurd idea that anyone could compete today with a 35-hour work week. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. Yet it is true that the relatively vigorous UK is about to go to the mat (again) over the proposed universal EU restriction on work weeks over 48 hours. The Brits chose earlier to use the "opt out" option—but the EU apparently has the votes to nullify their opt-out and force them to comply. I also decried the power of the exponentially growing army of faceless, largely unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels busily churning out thousands of pages of competition-restricting regulations each and every day-year. Is Europe attempting to copy India's notorious "license Raj"?

And then I came home.

Stats of the Week

China's reserves are set to surpass one-trillion dollars, America is to top 300,000,000 citizens—and non-married heads-of-household have surpassed married headed households. Each is an important landmark. Joel Kotkin's marvelous piece in the Wall Street Journal, "400 Million Americans" (October 17 in my international edition) is well worth reading. I've known Joel for a long time, and he has again provided a very wise and timely analysis of a pressing issue.

OneWebDay

"OneWebDay is one day a year when we all—everyone around the physical globe—can celebrate the Web and what it means to us as individuals, organizations, and communities."

In honor of OneWebDay, here are a few stories from the TP Wire Service, posted this week, that show the kind of impact the web has, and might have in the future, on our lives.

Jobs
The Jobs of Web 2.0

Communication
Why Fly When You Can Web Conference?

Education
Windows HS: Microsoft designs a school system

The Future
Recognizing Tomorrow's Hot Ideas Today

The Now
Here are two very innovative ways of chronicling your life:
Waymarkr
Umbrella Photo Browser

Report from the No-Sleep Zone

Writing from the Admiral's Club in LAX; about 25,000 airmiles and 10 hours of sleep in the last 96 hours. Hence, my head is fog-bound. I assume that's why I can't find any logic whatsoever for appointing an "airplane guy" (who thinks sales of 100 items is a great year) to run a crumbling car company. The only dimension the new guy scores well on is "anybody but Billy." I'll say more when the fog burns off—maybe it will all become clear to me.

WOW!

Yesterday, page 1, the New York Times reported on revised history textbooks for high school seniors in China. In: "economics, technology, social customs and globalization." Out: Socialism in general ("one short chapter"). Chinese communism before the 1979 economic revolution ("a sentence"). Mao ("only once—in a chapter on etiquette").

A small thing? Or an incredible indicator of acceptance of change?

You be the judge ...

In Case You Missed These

Here are a few stories of note from the TP Wire Service today:

What Not To Do

RadioShack lays off employees via e-mail
This is an incredibly shameful way to treat your employees.

What To Do

The lunatic fringe at Texas Instruments
Fortune has a piece in its current issue (not yet posted at their website) about how the folks at Texas Instruments are innovating. They're doing exactly what Tom's been talking about for years, allowing weird people to do weird projects (see Chapter 23 of Re-imagine!).

What Would You Do?

Slo-Mo Home Depot
... if you saw people shopping in slow motion or frozen in place at your local Home Depot? In the Manhattan Home Depot, 225 people did just that.

Irony, eh?

Do you find this 20 July Wall Street Journal headline as amusing as I do: "Gates Won't Fund AIDS Researchers Unless They Pool Data."

To be sure, hats way off to Bill & Melinda Gates for their extraordinary efforts to make the world a better place. But you also have to chuckle when you read that (1) sharing and (2) openness and (3) transparency are the unyielding conditions for funds dispersal—based on money derived from Microsoft's-Gates' (1) determination not to share, (2) secretiveness that would make the NSA jealous and (3) opacity taken to new lengths.

Whither the Blame

We got a Comment on my Sarbanes Oxley Post decrying the effect the Legislation is having on innovation-in-America. Here was my response:

"Dee, don't disagree about the SarbOx dampening effect—but shouldn't a little of the blame be diverted from Washington to Skilling, Lay, Ebbers, the Rigases et al.???"

So Tragic It's Almost Funny

A couple of months ago Consumer Reports named Japanese cars as best in all 10 categories considered. A couple of weeks ago it was reported that for the first time Asian market share exceeded 40%. Yesterday Toyota announced they'd sold their 500,000th Prius.*

Comments?

(*But unlike "Chairman Chicken" Nardelli at Home Depot, Rick Wagoner at GM, usually one of my favorite punching bags, did show up with his Board to face the music—think "Stomp"—at the Annual Meeting.)

Hooray! (Finally!)

Hats off to: Pres Bush for a great, non-crony choice for Treasury! Hats off to new Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, a Goldman alum, for convincing Mr B of the choice and the need to beef up the job significantly. And, most important, hats off to Hank Paulson for accepting the job in D.C.

(And "no comment" on the two prior office holders.)

Irony

I haven't seen this reported, but it strikes me as ironic that the Skilling-Lay convictions came one day before the 72nd birthday of the SEC. The agency was born on 26 May 1934, with this declaration by Senate staffer Ferdinand Pecora: "I think that the stock market bill will purge the securities market of the evil practices shown to have existed in the past. The bill spells the end of the manipulator, jiggler and pool operator."—Well, not quite the end.

Generosity?!

From the Wall Street Journal, May 13. It's sometimes said Americans are stingy when it comes to foreign aid. Perhaps, but a recent study reports that our $19.7 billion in gov't aid in 2004 topped the charts and was more than #2 and #3 combined—Japan and France. Far more important, private contributions (schools, religious groups, foundations, companies, families and individuals) chipped in, conservatively, $71 billion. As usual in the U.S., it's the private sector and citizenry that lead the way. Incidentally (not so incidentally) $47 billion of the $71 billion came from individuals, not institutions.

The Bigger Story

An article-editorial in U.S. News & World Report (05.29) is titled "The Danger of Drift." It suggests that if Mr Bush's ratings remain in the tank, we will drift for the next three years—regardless of the outcome of mid-term elections. And we'll be in deep doggy doo-doo as a result. Reasonable enough argument. And important when one considers Iran and the like.

But ...

U.S. News & World Report resides in Washington D.C. And, like so many other media outlets, it seems as if it can't see beyond the Beltway—or imagine that any of us "out there" make much of a difference. It's as if we Vermonters wake up every morning, breathless to find out what they did in D.C. yesterday.

Let me be crystal clear: There is not a dollop of "red state, blue state" in this. There is a "them" vs "us"—the Congressmen and lobbyists and White House staffers and even D.C. hoteliers versus the "unsung" "other" approximately 299 million of us.

I lived for 30 years in Northern California, and I was back in glorious SF a week or so ago to do a seminar. Yup, immigration policy was on many lips—as you'd expect. Nonetheless, when one read the Chronicle and the San Jose Merc, one was but vaguely aware that D.C. existed.

Of course there were international news stories—Iraq, Iran, etc. But the gist was how "we" (that's the way I feel, Vermonter or no these days) are gettin' on with gettin' on.

The essential point: How we (CA-ians et al. al. al.) do at gettin' on is the primary determinant in whether we can afford guns & butter 20 years from now—when my stepkids are in their early 40s.

At Haaavaaaad I recently heard a "luminary" talk about the issues that confront us Americans. He listed perhaps 10—the last of which, a throwaway line from his tone of voice, was "preparing for a global economy."

Yes. I damn well pray that nutter in North Korea doesn't loose his weapons. Likewise, the terror of Tehran. But the safety of our mid-term and beyond future—security and economic might that underpins said security—depends a helluva lot more on what's transpiring in Cambridge MA's biotech labs* (and in business establishments in VT and CA and NY and KS and IA and GA) than at the Kennedy School or in the halls of Congress.

Believe it.

(*Hats off to Mike Bloomberg for his graduation address to Johns Hopkins medical school grads—he eschewed White House doctrine and begged us not to denigrate three hundred or so years of traditional scientific progress, citing everything from "intelligent design" to stem-cell research to Terry Schiavo. If my Bloomberg remark counts as "red state"-"blue state" ... my apologies. But as I said, in case you didn't "hear" me the first time—hats off to Republican Mayor Mike. FYI, if you wonder why he was down there declaiming, it's because he is a grad and has given hundreds of millions of $$$$ to Hopkins med. Exerpt: "It boggles the mind that two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, this country is still debating the validity of evolution. ... This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their opportunities.")

Thanks, Wikipedia!

Robert Morris. (See yesterday's post.)

Almost All You Need To Know About Leadership

This, from Enron juror Freddy Delgado, an elementary school principal: "I can't say that I don't know what my teachers were doing in the classroom. I am still responsible if a child gets lost."

Sounds like the jury-of-one's-peers system, even in a complex corporate trial, is alive and well. Thanks, Principal Delgado, for your service to our country—I envy the parents and students in your school!

(See attached 2-slide presentation.)

Jeff & Kenny-boy Get Theirs

Several of you have urged me to comment on yesterday's verdicts ... so I will. Fact is I knew Jeff Skilling in his early McKinsey days (he once worked for me), and guilty or not—and doubtless guilty—one shudders when a colleague faces the prospect of years and years in the Big House.

Jeff was indeed the "smartest guy in the room" and a micro-manager to boot—which certainly made it clear to me that the idea that he was unaware of details of his subordinates' affairs was utterly absurd. Likewise the idea that he was ignorant of the shades of gray and then black concerning the border between legal and illegal market manipulation insults his intelligence. So I guess I conclude "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the prosecutors and the jury got it right.

And, alas, I don't particularly wonder why. One starts as a consultant-turned-senior-manager at a modest pipeline company, and a couple of years later one is the Toast of World Business for having created a uniquely important new variety of enterprise; i.e., "smartest guy in the world—ever." (That's an exaggeration, but not too far from the level of Enron hype—after all, it was the 90s.) Moreover, the "guru set" (e.g., Gary Hamel) was at the head of the cheerleader-sycophant parade. (I was mercifully mostly absent—but only because I hadn't gotten around to penning my own "hurrahs.") Hence even the most casual student of human nature can hardly be surprised that no stone, legal or illegal, was left unturned to keep the image of omnipotence alive. In this case that boils down to managing the earnings' stream to Wall Street's liking—and, no matter how smart, coming to believe one's press clippings.

Silicon Valley, my home for 30 years, is a macho place. (Understatement.) (Gross understatement.) Competing with other very smart macho guys for bragging rights is rampant in Santa Clara County CA. In fact, such competition has been rampant wherever boys doused with testosterone have gathered—since we slithered out of the brine. (Sorry, Kansas.) And Enron was a swashbuckling, macho place—for a while the "macho place extraordinaire." Enron, with me applauding, was a band of self-acclaimed "pirates" trashing enterprise stodginess and building a spanking New World Economic Order. I was subsequently appalled at the "screw grandmother" flavor of quotes Enron-ies used as they savagely messed with the California energy market—but not in the least bit surprised. Frankly, that's the way us boys have always talked when nobody was around to hear. (In this case the biz version of the NSA was indeed listening.)

All of which is to say that while the contours of the Enron-Skilling-Lay case are unique, I'm sure it fits neatly into one of the "only seven basic plots" categories.

So, my more or less pal probably goes to jail—doubtless following the best appeals that money can buy. Incidentally "it" has already taken its toll in part. Jeff was a great-looking, buoyant guy—and now it's a pudgy, forlorn visage that emerges on our TV screens. (For what that's worth.)

Some of my closest friends have reddened their hands applauding the string of successful prosecutions at Enron. As I ponder the financial fate of the thousands upon thousands who lost every penny of their pensions, I applaud the verdict, too—though many of those folks did not object at the time to being even bit players at "the coolest place on earth."

I'm glad when the crooks get caught. I even applaud the blunt weapons such as Sarbanes-Oxley which must be occasionally concocted to right the cumulative imbalances of cowboy capitalism run amok. On the other hand I also acknowledge that "cowboy capitalism" is near the heart—and even the soul—of America's 2-century rise to unprecedented global might. (Which I, on balance, consider to be a "very good thing.") Jeff Skilling had nothing on Leland Stanford, for whom my beloved University was named. (Actually it's Leland Stanford JUNIOR University—named after his son.) Mr Stanford was a Member in Excellent Standing of the Robber Barron's Club of America, which stole us blind—and among other things gave us the Transcontinental Railroad. Needless to say, said railroad was one of the Top 5 stimuli to the creation of America's amazing continent-spanning economy that spawned America's amazing global economic enterprise. As I recall (and I shan't Google it), about 10 decades earlier Charles Morris nearly went to the Big House; he was a greedy crook who lined his pockets in grand style—but simultaneously raised a huge share of the money that allowed our forebears to fund the nascent American Revolution. Curb Mr. Morris' "wretched excess"—and we might have sung "Rule Britannia" at the start of the 40th Super Bowl. (Nothing against the Brits mind you—it's that as a Baltimorean* I like our song better.) (*Francis Scott Key, Ft McHenry, etc.)

Without extending this commentary forever, I'd add that Jeff ("smartest guy in the room") Skilling & Kenny-boy were not alone among Renowned CEOs (hint hint) at sailing close to the wind when it came to fixing up earnings on a regular basis in the wild & woolly 90s.

Skilling and Lay had their metaphorical hand in the till. Big time. They got caught. It appears they'll get punished. The system of checks and balances by and large works. And Cowboy Capitalism that underpins the Land of the Free remains a messy business. And thus it shall always be.

God bless America. God bless Cowboy Capitalism. God bless the U.S. Attorney. Life goes on.

(And: Happy Memorial Day. And blessings to the active duty forces and vets and their families everywhere.)

Twelve Books That Changed the World

I was enthralled by a great TV programme over the Easter Weekend. (His lordship!) Melvyn Bragg, the eminent writer and broadcaster, has selected the 12 books that he contends have been agents of social, political, and personal revolution. The only work of fiction that made the cut was William Shakespeare's first folio of 1623, with everything from Darwin's Origin of Species through to the First Rule Book of the Football Association being on the list. You can see all 12 here.

As Bragg himself explains, "When people think of things that change the world, they tend to think of extraordinary events: the assassination of leaders, the invasion of countries, the havoc wreaked by natural disasters. There is something less attention-grabbing, but just as powerful, which changes the world—books. The series aims to show that the lives we lead have been formed as often as not by a single book."

The closest we get to a 'business' book that makes the final 12 is Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which set me thinking ... would any of the great business books from the 20th and 21st centuries qualify for such an esteemed status? Which of them could we say, hand on heart, have truly changed the way we lead our business lives? What's your nomination for the most influential business book since The Wealth of Nations? And what is your evidence of its impact?

Backlash, Merited or Not?

After months, perhaps years, of "China Will Eat Our Lunch" stories, I've suddenly observed a micro-epidemic of dissenting voices. These "well maybe not"-ers have focused on the following sorts of things: unrest among "other"—the roughly two-thirds/one billion Chinese, mainly on the farm, who've been left out of the "miracle;" their lot is not improved, and they are exposed daily to images of a minority who are doing extremely well. Pollution, not a matter of conscience, but concern about grave and widespread health threats. Corruption on an unprecedented scale. Burgeoning university education and R&D not all it's cracked up to be, thanks to State control and a disposition toward rote learning. Productivity gains almost all due to migration to the city rather than better worker utilization (management, organization, automation).

Yes, Virginia, There Surely Is a "New Economy."

Still doubt there's a "new economy"? Harvard's endowment is so mighty it makes university bosses worldwide quake in awe. A Harvard prof-pal, returning from a research stint in Silicon Valley, reports that Sergey Brin and Larry Page's net worth exceeds that fabled Haaavaad endowment. (Maybe deposed prexy Larry Summers is angling for a Google job ... with options?)

Craigslist

I assume that virtually everyone on this site finds discriminatory housing practices to be abhorrent, and thinks the 1968 Fair Housing Act is a good piece of legislation. That certainly sums up my opinion.

But what do you think of this:

Craigslist, the online do-it-yourself classified forum, is being sued because some apartment rental advertisers have used language on the site such as "No kids allowed," "No minorities," or "Africans and Arabians tend to clash with me."

The advertisers are clearly doing something wrong. But should Craigslist be sued? Is Craigslist more like a commercial newspaper, which is responsible for the content of classified ads, or more like a town square? If I hear people saying terrible things on a park bench, I can't blame the city which provided them with a place to sit.

Craigslist carries 8 million new classified ads per month, with a staff of only 19 employees, making it impossible to police all ads with its current low-price model. (However, readers are able to flag offensive ads, and the "No minorities" ad was caught in this way and removed with two hours.)

This presents us with an interesting challenge for the Internet age. Are we willing to allow some things we find repugnant to happen, in order to allow the frictionless, inexpensive communication the Internet enables? Or are we willing to give some of that up to prevent these types of situations? Comments?