Monthly Archives: April 2016

Do big companies need to die?

Do big companies need to die in order to free up their captured engineers, designers and dreamers?

That is, large companies tend to build a monopoly of talent. Which is a good thing for a while. Such an entity is stable and persistent, for a while, allowing engineers, scientists, designers and programmers to build their own stable lives and advance a solid base of understanding and financial consistency.

But in order for true innovation to occur, must these same massive corporations die in order to forcefully release their talent pool into the entrepreneurial pond — there to cross breed their ideas and create new collaborations?

 


A tale of two billion dollars

A monetary story

Let’s do an experiment. First we’ll hand out bundles of 500 one hundred dollar bills to wealthy couples who own expensive homes and drive expensive cars. We’ll do this until a  billion dollars is spent. 20,000 wealthy couples will have been given fifty grand as gifts – gratis.

Next we’ll do it all again but this time we’ll target a different class of people.

This time we’ll visit any area that has been hardest hit by poverty, unemployment, off-shoring of jobs, etc. We’ll search out mothers and or fathers with a child or two in tow. If they live near the poverty level we’ll hand them $1,000 without a blink. One billion dollars gifted out in $1,000 increments. A million recipients.

Six months pass. We call a random 100 of the wealthy couples. We ask them how much, if any, of the money is remaining. We find out that in nearly every case, the money had been invested in some brokerage or investment account. They’d taken the gift and saved it.

We next called 1000 of the poor families that we’d given $1,000. Again we ask how much, if any, of the original gift remained. We find that rarely was any of the money was left; they’d spent every cent.

In this experiment two billion dollars was injected into the economy. The first billion, that gifted to the rich, was effectively lost, sequestered into bank or investment accounts. That first billion vanished from the economy. Eventually it might return, but for now, gone.

The second billion drove the economy. For the most part every dollar gifted to the poor was returned to the economy by immediately being spent. That billion dollars began to circulate as soon as we walked away from handing it out. Wherever it was spent it invigorated the local economy. That billion dollars had a direct and immediate impact on the economic health of the nation.

Now a rationalization. To the first part we’ll switch out the gifts to the wealthy and replace them with tax breaks, loopholes that are given to the wealthy. To the second let’s just call it what it really is – it’s welfare.

Lesson learned? To stimulate the nation’s economy, to drive the velocity of money to increase the liquidity of commerce should we hand gobs of cash to the rich or support the working, struggling poor??


6,836,109 People Liked this!

WHO GIVES A FLYING RATS ASS?!

Imagine being the last person in that list of nearly 7 million people. Why? Why would you even bother to click the like button? Why? What possible difference would it make? What benefit would you derive from being one of millions to smudge your thumbprint to the tally? Why. Bloody. Bother?

At what point did it become cool or common, maybe even expected that you click and tap your way around the internet leaving the spoor of your tastes and tendencies? And does anyone really care that you like this or that? Of course not. Those 6+ million people don’t give a shit about what you like or don’t like. They don’t care one whit about anything about you. So why join the fray? Why team up with such a disdainful crowd?

Like? Hell no!

 


Intelligent machines need to be a little stupid

The biological mind is full of random. Full of chaotic processes, chemical mixing, flux and flows and fluid gyrations. But from this unimaginably complex bio-machine comes amazing creativity, insight and intuition. Currently computers are not built this way.

Super computers are still constructed with predictability, reliability and reproducibility as core stipulations for design. Chaos and random are not what is desired from our computers. Program them to recalculate Pi out to 1million digits and you expect a trillion trials of this to produce exactly the same results. But maybe to build intelligent machines, human equivalent intelligent machines, a bit of “whoops, whoa, where’d that come from?” needs to be salted into the processing of these machines.

Maybe intelligence needs chaos, needs a dusting of random to exist, to thrive.