Fight Guns with "Leave it to Beaver"

A small idea during this particularly tough week for Americans.

In addition to calls for additional gun regulation, including background checks for those that purchase at gun shows . . . the role of violent movies and videogames as well as social and psychological issues seem evident.

It seems that the role of technology -- in its role in breaking down the unity and value system of America -- is underestimated.

When I came home from elementary school, a favorite show was "Leave it to Beaver"  -- in black & white and reruns, of course.  Being a newly-minted immigrant to America, I took the show to heart and believed that it represented American values.  With only 3 channel, my classmates and I generally watched the same TV shows at night and discussed them the day after.  There was common ground in the things that we thought about, enjoyed . . . connected about.

Now with a 1000 channels, Netflix/Hulu, iTunes -- students can become very narrowly focused, watching and listening to materials shared with very few of their classmates.


And somewhere -- perhaps in separating church from state -- schools became afraid of teaching values and focused on math, science, and a bit of reading (in order for our children to ready themselves for a technological world). 

In my daughters' school, they are trying to bring back some of the core values that made the school and America great.  We can all agree that treating each other with respect, being inclusive of others, minimizing cliques, and reduce bullying . . . are value that we can all agree on.

Bringing back more common ground (while celebrating our diversity), connectedness and teaching core values at schools might help to reduce the numbers and extent of "outcasts" amongst those learning to become adult members of society.

The America of "Leave it to Beaver" can co-exist with smartphones and "Call of Duty".

Highlight - Another Killer-Gesture for iPhone

As Lotus 123 and Wordstar were the Killer Apps that launched the PC-Era, my opinion is that the two-finger gesture which controls the zoom level (by moving fingers apart and together on a touch screen) is the most important in enabling the smartphone (and, of course, the current generation of tablets).

Now the iPad has taken over much of the functionality of computers, and the Surface (MSFTs has come a long way since the Tablet PCs of 2000.) is trying to replace the laptop.

But [from an iPhone] have you ever tried to highlight a phrase for deletion or for movement to another part of an email?

Have you ever tried to highlight a section of text/pictures from a website and insert it into a mobile Word document?

Or just highlight sections of an email that you are replying to (so that you can delete some of your email trail)?

iOS 3.0 introduced some very awkward copy-paste functionality -- something with boxes, moveable blue dots, magnifying bubbles, etc.  Well, I think this function is worthy of a gesture:

-- How about pushing down one of the buttons while "stroking" the area from begin to end of the text/area (as with a mouse -- while pressing down the left-click button).
-- But since iPhone only has one-button, perhaps we can place one finger on a portion of the screen while gersturing with another (or place two fingers down and gesture with a third -- so as not to confuse with the "Zoom gesture").
-- Actually, there has to be a way to put the single iPhone button into a different mode -- e.g., press the button while holding down 4-fingers on the screen to turn it into a "right click" . . . to enable a new set of gestures (like this "Highlight Gesture").

Hope this is not covered by some patent that is preventing our collective use of this.

Unified Mandate for the Fed

In the Fed's dual mandate (fighting inflation and attaining full employment), the Fed and the rest of us get a lot of stress.  And the distortions created by the Fed (and other central banks) with their massive monetary swings -- with varying lag and lead effects -- has defeated the best business leaders and small and large investors.

As in physics, we would hope that a unified approach would aid the Fed's noble goals of being a stabilizing force that the Congress and Executive Branch can not.

In this, perhaps they would consider:

"Stabilization of input prices"

As in prior writings on "Commoditists" -- it would seem that business recoveries are quickly beaten down by higher gasoline prices and raw material prices -- that often rise at the earliest signs of recovery due to speculation.  It would also seem that many recoveries are slow to start because of a fear of rising input prices, volatile demand environment, but perhaps most importantly -- the volatility of commodies, inputs . . . including the cost of money.

If we take this broadly, input prices include raw materials, labor cost, capital costs, etc.  If the Fed could stabilize these components -- I would conjecture that prolonged and rapid recoveries become more possible.

The key to this is the Fed's increasing focus on long-term and not short-term rates.  Historically, the Fed has focused on short-term, even-overnight kinds of money supply effects.  Now with quantititative easing and assurances of low rates into the future -- the Fed seems to be realizing that equity prices (the risk assets that they seem to be promoting) and funds for capital investments are driven by longer-term interest rates.

With this, and their "bully pulpit" and regulatory muscle, I would hope that they could:
- Reduce commodity speculation
- Manage long-term capital costs
- Strive for stable labor costs that lead to business growth and fuller employment
- etc.

This would seem a better approach. 

Fighting inflation had tended to be for the benefit of lenders and currency holders.  Now that countries are trying to fight deflation and create the inflation that will aid borrowers and consumers -- this too turns out to be a mandate of political expedience.

What's a Commoditist?

For those of us taught neo-Keynesian in college, monetarist in B-School, and libertarian in life -- we are discovering that these do no longer are very relevant in driving business cycles.

They do seem effective in creating big governments that spend inefficiently, massive distortions in asset pricing, and creative risk takers that beat the system (at the system's cost).

My small voice is that business cycles are now driven by input costs . . .

We are familiar with the oil crises and more recently shortages of food that caused rioting around the world.  Commodity prices seem to fluctate with Chinese economic conditions.  And growing economies are betting heavily in raw materials -- from energy, iron ore, and increasingly water.

In the relatively quiet Asian front, "war" is now breaking out over ownership of small islands in the middle of the ocean.  I think most realize that much of this involves ocean bed mineral rights.

I suppose in most ways -- this is all natural supply-demand reactions.  The biggest distortions are caused by speculation -- fueled by low margin requirements and low cost of money.  I would hope that financial regulations will increasing focus on the impact of speculation on distortion and volatility of commodity prices.

So we have seen:
- Economic recovery seemingly quashed by rapidly rising gasoline/oil/energy prices.
- Business profits negatively impacted by raw materials/ingredients prices, even as sales only begins to pick up.
- Economies and currencies like Australia and Brazil buffeted by commodity prices.
- Fight between food and energy (e.g., ethanol production).
- National and global disasters from nuclear energy production.
- And very basically, huge bubbles created by the Fed and other bankers manipulating interest rates and other monetary measures.

It would seem self-evident that commodities (and other inputs) that are driving and causing cycles.

[Please see following post on "Unified Mandate for the Fed".]

China: The Largest Company

As China has increasingly forged synergy to the idealism of communism with the economics of capitalism, China has become . . . the largest company in the world, albeit perhaps a not-for-profit company in their broader definition of profits and constituents.

We have admired how promising communist party leaders are trained and tested at various government and enterprise management posts.  And certainly the dictatorial aspects of corporations have been powerfully retained in the enterprise that is China.

Perhaps China is like Chevron, Soc Gen, Wal-Mart, Colgate, ATT, etc. -- all combined.  I wonder how long it will take before China is the sum of Apple, GE, P&G, GS, GOOG, etc.

Chinese challenge though may not be in pursuing the U.S., Japan, etc. It is likely not even their relentless need to pursue resources in Brazil, Africa, Canada . . . 

It may be the "must do" countries like Korea, Taiwan, UK, and Finland that will not allow China to [for-long] bask in its wins in the U.S./E-Zone/Japan.

And the era of 5-year plans continue.

Who is running this Planet?

In the last century, we speculated (likely first by sci-fi authors) that MNC (multi-national corporations) that transcend borders would ultimately control the world.  With lobbyists and super-pacs, it would seem that large enterprises (and individuals/families) are having increasing effect on politics.  And the "power that be" would seems to continue to influence amongst less transparent positions.

We do not seem to be paying enough attention the rise of the private armies and clandestine operations.  What does it mean when the most sophisticated military and spy (and likely cyber) operatives operate for hire (or for themselves)?

Who is running this planet?  Will anyone try to figure this out?

Sustainability - U.S. and China Responsibility

FT was kind enough to invite me to a conference yesterday on Sustainable Development (as the once-in-a-decade gathering for Rio+20 is coming up this summer).  I would offer these reactions "as the stupid generalist."

- There were a lot of mentions of "Green Economy" -- it would seem that "Sustainable Development" is much more palatable to the mainstream as the Green movement has many negative connotations of extremists and confused scientific conclusions.

- Japan, EU, Brazil and others seem way ahead of other major economies on this.  These and the other 130 countries that will attend Rio+20 really need to hand over the leadership AND responsibility to the U.S. and China -- to rapidly plan and implement (and trust that nationalist perspectives will not impinge on directions good and fair for all people).  It is interesting that it has required German/French leadership to take-on the European crisis.  Perhaps this year, the World will consider that environmental matters have reached crisis proportions -- and will accept a leadership structure that will accelerate solutions.

- The private sector discussion seemed to focus on a very academic discussion of how to internalize the externalities associated with various economic activities.  I guess carbon credit is the one most discussed.  On the other hand, nations argue along the old [have/have not] developed/developing lines.  The private sector would seem to need to acknowledge that internalizing externalities is a highly REGRESSIVE endeavor: (a) older, industrial sectors that are less profitable would be asked to shoulder the environmental burden, while the GOOGs and AAPLs of the world will bear little cost; and (b) of course, the poorer nations also would bear a far more disproportional load.

- There seems to be perfunctory discussion of a super fund to provide for proactive and remediation efforts.  Rather than a carbon credit or tax/fees that are only proportional to the carbon production of a company -- it should also be RELATIVE TO THE PROFITABILITY OF THE COMPANY.  In value-added terms, a company that makes more profits should pay more, just as the polluters should pay more.

- And for leadership on the private sector side -- these "too big to fail" multi-national banks (perhaps with the energy companies) should perhaps take on the leadership and responsibility for the global environment.  It certainly cannot be handled by myriad business lobbies and the millions of SMEs.