Complex or complicated?

Wondering is something I do often, though I don't now how well. Still, I have been contemplating a pair of notions again, namely complicated and complex. Maybe it's because the subject came up at a recent strategy tutorial. Maybe it's because I spent three days last week immersed in the details of a software application that had little relevance to the world out here (but we absolutely have to have it). And maybe it's because there's simply a big difference between the two concepts.
Obviously, they have quite a bit in common: lots of little part, lots of relationships, lots of interconnectedness, lots of unknown beginnings and ends, lots of back-and-forths, lots of gives-and-takes.

Take any living organism, from single-cell plant or animal to human beings. What a source of wonderment, fascination, and awe, regardless of how you think they got here. The same applies to inorganic substances as well: just look at a petroleum molecule or a salt, and you will get the gist of what I mean.

What all of these have in common is an innate sense of beauty, be it the chainness of certain molecules to the perfect symmetry of crystals, the complexity brings forth shapes, colors and textures that literally take one's breath away. What this also have in common is that they are natural, that is, they occur in the world as we find it. And what they also have in common is that each of these examples is complex. It all fits together. It all works. The elegance of functionality wrapped up in the complexity of its being.

Complicated, on the other hand, is a bit different. Sure there is what appears to be complexity, but it doesn't really work. Software systems, government systems, pension schemes, businesses large and small, school systems, education systems, security systems ... the list goes on and on. We make these things taking nature as our (role) model, but somehow we just don't get it right. Let's face it. Most things are pretty well broken. Even five minutes of American infotainment lets that cat out of the bag.

And all these things (these machines, systems, programs, organizations) also share a common characteristic: they're ugly. Who's had stood in awe of the Social Security Administration? Who has had their breath taken away (in a positive sense) when passing through customs at the airport? Who has been (lovingly) brought to tears by the site of the garbage piling up on the streets? I don't think so. But all of these things have another characteristic in common: they're man-made, as we used to say, person-made, if I'm to be politically correct (though I have to agree with Rhett Butler here: Frankly, [...] I don't give a damn!).

So, it would seem that at base the difference between the complex and the complicated lies in the simple fact that if we've had our fingers in it, it's complicated; otherwise it's probably complex. It's as simple as that, for in the end, life is a rather simple affair. We (choose to) make it complicated.

Propaganda

Picking up on the theme of my last post, it occurred to me today that a very important word is both losing favor -- most often simply through misuse -- and is also shifting it's meaning. This time the shift is not toward another word in the same domain, if you will, rather it is sliding into a separate domain and will be overwhelmed by the current standard term there. That word, of course, is "propaganda". We should keep it around, I think. It's a good word, and it actually communicates quite a bit. But, what is propaganda anyway?

If we stop to reflect for a minute, we see it is a form of communication. It's primary purpose is to influence its listeners (or readers or viewers, depending upon the media). The influence should be in a particular way, of course, that is, in favor of the position or assertions being made by the issuer, most commonly but now hardly ever known as the propagandist. The influencing is accomplished by presenting facts selectively. That doesn't mean it's an outright lie, rather, the selection allows the stater to simply leave things out in order to encourage the listener to draw particular conclusions. What is more, propaganda is generally presented emotionally. Emotion, not reason, should be directing the decision-making processes of the listener. That's how we generally understand the term these days.

Granted, this was a political term for the longest of times, but I don't hear it so much in that domain of discourse any more. I do see exactly that happening on a daily basis, and that is my cause for concern. We are all confronted with it day in and day out ... Americans and Brits more than, say, Germans or the French, but no one these days is immune to it. We know it as advertising.

Now before our marketing friends get all weird on me, stop and think about it for a minute. Advertising is a form of communication. It's primary purpose is to influence its listeners (or readers or viewers, depending upon the media). The influence should be in a particular way, of course, that is, in favor of the position or assertions being made by the advertiser. The influencing is accomplished by presenting facts seletively, also in order to encourage the listener to draw particular conclusions. And I doubt that anyone would disagree that it is presented emotionally. So where, I ask you, is the real difference?

I don't see one, so I'm sticking to my guns.

Generally, things like this wouldn't bother me all that much, but I am reminded of McLuhan's aphorism on the one side: the price of eternal vigilance is indifference (we simply get worn down by it all, throw in the towel, and end up with too big a car payment or a world war or whatever). On the other side, there aren't enough people these days educated enough to (a) know what propaganda really is or (b) have been taught or allowed to think critically enough to defend themselves. We can all do something about (a), but (b), well, that's a bigger problem ... and one that's bigger than I want address at the moment.

The next time you're being schlocked or enticed, or being amused to reach into your pocket for money, I'd suggest you stop and think. Of course, what works in marketing, well, that should be right and proper for politics now, shouldn't it. Think about it.

Say what you mean

What do you do when the words you've used all your life are no longer usable? Not that they're worn out, no, just that they don't mean what they used to. Some came along and changed them. Is that even possible? Well, truth be told it is.

It's not a new thing, really. Not two hundred years ago if you used the word "awful" it was a good thing. What you were experiencing, looking at, feeling, filled you with awe. Not Rumsfeldian awe, real awe ... wonder, admiration, the kinds of feelings many folks used to have toward G-d, when there was allowed to be One. Some "awesome" only had some awe, and not necessarily good awe ... pre-Rumsfeld, but more that kind of awe. In other words, it was a relatively negative term. Today though, they've switched places.

This is, I suppose, a natural process of language, but I missed the awful/awesome switch, and I can't say I'm sorry. But the one we're seeing now is a little more troubling to me.

I'm talking about very basic political orienting terms like "conservative" and "liberal". Growing up, I always thought that conservatives were people who wanted to conserve, keep, protect, hold on to something. And for the most part, that's what it looked like they were doing, even if I didn't particularly agree with them. On the other hand, the root of the word "liberal" is the Latin word for freedom, that is, liberals were the ones advocating change, more often than not in the sense of more individual and collective freedoms, even it I didn't agree with where they were going with some things. That's all changed now.

We may talk about neo-liberal economics, but the "neo-" prefix is a matrixian sleight-of-hand to make you think it's about the free flows of money or something. It's not, it's about restricting those flows to some unspecified club of folks who think that agreeing on bonus contracts is a more valuable skill than actually protecting people's savings. Of course, our friends at Faux News like to use it as an epithet to simply discredit anyone they don't want having any say. This is perhaps the most heinous usage, but it does seem to be the one that is catching on, so we have all of this "ilk" being tossed into the same pot for regular stirring.

On the other hand, I had to sit up and take notice when I read a recent article by the linguist George Lakoff, who rather poignantly pointed out that the upswell in alleged conservatism in the United States is anything but that. Instead, they are actually redefining and recasting a number of notions that I once thought I knew what they meant, like privacy, democracy, values, and basic human rights. Just when I thought I was beginning to understand the world and what people were saying, I find out -- once again -- I don't. Oh well, back to the dictionary, I guess.

Like I said, shifts in meaning are a natural part of language, and I actually believe that the awful/awesome switch was the result of a natural process. What is happening now, however, is quite a different story. I guess I have to be on my toes to find out what some people really mean. I wish they would just say what they mean ... and mean what they say. But maybe I'm not supposed to know.

We're going where?

We've never had it so good ... or so I'm told. But have you ever stopped to think about anything you thought you already knew? For example: what does "good" mean in that opening line? Do we know what "good" is? Do we all agree? Do we agree generally or specifically? Or, what about Good (with a capital "G") or "the Good"? It's not something we do everyday, but it is something that we should perhaps do more often.

Actually, I've got a number of favorites, if you will, and among them are "better" and "progress". I picked those two because they are often related in our thinking. I mean, you often hear them used in the same sentence: "We have progress to thank for the fact that things are better now than they ever were before." Granted, we need to know what "things" we're talking about, and we also need to ask "where" the speaker is (I'm not sure a mother watching her child in Somalia starve to death is thinking that particular thought).

But let's just stick with the "better" and "progress". First, however, a quick grammar lesson: the word "better" is a comparative. It is the comparative form of "good" (good, better, best; whereby "best" is the so-called superlative). If we were wondering earlier what "good" is, we have to wonder even more about whatever it is that's more than that. The point is, however, that "better" can only be seen in relation to what we believe to be "good". If we don't agree on the starting point, the next step is always more difficult. And then we have "progress". We probably generally agree that when we speak of progress we are speaking about some sort of advancement (an implied "better"), some kind of moving forward (wherever that is), or movement towards a goal. So, where has "progress" brought us that everything is "better" than it was before?

Let's take one of my favorite topics: time. We're a fairly techno-crazy generation: smart phones and iPads and broadband and personal navigation systems. Truth be told, one of the promises of the Industrial Revolution were inexpensive machines and labor-saving devices. Where did they all go? All our most modern gadgets are anything but time-saving. Always on, always accessible, always connected ... and the family? Automation promised us more free time, more leisure, but how many of us have any leisure at all anymore? What do "power weekends" have to do with relaxation? At the time of the American revolution, the average person worked about 1000 hours a year, and the whole basis of our economy was agriculture and crafts. My relation of mine told me that when he started his job at the bank, he was required to put in 140 hours a week ... not in writing, of course, but nevertheless "demanded". The average American is now working 3 jobs (if they're working), mostly part-time so there's not a lot of time with anybody, even if they do have a family? I read recently that had we plowed all the time we saved with industrialization into the work week instead of into the pockets of a few we'd only have to work about a day a week (at livable wages), but instead, everyone in the Western world is being forced to work more and more for less and less (real wages in the US have been stagnating or declining since 1979).

And so my question: is this progress? is this better? I don't think so. But, that's just me. Each and every one of us should take a bit of time and reflect on just what's good and what might be better. It's not just a matter of personal preference, I'm talking about something much more fundamental. I'm talking about real quality of life, not just the promise of it.

Fear of creativity

There is a huge difference between how things are and how they could or should be. Likewise, there is a huge difference between how things are and how they got that way. We need to think about both, though I sometimes get the impression that we don't really think about either.

Let's take Occupy Wall Street as an example. It hasn't ceased to amaze me at how many people who make statements about it haven't looked at it close enough to know what it is. In other words, their perception is blurred. It also hasn't escaped my attention that some want it to be one thing, while others want it to be something very different. In other words, their interpretation is confused. Finally, there are those who will tell you what it is not, who will try to discredit it for discreditation's sake. In other words, their comprehension is incomplete.

Contrary to what (too) many people believe, being against one thing doesn't automatically make you for its opposite. Also, agreeing part of something doesn't automatically mean that you agree all of it. For example, I might be pro OWS, that doesn't mean I'm automatically against capitalism. I can agree with them that corporations have undue influence in the American political process, but that doesn't mean I agree with all the tactics they employ to make their point. In other words, what I'm making a plea for here is discernment.

All that we are dealing with in the wake of the financial crisis and bailout are things that needn't be the way they are. Anything involved could be different if we choose to make it so. We have made money the measure of all worth, because we can't agree on higher values anymore. We think the economy is more important that society because we can't talk to each other reasonably anymore. We have fear of losing what we have because we no longer know who we are. Every issue we are facing are problems that we humans have created for ourselves. Money is not natural; the organization of human society is not natural; economies are not natural. They are all things that we, in one way or another, for one reason or another, consciously or unconsciously, have simply made up. None of these arise from some unalterable natural law, rather cultures, living spaces, ways of interaction, values, organizations are things that we humans have called into existence. They are as they are at the moment, but we all agree that they were not always that way, nor need they necessarily be that way now. They are as they are because we more or less decide to have them this way.

We, I'm afraid, have simply backed ourselves into a corner and are being controlled by our fears. Is it really an unalterable fact that some banks are too big to (let) fail? No, that's a perception. Is it the consequence of some natural law that some countries are seen as too big to save? No, that's an interpretation. And do we really, truly believe, well, things have always been this way? No, that's simply miscomprehension.

My question is, what are we afraid of? Of losing what's not ours to begin with? Of having to listen to someone we disagree with? Of respecting another simply because s/he is an other? Of having to share or (gasp!) care about something other than ourselves? Of having to think about how you feel about something that affects all of us? Of maybe having to learn that whatever you think, feel or believe is one way of thinking, feeling and believing, but not the only way? Of finding out that just because I don't think what you do that both of us may be right (or wrong) in different ways? I don't get it.

Anyone who thinks that things are just fine the way they are simply doesn't get out enough. I would maintain the changes we need to make are simpler than we now imagine, but only if we start working together. It's a choice, not a law of nature.

Corporations are people?

Two recent events got me thinking about the corporations-are-people ruling that have made it clear, just how sad that decision was. It is an excellent of example of simply not thinking a thought through to the end. The first event was a sign held up at a recent Occupy Wall Street protest in New York, which read, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." The second was a statement Marianne Williamson made in her talk to the Occupy Wall Streeters in Berkeley, that "Corporations can't be people, they don't have souls." While each of these statements certainly have their merits, it would be too easy for my atheist friends to discount Ms Williamson's statement, so I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the issue in a more mundane way. After all, the only word that springs to my mind when I hear the corporations-are-people phrase is "absurd." Here's why.

We can argue about whether people, that is, human beings have souls. That's fine. However, regardless of how one thinks about that, I would suggest we all agree that you can't be just part of a person, or part-person. That is the essence of what we call "discrimination". You can lose a limb or just have your appendix taken out, and you are still a person. You can have a birth defect or suffer a debilitating injury, and you are still a person. The whole part-of-a-person argument was actually put to rest when the 14th Amendment finally overcame that ridiculous idea that blacks were only 3/5 people. (In other words, this isn't the first time we've had to face absurdity head on.)

The consequence of this thought is that corporations can't, then, just have some rights and not others. If you are a person, you enjoy all the rights that other persons have, not just the freedom of speech in certain instances, like elections. This is what our first protester was getting at. Now, I'm no advocate of the death penalty, but I have nothing in principle against jail, so why can't corporations be sent to jail? It's simple enough: corporations can't act on their own, but their boards of directors, first and foremost, and their owners (read: shareholders) can, and do. If the corporation does something illegal, then, as was the case leading up to the recent financial crisis, then we know who should stand trial and if convicted go to jail. These two groups represent the head and heart of the corporation. You shouldn't have to go looking for some individual within the organization who should be punished for wrongdoing, the corporation did the wrong-doing, and that is who needs to answer for their actions. That's what it would mean for corporations to be people.

These days we like to pick and choose, to pick what's best for us and just ignore the rest. If "the markets" are comprised of "investors", as the name implies, they have a vested interest in the actions of the corporation. As many like to point out, they are the corporation. And their interest cannot be only to derive benefits and not have to face the consequences of unpleasant or even illegal decisions. Yes, I know, when you think about the sheer numbers of people that would have to be incarcerated the mind begins to boggle, so to save ourselves from this ridiculous fate, we need to let the people in the judicial old-folks home in DC know that they haven't thought their thought through to the end.

What can I say?

It struck me recently that not only are attention spans diminishing at a frightening rate, and not only are sound-bites getting shorter, they're also becoming emptier. When is the last time you heard a clipped quip on the news that really made any sense? I'm guessing it's been a while, because I'm having trouble finding people who say anything anymore. You would think in a situation like this one, words would become all the more important, but it seems to me that they are being emptied faster than the phrases that are supposed to give them meaning.

How about "free market"? There's one that gets bandied about a lot. My question is, though, just how free is a market if a non-market player steps in and hands over almost a trillion dollars to keep it alive? I'm not sure I understand either part of that phrase in that context? Or, how about "liberal"? I like that one too. It derives from the Latin liber, meaning free, but it is used at least in America these days as an epithet for socialist dictatorship, which is about as "unfree" as you can get. How does that happen? Or, what about that other favorite epithet of my youth, the really bad tag to hang on someone, "communist"? We don't use that at all any more as a term of derision. Why is that? Oh, right, because the only remaining communists in the world, the Chinese, our preferred trade partner, have outed themselves as the biggest capitalists of all.

I think I'm onto the problem, though. We don't use many words as words anymore. We prefer labels. Label someone as something, and you don't have to talk to them, you don't have to discuss anything with them, you can simply ignore them, because who would wanted to be associated with "those types"? This has long been a ploy in politics, but it has begun to permeate every aspect of our lives. We find the technique employed in the media, in schools, most definitely in sports, but at home as well.

I'm not the first to notice this, believe me. These are what Pörksen calls "plastic words", they are "argument killers": throw these words in to a discussion or debate and it grinds to a screeching halt. There's no way to counter them: they are so embedded in our personal ideologies that no criticism will be tolerated. But that's the problem: they are the means of argumentation of intolerance. It would do us well to start thinking about words and then start using them as they were intended: as a way of communication.

Sunday without sports

Not being much of a movie-goer, I decided to make it a double-feature yesterday ... but I was at home. There's way too much noise and confusion in the theaters these days. What an exciting time: explosions, theft, deceit, intrigue, obscure twists and turns, tension-filled climaxes and even the occasional ray of hope. Oh, what was the double feature? Inside Job and Capitalism: A Love Story.

OK, maybe "exciting" was a bit misleading, but I was on the edge of my seat ... mostly because I wanted to jump up and scream. Are these two films portrayals of absolute truth? Of course not. Are they particular views of recent events? Of course they are. So what's there to get upset about? It's simple: if any of it is true, we're in bigger trouble than we want to admit, and the integrity of everyone involved in perpetrating this trouble has disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Henry Ford once remarked that if the American people understood the banking and monetary system of the country, there would be a revolution tomorrow morning. For whatever distortions the film-makers may be accused of (and they will be accused, I am certain), either film (but better both together), can serve as an initial primer on what not only our banking and monetary systems have done to us, but on why capitalism does not really do all that much for us, but rather on how it does it to us.

Part of the difficulty in understanding that simple distinction lies in the fact that we moderns are having trouble finding an agreed upon sense of values. We can talk about social values or even family values, but in the economic ideology called capitalism, only one value counts: money. It's sad. As I noted last time, given how we've decided to slice up the world, money is as necessary to business as food is to people, but does it have to be the be-all and end-all of our lives? No. We should be eating to live, not living to eat.

When things can only be understood in terms of their monetary value, well, they really have no value at all. You can't put trust or truth or honesty or compassion on a balance sheet. Any accountant will tell you that you don't want them there. But, there are other ways to think about anything, but since it will bring no monetary gain, it is simply not worth talking about it. Yes, that's how far we've come, but we haven't hit bottom yet ... I almost can't wait for the sequels to both those films, but I may not even be able to watch them ... hell, I may not even be allowed.

Money 101

Recently, I've been giving business and financial institutions a bit of a hard time, so it only seems fair to add a little perspective to the discussion. Though to many it seems that business is only about money, it is nevertheless worth asking ourselves what is the real role of money in business.

Perhaps an analogy can help. Strategy is not just a business concept, it is an everyday concept as well. Strategy, in a certain sense, is the answer to the simple question we have all been asked: "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Each of us makes decisions early in life that determine the course of actions leading us into certain fields and careers. Any life counsellor will tell you that the person who is following their heart (doing what they like) is the happier and more productive person. We look to the future, fix our eyes on a goal, and then continuously work towards it. That is thinking and acting strategically. The only real obstacle to it all though is staying alive. Life is, after all, an exceedingly risky undertaking.

In the business world, staying alive is objective #1 ... not strategy #1. Staying alive is the objective, being something when we grow up is the strategy. In addition to shelter and clothing, we all have to eat, that is, we need food to survive. In the industrialized world, many people used to grow their own, but the specialization of labour has removed most of us from food-production, so we must go elsewhere to get our food. Businesses, in a very strong sense, mirror their creators. What is it, then, that any business needs to stay alive, to live to fight another day in the sometimes dog-eat-dog of global commerce? Yes, money.

There we have our analogy: money is to business as food is to people. Today, we have become divorced from our sources of food; we do not always eat what is good for us. Many people are overweight, others are starving. Certain things are in abundance in some areas, non-existent in others. In the western world, a certain knowledge of nutrition, then, is a good thing. What to eat, how much to eat at what time of day or in which season, different ways of preparing food that make it more digestible and useful to our bodies are all good things to know. Those who inform themselves and act accordingly tend to lead longer, healthier, and, in the end, happier lives. Similarly, in business, setting reasonable profit margins, building reserves (retained earnings), maintaining a "healthy" level of debt, and making acceptable, suitable, and feasible investments are ways toward a longer, healthier business life.

Finance, that is, knowing how to deal with money in the context of business, is not what business is all about. Business is about producing the better product, providing the better service and fulfilling market needs. To do this, however, we need to understand finance so that we can lead the kind of business life that enables us to be whatever it is we want to be when we grow up.

Stock market 101b

As I mentioned yesterday, businesses have three options to generate extra cash, the third of which is issuing stock. We also saw that a stock issue can be private, but such offerings can also be public. These are the infamous (if at times not notorious) IPOs or "initial public offerings" that get lots of media coverage if they are big enough. In this case, the company decides to sell shares of ownership to the public, in the hopes that the demand for the new stock will raise the share price and thereby generate more cash.

On the other hand, such offerings can also be public. These are the infamous (if at times not notorious) IPOs or "initial public offerings" that get lots of media coverage if they are big enough. In this case, the company decides to sell shares of ownership to the public, in the hopes that the demand for the new stock will raise the share price and thereby generate more cash.

A few years ago, a German low-cost airline went "public" and sold €1,000,000,000 worth of stock on the first day! Not bad, eh? But this is where the "stealing" comes in. They didn't take all that cash home with them. After paying fees and premiums and costs for staging the sale, they had a mere €400,000,000 to take home. I don't think it is out of line to wonder why the people who put on a sale earn more than the folks for whom the sale takes place, but that's another story.

What's worth noting, though, is that this is a one-time deal. Once those shares are in the public domain (on the stock market), they can be bought and sold and speculated with and the issuing company receives no money whatsoever when these shares change hands. If I buy some stock at the beginning, then the company takes home some of that money. If I sell them to my friend Tom a week later, I get money from Tom, but I don't have to give anything to the issuing company. They don't own those shares anymore: I did, and now Tom does.

This is the point, unfortunately, that most people miss. The issue company only has so much to do with its stock as it is concerned to keep its value reasonably high, but this is more for image than financial reasons. People who buy and sell stock do so to make money. Anyone who "plays the market", as it is most accurately described, buys stock in the hopes that the price with rise so that they can sell it later for a profit. In other words, the company should do well enough that the share price rises so they can make money. Since the issuing company's only obligation is to increase it's share price so that others can generate income, it is not truly accurate to call the stock buyers "investors". They aren't investing in the company, they are investing in themselves. Technically, the shareholders are "owners" but for the most part they are only concerned about the share price, not the working conditions, the employees, the customers, or the products or services themselves … or only insofar as these things have a positive influence on the share price.

The stock market, then, is really more like a casino than an investment, as one chief financial officer told me. What amazes me the most, though, is the amount of media coverage this particular casino gets. Fluctuations in the stock market are more often than not market players' emotional reactions to all kinds of events, but not really a sound indication of the health of the economy. I don't think it's ever a good idea to take your temperature in a casino.

Stock market 101a

In the world of business, there are three ways for an organization to generate extra cash. Extra? Yes, that is, money that is not generated through regular operations. Money the organization wants to invest. We all know that it is wiser to save up for a large purchase before buying it, but in the go-go-go, consumer-driven world today, we too often resort to credit to satisfy our impulses. Some things, like a home, of course, are really too significant a purchase to save up for, but cars and stereos and smart phones and refridgerators are in fact manageable.

The savings of business are called retained earnings, and sometimes these reserves are not enough to finance the next step forward for a business, so they have to get the money elsewhere. The three avenues open to them are, as in everyday life, to beg, borrow or steal. Really? Let me explain what I mean.

Let's start with borrowing since it is the most familiar to most of us. You go to a bank (usually) or other financial institution (could be a credit union, or Aunt Marge) and you negotiate a sum to be paid back over a specified period of time, and at a certain rate of interest. The riskier the bank feels this lending is, the higher the interest rate you end up paying. (It was once rating agencies which made such decisions, but they managed to tarnish their own reputations lately.)

The second way is to beg. Actually, the organization itself offers promisory notes (in everyday speak: IOUs) called bonds. The organization is, within certain limits of course, free to say when and how the bonds will be paid out, but there are several agreed on standards. Perhaps the most commonly known type of bond is the savings bond. When you buy a bond today for $37.00, in seven years the government promises to pay you back $50. The organization is basically saying, "trust me", and if you do, you can lend it money.

Whimsical as I am, I listed "stealing" as the third way, but that's obviously not 100% accurate. The third way of generating cash is to issue shares of stock. These shares represent ownership, so the percentage of shares you hold determines your "share" of the business. Such an issuing can be private, that is, you offer a part of your business to someone else and you negotiate between yourselves how many shares and what they are worth. We don't often hear about these kinds of transactions in the news.

So now we have the basics and we can get to the fun part tomorrow.