Whenever anyone doesn't agree with us, our first instinct is to defend ourselves. If we have nothing at stake, like a familial relationship or friendship, we typically just blow these pesky people off and try to avoid being around them anymore. As a student of human behavior (albeit admittedly on the amateur level), I've always taken for granted that we surround ourselves with those who basically believe as we do. The church says we should seek fellowship with those who share the faith. Cocktail parties usually go far more smoothly when the participants, especially after a certain point of alcohol ingestion, think similarly about life in general. Then there's the pariah of social intercourse, politics and religion. We try to avoid them like the plague.
Growing up in suburban Atlanta in the 50's and 60's, I had a neighbor across the street that became a close friend. He was an "oops" baby born late to a man who spent his life with the National Forestry Service and a woman who gave her life to education, specifically as a science teacher in the public school system. My friend, Rhond Roth, had a genius-level I. Q. and for that reason alone, was considered a nerd by most of my other friends. It was a weird friendship. I helped him negotiate the normal things most kids do like sports and social interaction, and he was a mentor to me in all things academic and cerebral. It was a symbiotic relationship that probably benefited me more than it did Rhond.
One of the most important features of our friendship growing up was Rhond's firm insistence that I not get lazy intellectually. We debated almost everything, from the latest Chevrolet vs. Chrysler models' superiority to why the Selective Service System (the military draft) was unconstitutional. While I lazed away in my Southern Baptist roots, Rhond read volumes by everyone from Plato to Edgar Cayce. We so enjoyed our conversations on religion that we created a church in his basement for the kids in the neighborhood to attend after they had already been to their respective churches those Sunday mornings. We switched off. I would preach one Sunday and he would play the antique organ for musical accompaniment and the next Sunday, we would change places. Rhond was gifted at music. I was not. He had to teach me some rudimentary chords and melodies so that I could be the Music Director while he preached. It was fairly lame. But, on the other hand, through some friend of Mrs. Roth's, "Look" magazine was thinking of doing a piece on this church until one of Rhond's and my debates precipitated one of several "spats" during our childhood that had us giving each other the evil eye in the corridors of our school. Look magazine never did the piece. Rhond and I did restore our friendship, however.
That friendship with Rhond helped motivate me to take a position with the school newspaper, the debate team, the honor society and make friends with those I ordinarily would never have known. In short, he dragged me kicking and screaming into situations that helped me grow.
Fast Forward: Rhond flew through Emory University with honors, as he did the Richard B. Russell Law School at the University of Georgia. He took a position with the International Trade Commission in Washington, D. C. and was considered to be a stellar employee. His was a resume that many of us were in awe of.
Upon graduation from high school, as Rhond headed for Emory and I headed for boot camp, he wrote in my annual: "Don't ever let your thoughts crystallize." It was this note, written 38 years ago, upon which I built my outlook for all things debatable. Now, as a self-proclaimed social iconoclast, I realize that I am somewhat impatient with those that take positions for life, safely tucking them into the folds of their coffins when they pass on to the next plane. Their only passion is to cultivate and reaffirm that which they already know. While a life built on principle is to be admired, surrendering one's curiosity and sense of wonder is tragic. We defer deliberative judgment and inspiration simply to assuage the fears that we refuse to face. We stunt our enormous capacity for learning to simply filling in the blanks of our paint-by-numbers life. We tend to confuse optimism with emotional weakness, open-mindedness with lack of principle.
A conversation with Rhond would invariably lead to the participants becoming red-faced and militant, or, occasionally stimulated to become more interested in the things outside of their comfort zone. Unconsciously, in a somewhat diminished capacity, I tend to do the same with friends and family. I am impatient with those I love becoming trapped in complacency, being intellectually lazy.
Rhond passed away quite tragically at the age of 36. He died of the same ailment that took Jim Henson's life. I never knew his wife nor his child. I guess if I ever was able to return the favor, as it were, it was when Rhond and I reconnected during the holidays one year and he grew interested in my modest success in real estate in Houston. He did indeed leave the ITC and began to invest in real estate in the D. C. area. He was fairly successful at it.
I still champion his view of what our lives can be, if we only allow ourselves the chance.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Rise and Fall of Capitalism? No way.
Studebaker. Nash-Kelvinator. Packard. Hudson. American Motors. GM?
After the rebuff by Congress, their tails tucked between their legs, Detroit's big three are back home probably fuming that they can't tap into the billions being doled out for the financial giants. Ridiculed for their private jets, Rick Waggoner of GM took two of his five out of service after returning to Detroit. Nice gesture.
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is the nature of capitalism itself. Adam Smith must be bristling in his grave. The whole basis for capitalism as put forth in the "Wealth of Nations" in 1776 and later complemented by David Ricardo in 1817 in "The Principals of Political Economy and Taxation" form the basis for the economy we treasure. Without seeming too Darwinian, the nature of capitalism itself allows for the failure of enterprises to be replaced with more efficient competitors. While the American psyche, as the UAW and the Big Three suggest, might indeed be affected by the failure of our automotive manufacturers, we will survive. We did so when the American Steel giants myopically marched into oblivion when foreign steel manufacturers produced superior steel for lower costs. In short, the arrogance and short-sightedness of automakers should not be underwritten by your and my tax money.
Despite Obama's ties to unions and campaign promises to reward their support for his election, he should think long and hard about pouring good money after bad. Even the liberal leaders of Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Reid, have no patience for rewarding businesses that have managed themselves into bankruptcy. Somehow, though, failure is a competitive notion we have come to believe is unacceptable. In truth, it is the natural selection process that capitalism in its purest form embraces. Our history is littered with mismanaged enterprises that could not, or would not compete. GE is the sole company remaining on the Dow Jones Industrial Average since its inception.
While pouring money into financial giants like Citicorp and AIG, mismanaged into insolvency, is a poor idea, so is underwriting the mistakes of a failed automobile manufacturer. The cry goes up, "What are we to do about America's leadership in the world? How are we to compete in an increasingly global economy?" The answer is, if we still believe in a free market economy, let the private entrepreneurs flourish. They will continue to meet the needs of the ever-evolving perceptions of what we want for our future, developing the skill sets and creating innovation where it makes sense and of course, a profit.
The late Peter Drucker, at one time hailed as the father of modern management, while often chastised by his peers, was a brilliant spectator of what innovation really means. Paraphrased, he described innovation as the reallocation of existing assets into new subsets that better address the needs of the end user. Total Quality Management, the TQM model championed by W. Edwards Deming, embodied this notion. Dr. Deming was thrown out of the Detroit automaker's offices 50 years ago, only to find an eager audience among the Japanese. That compelling story, as they say, is proof positive that: a) capitalism is efficient and, b) American automakers created the seeds of their own destruction.
While no one relishes the idea of millions of Americans being tossed out onto the unemployment line after generational devotion to their foolish employers, we must remember that the unions helped create their bosses' inability to compete. This was a joint effort and the results will be, or should be, shared by both.
The financial black hole that has crippled our economy should be allowed to run its course. Citicorp should be allowed to fail. GM, Ford and Chrysler should either sink or swim based on a free market ideal of "either innovate or die". We apparently look at our past dominance of the industrial age and have decided, as a nation, that this is the future model of our ability to dominate the world stage. That's a ridiculous notion. Just as the agrarian economies gave way to the industrial age, we now enter a future that could be just as exciting and promising. Our ability to create, unfettered by government interference, will allow us to enter and dominate the age of technology, or post-modern transportation, or communication, or any number of promising new discoveries that will change the way we live our lives into the next century. If we persist in this mindset that says we have to shore up the inefficient producers of the industrial age or the pathetic greed of our financial sector, we will set back the evolution of our economy for a generation or more.
If we were a nation with $2 trillion in cash like China, we might be tempted to undertake the re-tooling of our automakers. Insofar as the United States sits buried under $10 trillion of debt, this should not even be under discussion. But let's leave that idea for another time...
After the rebuff by Congress, their tails tucked between their legs, Detroit's big three are back home probably fuming that they can't tap into the billions being doled out for the financial giants. Ridiculed for their private jets, Rick Waggoner of GM took two of his five out of service after returning to Detroit. Nice gesture.
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is the nature of capitalism itself. Adam Smith must be bristling in his grave. The whole basis for capitalism as put forth in the "Wealth of Nations" in 1776 and later complemented by David Ricardo in 1817 in "The Principals of Political Economy and Taxation" form the basis for the economy we treasure. Without seeming too Darwinian, the nature of capitalism itself allows for the failure of enterprises to be replaced with more efficient competitors. While the American psyche, as the UAW and the Big Three suggest, might indeed be affected by the failure of our automotive manufacturers, we will survive. We did so when the American Steel giants myopically marched into oblivion when foreign steel manufacturers produced superior steel for lower costs. In short, the arrogance and short-sightedness of automakers should not be underwritten by your and my tax money.
Despite Obama's ties to unions and campaign promises to reward their support for his election, he should think long and hard about pouring good money after bad. Even the liberal leaders of Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Reid, have no patience for rewarding businesses that have managed themselves into bankruptcy. Somehow, though, failure is a competitive notion we have come to believe is unacceptable. In truth, it is the natural selection process that capitalism in its purest form embraces. Our history is littered with mismanaged enterprises that could not, or would not compete. GE is the sole company remaining on the Dow Jones Industrial Average since its inception.
While pouring money into financial giants like Citicorp and AIG, mismanaged into insolvency, is a poor idea, so is underwriting the mistakes of a failed automobile manufacturer. The cry goes up, "What are we to do about America's leadership in the world? How are we to compete in an increasingly global economy?" The answer is, if we still believe in a free market economy, let the private entrepreneurs flourish. They will continue to meet the needs of the ever-evolving perceptions of what we want for our future, developing the skill sets and creating innovation where it makes sense and of course, a profit.
The late Peter Drucker, at one time hailed as the father of modern management, while often chastised by his peers, was a brilliant spectator of what innovation really means. Paraphrased, he described innovation as the reallocation of existing assets into new subsets that better address the needs of the end user. Total Quality Management, the TQM model championed by W. Edwards Deming, embodied this notion. Dr. Deming was thrown out of the Detroit automaker's offices 50 years ago, only to find an eager audience among the Japanese. That compelling story, as they say, is proof positive that: a) capitalism is efficient and, b) American automakers created the seeds of their own destruction.
While no one relishes the idea of millions of Americans being tossed out onto the unemployment line after generational devotion to their foolish employers, we must remember that the unions helped create their bosses' inability to compete. This was a joint effort and the results will be, or should be, shared by both.
The financial black hole that has crippled our economy should be allowed to run its course. Citicorp should be allowed to fail. GM, Ford and Chrysler should either sink or swim based on a free market ideal of "either innovate or die". We apparently look at our past dominance of the industrial age and have decided, as a nation, that this is the future model of our ability to dominate the world stage. That's a ridiculous notion. Just as the agrarian economies gave way to the industrial age, we now enter a future that could be just as exciting and promising. Our ability to create, unfettered by government interference, will allow us to enter and dominate the age of technology, or post-modern transportation, or communication, or any number of promising new discoveries that will change the way we live our lives into the next century. If we persist in this mindset that says we have to shore up the inefficient producers of the industrial age or the pathetic greed of our financial sector, we will set back the evolution of our economy for a generation or more.
If we were a nation with $2 trillion in cash like China, we might be tempted to undertake the re-tooling of our automakers. Insofar as the United States sits buried under $10 trillion of debt, this should not even be under discussion. But let's leave that idea for another time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
