Losing out on ideas, and explaining the current fashion

This is just a short note to explain the dysphonia suffered by leadership, of US, Inc., as much a public leaders in many other societies.

It is illustrated by, but isn't confined to, the current political discourse. It goes something like this: the Republicans have segmented and packaged the sphere of public policy into three (or so) appealing little headings; social policy, fiscal policy, and security. Who has a burning platform on education and abortion? Who has a clearly recognized position on taxation and subsidies? Which party do we trust to keep us safe from the bad guys, and gals (to stay on the right side of sexism).

In general, is there any glamour in the complex, however real? The body of knowledge that developed to address the complex interconnection between unwanted-births-crime-education-and-taxation came to be known as Public Policy. That's a rather unsexy term. It is not, however, a catchy phrases-- like "Patriot Act", "No Childrens Left Behind", or "War on Terror". I know a bar conversation on public policy is yawwn inducing.

Which is why Democrats seem to bandy irrelevant ideas, while, the conservative's seem to have a knack for turning the right phrase. That knack is actually a studied skill, one worth admiring and learning from.

Public discourse is similar to retailing ideas-- they need to be package well, presented well, there needs to be segmentation, and position of idea-products, there are cycles to the demand for ideas, there is the soft lines of ideas-- thoughts that people like to wrap themselves in for a while, like Change You Can Believe In, others are life-style ideas, Confederate. Then there is the hardlines-ideas, ideas that people use to frame and store ideas in-- Freedom, Courage, Youth, and Hard-work. There are idea brands, Liberal, and Conservative. People like Limbaugh and Zakaria produce branded lines. Clinton and Reagan and Bush are the great exponents of these products.

But we must peel ourselves away from this metaphor-- taking along only the core assertion, that there is a market for consumption of ideas, in which old ideas go out of fashion rapidly, and new ones are constantly needed to whet the appetite of the masses. Like trousers and cravats, the core products of Public Policy will always have a market, but the packaging has to change.

It is in this sense that Hillary is hobbled, McCain flawed, and, if only in this sense, Obama promising. He is the current Issac Mizrahi, Calvin Klein, or Donna Karen, of ideas. This fashion, too, will wear out, but not without strutting its stuff for a while. Do you see it now? Sphere: Related Content

हिन्दी, हमारी मात्रि भाषा!

That reads: "Hindi is my mother tongue"-- which it is.

However, it is up there because I am going to write a series of articles on the economic and political power of regionalism. There is a great, untapped engine of growth and power resident in the regions of the world. The mechanisms to exploit this unharnessed surplus: regional brands, vernacular messaging, and ethnic organizing, are what I'd explore.

Leave comments now, and come back for ideas as they update.

Sphere: Related Content

Quantification of the premium commanded by Apple products in “name-your-price” transaction

With the caveat that both--the tight controls exercised by Apple on product supply, and the existence of a list price on its products online--influence the prices arrived at through auctions, we may generalize that consumers typically demonstrate a higher willingness to pay (WTP) for Mac’s than they do for PCs. This higher WTP was quantified for illustrative purposes by a 24-sample survey of the online auction market eBay. Comparable MacBooks and Dell Inspiron computers were sampled for the final prices they fetched in auctions. It was found that hard-drive size, processor speed, presence of a DVD-RW drive, size of RAM, and computer identity (Mac or non-Mac) explained 90% of variation in prices between auctions with 90% confidence. While the confidence level is lower than is customary, the result is corroborative of the existence of a reference price in the market, and of the premium commanded by MacBook computers.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Nation?

Does Obama get disproportionate attention?

Is he gaining traction in people's consciousness because of his race and persona? Is that bad?

Is the US doomed if he is elected, on account of his inexperience?

Is his relative inexperience is main advantage?

Does Obama deserve to win, any more than Clinton and McCain?

If you had complete control over who won, who would you make President-- Obama, Steve Jobs, Clinton, Dalai Lamar, McCain?

Sphere: Related Content

(don't) Give 'em some (more) credit, and keep the cash

In the US, 43% of people spend more than they earn each year. Personal bankruptcies have doubled in the last decade. The average US consumer has managed a loan of some kind for 14 years. 15% of all people have over $15,000 in credit-card loans. In many countries, being in debt is seen as immoral! Yes, immoral. In India, respected nationalized banks send thugs to people's houses, and literally break legs, to collect past-due payments.

In light of the current credit crises, we have repeatedly heard how consumer greed has gotten the economy in this mess. Some free-market votaries will suggest that bailing suffering consumers is only going to encourage continued recklessness. In their opinion, letting those currently in financial trouble- wether it is the hallowed Bear Stearns, or a lay homeowner-- suffer the consequences of their poor judgements, is actually good for the economy in the long run. They argue that free markets need both, the buccaneer'ish-experiments, and the consequences, to function. As in a gene-pool, the whole is the better when those whose were unfit for survival are allowed to perish. Resuscitate the flailing, prop up the faltering, and you reward market schemes that are basically flawed, and should be allowed to self-eliminate.

I agree with some of this. Except, cataclysmic failures don't always imply the culpability of all victims. Any more than those who succeed don't always deserve full credit for their achievements. So, I agree that a judicious culling of the bad-apples (mixing metaphors) is healthy. However, lets not throw the baby out with the... alright, you get the point.

Getting back to the point... the main reason we see this ill-advised propensity to swipe among consumers is reflective of attitudes of the whole US society. From the Federal government on down, there is the tendency to tolerate, even reward, financial risk. Credit, an Orwellianism for debt, has become the life-blood of the economy. The easy availability of credit on the one hand, and the repeated Presidential exhortations to go out and spend to save America, combine to elevate profligacy to a near-patriotic act. Imbuing consumerism with a nationalistic hue convinces common folk that their debt is somehow a gift to America's future.

The truth is starkly the reverse. You couldn't give your kids a worse inheritance than debt, pollution, over-population, and other postponed decisions.

More on postponed decisions other time.

For now, the economic-stimulus plan is a great case study in the fundamental depravity of current fiscal thinking:

People are the election's cash cow-- close to a billion dollar has sluiced this election campaign, and things haven't even gotten started yet. Wait till the Democrats have their champion selected, like the Republicans have theirs in McCain, and the two gladiators descend into the mud-pitt of democracy, to entertain their gore-seeking (no pun intended) audience, the people.

Now, know that I fundamentally believe in the wisdom of the masses-- vox populi, vox dei, and all that. But, all animals trust their collectivity to be lead by wise alpha-individuals, by a meritocracy, and when these leaders surrender reason to populism, flocks turn to mobs, and baser passions rule decisions. So, it is actually a failure of the mechanism of group-think, caused by a failure of leadership, that turns our wise-masses, into a "gore-seeking", self destructive mob.

The checks being sent to people for economic-stimulation, the trillions borrowed and spent in Iraq, the $1.3 billion paid out in bonuses on the Wallstreet, the value destroyed by devaluation of realestate, the $2 trillion consumer debt, all represent money that could have been spent on schools, research, training, and infrastructure, to build a stronger America.

Instead, we give our people debt, call it credit, and then sanctify expenditure by sending election-time cash.

Sphere: Related Content

One for history

Leadership is a hard trait to define, oratory is a disappearing skill, political visionaries are a vanishing species, and all of these together-- a illusory hope. Till today. What Barak did with that speech today was define the national dialogue for us on race. Of late, America had borrowed social-vision, from Gandhi, from Churchill, and even from scripture.

Today, once again, Barak authored a new vision for US polity, a new script for the national discourse. He may not become President, and surely this speech in itself does not qualify him to, but he presented a compelling new visage for Leadership in America. From now on, the face of a black person will not ill-fit the image of POTUS. From now on, black leaders are not misfits on the political stage, they have become legit.

Barak's speech was not the smartest political maneuver, and it did little to convince us that we should necessarily vote for him. He did, however, make himself a compelling, authentic, and profound social commentator.

The gentlemen that preceded him 200 years ago in Philadelphia are unknown to me, each participant, by name. But they are know to all Humanity as the authors of a new chapter in Humanity. They didn't all aspire to, deserve, or win presidency. Neither might Barak Obama. They did create documents that stand as philosophical, literary, moral, and lastly, political, masterpieces. Human history of the last two centuries owes moral debt to the ideals of liberty enshrined in and birthed by those tomes. So does Barak's speech. It is not for his own political career, nor is it an apology for Black rage, it is a speech that speaks to Humanity. It is one for the ages.

Sphere: Related Content