Bold Words

Exploring how bold words can give life to bold ideas.

A Bookish Resolution January 5, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — Britt @ 2:12 pm

2235761852_124c18bec1_mI have a thing for books and most anything related to places that hold books…book stores, libraries, shelves, etc. My heart holds a special place for the library of my youth (i.e. the library before computers and Internet). Watching Breakfast at Tiffany’s reminded me of this affection as I watched Holly and Fred search for his book in the card catalog (starting at about 1:40). There was something so grown up about pulling out those little drawers, flipping cards, and searching the shelves for the neatly typed titles.

My love affair with books and all things bookish makes it difficult for me to comprehend a world that seems disinterested in books. From Adrian Hon via  Rachel Clarke I learned how grim the book reading landscape is:

40% of people in the US (and 34% in the UK) do not read books any more. They may surf the web, or the read the occasional newspaper, but they do not read more than one book (fiction or non-fiction) in a year.

The closer you look at the statistics, the more depressing it gets. In the US, only 47% of adults read a work of literature - and I don’t mean Shakespeare, I mean any novel, short story, play or poem - in 2006.

Adrian does an excellent job of explaining the larger issues related to the reading decline. I encourage you to read his full post. For my part, I’ve decided to be more public about my book reading. My interest is less in doing a book review per se, but more about demonstrating how much of my thinking is impacted by what I read.

To start, I have 1,638 books in my personal collection. Of that number, I feel comfortable saying I’ve read about 75-80%. On average, I go through 4-5 books per week, less if my reading is for research/study versus pleasure. Throughout the coming year, I’ll share as appropriate (some of my reading selections are more mind candy than mind challenging) the books and the ideas they contain that make me think. Yes, there are a great many blogs and online writers who fire the imagination, but I never would have started blogging if I hadn’t been reading great books that got me thinking in the first place.

My goal isn’t to rank the value of any creative source but rather to point out the necessity of pulling from all possible sources. Given that my posts tend to be lengthier, I suspect many of my readers will appreciate my New Year’s wish that you’ll enjoy book-filled weeks and months to come.

Image courtesy of Paxsimius.

 

Building Highways the Hard Way January 2, 2009

Filed under: Government — Britt @ 4:38 pm
Tags: , , ,

476897084_0f66d1ef97Perusing post-holiday news, I came across two stories that highlight my frustration with status quo thinking. The first story focuses on a federal commission charged with exploring an increase in the gas tax or raising funds for road upkeep via mileage:

Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren’t raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes…According to a draft of the financing commission’s recommendations, the nation needs to move to a new system that taxes motorists according to how much they use roads. While details have not been worked out, such a system would mean equipping every car and truck with a device that uses global positioning satellites and transponders to record how many miles the vehicle has been driven, and perhaps the type of roads and time of day. (link)

The second story deals with a proposed solution to raise road funds in Oregon also based on mileage:

Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with gasoline taxes. (link)

Oh, the Irony.

In case you missed it, the people in charge are essentially trying to figure out how to fix shortfalls in their funding because their citizens actually paid attention to the pleas (or got tired of shelling out money) to drive less and conserve fuel. Even more entertaining is the concern stated explicitly by Oregon lawmakers that more fuel efficient cars pose a threat to road upkeep because they don’t require as many trips to the pump, lessening their owners’ contributions via the gas tax.

From an economic standpoint, I’m unsure why the option of people paying for the roads they use, without installing a government-owned monitoring device, isn’t a viable option that balances the burden while meeting the funding needs. Whether through the use of toll roads or paying a yearly fee to have a pass for traveling on Interstates, there are other ways to make roads pays for themselves.

From a logical standpoint, either the argument for raising the fuel tax or for taxing mileage fails to make sense based on the current mantra to drive less and to lower fuel consumption. In addition, the notion that people who choose to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles are “getting away” with something is ludicrous. Again, these people listened to those who called for smarter vehicle purchases. Now the powers that be are surprised that their call to action has had a chain reaction. However, their arguments fail to address an underlying imbalance in either proposed system of raising the gas tax or taxing mileage.

When Other Option Don’t Exist

As the proponents of such measures argue, the overall number of people driving has dropped and thus fuel consumption, lowering the amount of funds available for roads and the like. In theory, the people who are still driving, particularly during price spikes, are doing so because they have to. This group includes long-distance truckers, people who work outside of mass transit systems, and farmers to name a few. Taking the example to the next step, the government wants these individuals and entities to pay more for being on the roads, making up the difference for those who did as asked and stayed home because they could or rode the bus.

Roads Paying for Themselves

Every person that drives a car must pay some related fee (e.g., vehicle registration, car insurance, etc.) to operate a vehicle legally, regardless of how much they drive. Even if I become the little old lady who only drives to the store and back, I still have to pay those related costs to operate a vehicle. I believe you can implement a similar program for roads.

People could be charged for access to specific roads, regardless of how much they’re on them in the same way that we must pay the set amount for vehicle fees regardless of how often we drive our cars. Such a system also has the attractive feature of not requiring a government-installed device to track usage, helping protect driver privacy. Also, just like you can get a ticket for expired registration or lack of insurance, you could be ticketed for not paying to be on that road.

Before you start shouting that this solution is no more fair than the other proposed systems, consider this: such an option offers the flexibility to set up a tiered system that breaks roads into different categories. Such a system could be designed to take into account the needs of people who only travel locally versus those who travel nationally or high-traffic roads in urban areas versus a small town grid. By default, those who don’t own a vehicle won’t have to pay for using the roads. Instead, if needed, their contributions could came through an additional charge on a bus or metro pass.

You Need to Eventually Get the Carrot

Regardless of the end solution, one thing is clear: you can’t ask something of people and then essentially punish them for doing what you asked. At some point, they’ll stop supporting your efforts. Why do governments believe they are exempt from this reality?

How do you think we could do it better?

Image courtesy of Thomas Hawk

 

All About the Money January 1, 2009

Filed under: Risk, bold ideas — Britt @ 9:06 am
Tags: , , , ,

2892058635_da341cba5f1My New Year’s Eve proved to be a restless evening compounded by a nasty head cold and a thought that kept swirling around my head. The ongoing talk surrounding money, and the things connected to it (e.g., jobs, homes, etc.), seems to have focused on money as the end versus the means. The thought I keep coming back to is when will we start talking about and focusing on doing or making something without money entering the conversation?

First, I must clarify that I recognize the necessity of money. For many, it’s the only tender that can be traded for things like food and shelter. My argument isn’t about money in a good versus evil sense, but rather how we allow it to define our lives.

Second, the value of money and the things we buy with it has proven to be a very flexible thing. People who believed their homes would finance a move into an even larger residence or even fund their retirement are facing mortgages now worth more than the value of their home. Investors have watched as their portfolios followed the downward market trends, leaving many to wonder how they’ll ever regain what they’ve lost.

Finally, I’m a believer of efficient markets and the underlying principles of capitalism, so I’m in the group that believes current circumstances will improve for the better. However, despite the potential for improvement, I still come back to my original conundrum: do we need to change how we think about money?

Money: For Better or For Worse

I like money. I like what it allows me to do and the experiences that it makes available to me. At times, I’ve allowed myself to be caught up in the idea that money was the desired goal rather than a vehicle for something more tangible. I believe that one of the reasons so many are upset about the current economic crisis is a fear of whether they can still do anything or produce something of value. Consider the focus we’ve placed on being able to replace and upgrade. If you believe there’s nothing about you that makes you impossible to replace that’s cause for fear.

In recent months, we’ve heard the phrase “too big to fail.” I wish that I’d heard more about people who were too valuable to lose. Our focus has been on the institutions and what they represent (often money) and not on the people who actually make things happen.

When the Detroit  automakers went to Washington, D.C., looking for financial assistance, more than one person called for a change in leadership of these companies. But I never did hear who should replace the CEOs of any of these companies or what the new leaders should do.

A cornerstone of President-elect Obama’s financial recovery package focuses on rebuilding America’s infrastructure. I’ll be curious to hear when the focus shifts to making sure there’s something worthwhile for all that infrastructure to connect. For example, what is Detroit without car manufacturing? Does any industry currently exist that could move in and support the city if the car manufacturers go away? What about the cities who rely on carbon energy production?

At some point, regardless of whether you believe the prophets of doom or the overly optimistic naysayers, we’ll pump and mine the Earth dry. And if something ceases to be available it doesn’t matter how much money you have at your disposal.

What Happens If We Stop?

If we stop creating, if we stop producing, we will find ourselves in a bind, particularly if we only chose to do so because of money. Yes, we need money to survive, but when do we cross the line from survival into servitude? I’m the first to admit that I like my creature comforts and that I like having enough money to fulfill those wants, but I also try to be wary of allowing it to drive my decision making.

Consider many of the corporate CEOs in recent history who were driven more by the pursuit of money than the production of something valuable. Enron, WorldCom, and Bear Stearns are just a few of the more egregious examples.  So where does that leave us now?

I believe our long-term success, and happiness for that matter, will be determined by our ability to make more than just money. Yes, money holds a powerful sway on society as a whole. We tend to admire and often idolize those who make large sums of it. But how would our perception of those people change if they suddenly didn’t have their huge sums of money? Would they, as individuals, still be worthy of our attention?

The Warren Buffett Lesson

I wonder often about why Warren Buffett has chosen to stay in his original home in Omaha, Nebraska. As the richest man in the world, he could live wherever he wanted in whatever type of home. His decision for staying fascinates me from the standpoint that we’re so often bombarded with the message that bigger translates into better.

On top of his housing selection, Buffett’s decision to donate to various charities 85% of his Berkshire Hathaway stock prior to his death also intrigues me. To me, his actions are an example of turning money into something tangible. The end goal doesn’t appear to be about making more money but rather about making lives better. Such actions may lead to the creation of more money, but the immediate goal is one of giving back to improve current circumstances.

Since the end of World War II, we’ve been a nation focused on consumption. I wonder when we’ll figure out that at some point, they’re won’t be anything left to consume if we don’t refocus our efforts on producing things of value.

Image courtesy of Steve Wampler.

 

Arguments Made Too Simple December 1, 2008

Filed under: bold ideas — Britt @ 6:04 pm
Tags: , ,

Last week, I took an unfair potshot at the Big Three car CEOs, one that was commonly made by the press and that I latched on to in order to make a point:

One of the best examples of words taking the place of much-needed action was the Big Three CEOs in Washington begging the government for money. Never mind that they flew there on their private planes (undermines the “need” argument a bit).

Joni Hubred-Golden called me on it, rightly enough, with her comment:

I am not generally a defender of the Big 3, but it has to be said the problem is more complex than them begging the government for money, private jets notwithstanding. And in that regard, I don’t recall a hue and cry of the current magnitude when we bailed out the mortgage industry, where prosecuted fraud was involved. It’s easy to take pot-shots at the execs, but if the Big 3 fail, hundreds of thousands of people who aren’t making seven-figure salaries will pay the price. I live in Detroit, and I know many already have.

Too Simple

She’s right. I did something that I abhor in others and try to avoid doing myself: I simplified a piece of information to make my argument, ignoring the nuance that can influence one’s perspective. My argument should have focused more on the lack of planning by these CEOs than whether they took private jets to D.C. I still see it as a bit of contradiction, but focusing on their transportation instead of the true issue of the American auto industry distracts from reality that we’ve shoveled money to some companies with little thought or transparency. Why are we hitting the brakes on these three?

Note: I’m not a fan of sending billions to companies who made bad decisions, but I’m equally frustrated by the seeming randomness of the largesse and lack of transparency about the exchanges. If the government is going to become the lender of last resort, shouldn’t the people who own its resources have some idea where their money goes and why?

With the recent bailout of Citibank, Joni’s point is again reinforced: where’s the hue and cry over bailing out financial institutions?  Now the Big Three will again descend on D.C. with the hope of convincing politicians that they deserve some of the money that’s been so freely shared with others. However, going back to the question of the real issue, I saw this story about how one CEO will make his way to D.C.:

When the Big Three automakers come back to Washington for hearings later this week on the proposed auto bailout, Ford CEO Alan Mulally will be making the more than eight-hour trip from Detroit to the Capitol by car, the company said today. The company won’t say yet, however, what kind of car Mulally will take (a Ford F-150 pickup truck or a Ford Focus compact car?), whether he will be behind the wheel, or when he will arrive: “It depends on traffic,” says a spokesperson. (link)

Is It Too Late to Change?

Perhaps Mulally is looking to make a statement, but the extremes between the two positions again, to my thinking, overshadows the main issue: can the American car industry pull itself out of a hole dug with expensive union liabilities, SUV mania, and poor management decisions?

This thinking leads me to an even bigger question: does American industry as a whole have what it takes to turn the magnifying glass on itself and diagnose the challenges it faces in the coming decades? Can it survive a Global Revolution on an even larger scale than the Industrial Revolution? For instance, if the Big Three get their money, do they honestly believe that pouring money down the same holes will fill them any faster? Do they see the need for rethinking their business from the road up? Do you believe that America needs to rethink industry?

 

Time to Speak the Truth November 21, 2008

Filed under: History, Persistence — Britt @ 4:07 pm
Tags: , , ,

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance…They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it…Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.—Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address

Some things to think about…at the time FDR took office, almost 40% of the workforce was unemployed. Banks were failing by the thousands. National income went from 81 billion to 41 billion between 1929 and 1932. Economic turmoil was worldwide. Sound familiar?

Yes, things aren’t great now, and the signs point that they will get worse. However, the gloom and doom that saturates the news and conversations is somewhat pointless. Clearly, as bad, if not worse, times were experienced in the past, and societies and countries survived. Who exactly do you think will solve the problems we face if it isn’t ourselves? Isn’t it time that instead of only talking about how bad the problems are we focused on how to fix them?

One of the best examples of words taking the place of much-needed action was the Big Three CEOs in Washington begging the government for money. Never mind that they flew there on their private planes (undermines the “need” argument a bit). Why aren’t they back in Detroit examining their companies from top to bottom looking for ways to fix the problems their companies face? In this instance, actions speak louder then words. Even those politicians that are willing to consider loaning these companies the money want a plan that shows how these struggling entities will become successful. Words alone aren’t enough anymore. We have to make a conscious decision to act.

We have two choices: one, we can succumb to all that is bad and hunker down, hoping that the worse will pass us by, or two, we can dig in and use some of that ingenuity that seems to have been tossed by the wayside in recent months. One person won’t solve this problem. The sooner we recognize that a brave knight isn’t waiting to ride to our rescue, the faster we can move towards future success. Make the commitment to seek out the people who are talking about real solutions and ignore the people who say the sky is falling. The sky may still fall, but the solutions people will have developed a sky-proof helmet before it happens.

 

Tagged by Chris Brogan November 16, 2008

Filed under: About — Britt @ 1:07 pm

If I didn’t like him so much, I might smack Chris Brogan for tagging me with his latest meme. I have a hard time believing that anything you don’t already know about is that interesting, but here’s my contribution to the pile.

1. Growing up, I planned to become an architect. Any chance I got, I’d sketch little house plans then I’d build those house plans out of Legos. I loved looking at blueprints and cobbling together different parts of houses into one of my own. In high school, I put together two sets of plans for people looking to add on to their homes. Only one was built, and I still enjoy riding my bike past that home and seeing the addition. However, reality intruded in college when it became clear that calculus and physics were never going to be my forte, making an official degree in architecture impossible. To this day, I still enjoy drawing house plans.

2. In college, I had a job for three weeks at a survey call center. It was horrid. We were paid a skimpy hourly rate and then we had to hit a certain number of completed surveys to get anything more. Besides the fact that I hated interrupting people at home, if I was even one question short of the completing the survey it didn’t count. Sometimes, we’d have a particularly long survey, say 30-40 questions. Without fail, I’d get at least one person who get through all but one or two and hang up on me. After deciding that bashing my head against the wall wasn’t an option, I quit a job for the first time in my life and only felt guilty about it for a day.

3. My junior year of college I was the Arts & Entertainment Editor for my school newspaper. Here’s the funny thing: I loved working on the newspaper, assigning stories and editing copy, but I absolutely loathed doing interviews. So I would scoop up as many CD and movie reviews as possible and send my reporters out to do the one-on-one stuff. That job was also interesting because it marked a year where the editor elected to insert a paid advertisement that denounced the Holocaust. She did so to illustrate a free speech objective, which she explained in an accompanying editorial, making it clear she gave it no personal credence. No one was surprised when she started receiving threats, and we were encouraged to leave the newspaper office in pairs. Luckily nothing happened, but it was a reminder that words come with responsibility.

4. I’ve gotten into the habit of building my own computers. My most recent one replaces my aging tower that started flashing the blue screen of death after five years. In theory, I fixed it, but decided it was time to move on. There’s something so satisfying about knowing how to put a computer together. My first time, I didn’t match my processor and my motherboard, which for some reason took me forever to figure out. Then the case’s power button had a short, blocking it from powering up as normal. All told, it took me close to six weeks to get the stupid thing working. My latest build only took me two days. Yes, I smiled when I typed that.

5. I own over 1,600 books, and I keep track of my collection with a barcode scanner and a database. Why? I got tired of buying duplicates. I love books. A friend recently asked if I’d buy an Amazon Kindle, and while I might for convenience at some point, I’ll never give up my physicial books. There’s something so right about holding a book in one’s hands. Some of the earliest pictures of me, even before I could read are of me holding a book and pretending to read. Few things give me greater pleasure than reading, and I feel safe saying I like books from almost every genre (I still struggle with poetry).

Memes like this one make me wonder if we ever really know another person. Or whether the information that’s shared makes a difference about how we perceive another person. Part of me hopes that no one finds out everything about me, while the other part hopes one person knows everything. How’s that for contradiction?

Be sure to check out the other tagees: Jon Swanson, Becky McCray, Megin, and Glenda Watson Hyatt.

 

American Democracy or Bust October 7, 2008

Filed under: Government, bold ideas — Britt @ 10:26 pm
Tags: , , , ,

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’m not sure I can vote for either presidential candidate, and I’m afraid tonight’s debate drove that home. For what seems like years and multiple elections, I’ve heard the same talking points and “personal” attacks, regardless of the actual candidates themselves. Frankly, a two-party election bores the hell out of me. We all know what the Democrats are about. We all know what the Republicans are about. Isn’t it time we tried something new?

What about a Green or a Libertarian? Well, Ralph Nadar put a nail in the Green coffin, and even though ex-Congressman Bob Barr is somewhat known (Monicagate, anyone?), he still isn’t enough to power the Libertarian party into serious competition. Let’s think about these two parties. In some ways, they represent extremes of both major parties, appealing to niches versus vast majorities, a hindrance for winning a national election. I write this even with my personal leanings being Libertarian flavored on many issues.

Candidates that have challenged and beat the establishment have done so because they represented a majority of the public’s view on a topic of interest. The Republican Party first rose to prominence in the 1800s over the issue of abolishing slavery. However, it seems like we’ve come to a bit of a stalemate. The differences between the two parties are predictable and not necessarily in a good way.

Democrats and Republicans

For all that Obama positions himself as the candidate of change, does he really represent a different version of the Democratic party or simply a more attractive, charismatic package than Al Gore or John Kerry? While I disagree with many of the Democratic positions, I’ve never believed Democrats as a party to be stupid, just somewhat disorganized with multiple voices clamoring for equal billing. Now they have a presidential candidate who’s perhaps the best orator in a generation and a fundraising machine courtesy of the Internet and millions of contributors. He’s spending some of that money this month on a personal Obama satellite channel. Maybe he is a man of the people, a candidate of change.

For the Republicans, well, if they win this election it will be due to a Hail Mary. Nothing is in their favor. The economy has tanked. We’re still stuck in a country five years later where we were told we’d be greeted as liberators. And for a party that claims to favor a small government, one is left wondering if this is small, what big government would look like. Add in a candidate who claims to be a maverick and picks a maverick as a running mate and citizens can only wonder how many other Middle East countries might be ready to “welcome” us. One also can’t ignore that the sitting Republican president has some some seriously low approval ratings. I don’t think the White House welcome mat is laid out for McCain.

As Good As It Gets

Is this election really as good as it gets? I don’t care if you’re a Republican, a Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Socialist, or even a misanthrope. If these candidates are representative of the best this country has to offer, we’re in trouble. I write this knowing that many people believe Obama to be this country’s only hope for future success. I respect that belief. He may very well prove me wrong and be the best president we’ve every had. But what happens if he’s not? Who’s left in the Democratic party, Hillary aside, to take up the party leadership in a way that bucks the past? The same applies to the Republicans. I didn’t like anyone in that primary anymore than I liked any of the Democrats.

We’ve proven so innovative in so many areas. Why does America’s democracy continue down the same path it’s followed for years? Can’t we make it better? H.L. Mencken captures it perfectly with the thought that, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” But, one can counter with the wisdom of Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

American history has shown that political parties can rise and fall. If you truly believe that either of the major parties is a perfect fit for you, more power to you. However, if you look at that status quo and potentially have to hold your nose to vote for the least bad candidate, isn’t it time we thought seriously about a new party or at least a new type of political candidate? Do you believe you deserve better?

 

The Bubble Popped. Now What? October 6, 2008

Filed under: Government, bold ideas — Britt @ 10:57 pm
Tags: , , ,

I’ve held my tongue for days as I’ve watched the supposed leaders of this country try to explain how they’re going to “solve” the current economic mess. Part of me enjoys the perfect timing of everything blowing up right before an election. The other part, well, it wonders why everyone is so shocked that the bubble popped. The United States and its citizens were testing the theory that they could live on credit indefinitely.  Amazingly enough, running at a deficit has a cost that we’re all becoming intimately acquainted with.

I’ve waited with great patience for one, just one, person to accept responsibility, even if it’s only partial, for any part of the chaos. Surprise, surprise all I hear is both political parties blaming each other and talking heads on CNBC predicting a long-term recession. I hear everyone talking about Main Street bailing out Wall Street. I hear politicians assure me that they must intervene. Why?

Who Takes Responsibility

I’m not an economist, so my argument does not even attempt to address the financial side of things, but rather what I consider to be the moral and the ethical aspect of the situation. Accountability has been missing from society for a while now. Occasionally, you’ll hear about an investigation into corruption at City Hall or something similar. The prosecuting attorney gets some air time that will play well during the election and everyone gets to feel good that someone is getting the bad guys. Unfortunately, I don’t believe our current situation fits this mold.

Here’s the reality: I believe that each one of use is guilty to some extent for the situation we find ourselves facing. If you don’t own a credit card, you’re mostly excused, unless you took out a mortgage for more than you knew you could afford to pay. I believe this mess started when we started listening to the media, our friends, our family, telling us that we deserved to have what we wanted NOW, not later, but RIGHT NOW.

So we got sucked into the credit card offers that screamed, “One Year Without Interest” or payment plans that promised, “Only $88 A Month.” We bought the big screen, the boat, and all the others toys, believing that a “little” debt was ok, because our homes were worth double, triple, etc. what they were when we bought them.

But wait, why not sell my home and buy a bigger one, because my investment will increase even more in a bigger house that’s worth more. Oh, I can get in that bigger house for less with an adjustable rate mortgage that increases my payment by $1000 a month in three years? No problem. I’ll have enough equity by then that I can swing it or sell the house for twice what I paid for it.

The Gray Area

Before you jump on me for ignoring the plight of people who were taken advantage of by ruthless mortgage brokers whose only concern was earning a commission, I know that hundreds of thousands of people were misled. Everything from last minute rate changes to outright threats played a role in bad mortgage lending. However, even if you say these individuals make up 50% of the bad mortgages that still leaves another 50% who should know better.

Consider the words of consumer behaviorist Larry Compeau of Clarkson University from a Newsweek column in March 2008.

“People in their 30s haven’t really experienced a significant or long recessionary period…I am concerned that they won’t be able to respond quickly enough to mitigate what may be the damage ahead.”

The column’s author Eve Conant continues, “Not only do people under 40 save less, but they have less to save.” Indeed, savings as a percentage of disposable income have plummeted in the United States, from between 7 and 10 percent in the 1960s and ’70s to just 0.4 percent in 2007.” (link) Note that it’s savings measured against disposable income. Doesn’t that make us complicit?

I can also hear the argument that the cost of living has increased as wages have flattened, making regular use of credit a necessity. Health care, the cost of food, the cost of energy. You name it, most everything costs more. But let’s be honest, how many people are surviving on credit cards alone as a sole source of funds? Isn’t it more likely that the credit cards are paying for the vacations, the clothes, the iPods, and the toys of life?

I’m the first to acknowledge that the credit market is screwed up and not aimed at protecting consumer interests. (I strongly encourage Maxed Out, both the book and the documentary, for a look at the credit industry.) However, we keep going back for more. I find it telling that because I pay my balance in full each month, credit card companies refer to me as a deadbeat. Their number one customers are the ones caught in the revolving door of minimum payments, never touching the principal and only paying the interest. Doesn’t this outlook tell us something important about credit card companies?

Make Something Happen

Don’t we owe it to ourselves to protect our individual interests? For those who believe more government regulation is the answer, good luck. The $700 billion bailout started as a three page document in the White House and after the House and Senate got through with it, the number had increased, going from 110 to 451 pages. The Senate, because it’s constitutional barred from initiating finance bills, slapped multiple bills together to create a package that skirted that pesky rule. Any regulation will come with strings that may or may not benefit individuals, regardless of which party controls Congress and the White House.

So I say start small. Go to OptOutPrescreen.com and get your name removed from the list that the credit agencies provide to businesses extending credit offers or insurance. You can opt out for LIFE if you want. Start a savings account even if it’s pennies in a jar (example of government stupidity, it costs roughly 2.5 cents to make each penny, a loss of 1.5 cents per coin).

Finally, the thing I believe will save us, as it has in the past, is our ingenuity and willingness to innovate. Some have suggested, for example, that if the U.S. could create a green energy revolution through technology innovations, swinging things back to the positive side. At the foundation of whatever proves the solution will be people who made something, who didn’t just consume. We talk about the scales of justice being balanced. Doesn’t the same rule apply to what we do with our lives? If we take, doesn’t it make sense to give back?

UPDATE: If you’re curious, I wrote a post a little over a year ago about the history of credit cards and their role in the economy.

 

Change in Flux September 5, 2008

Filed under: Impressions — Britt @ 12:28 am
Tags: , , ,

Attending the state fair today reminded me that some things are timeless while others are in an almost constant state of flux. For us who embrace technology as a way of life, this flux has become commonplace. We’d be perplexed if technology didn’t change over time. In other areas of our life, consistency is something we treasure. I like knowing that the car keys are where I last laid them to rest. I take comfort from knowing that my basic route to the grocery store doesn’t change on a daily basis. This takes me back to the state fair where change and consistency hit head on today.

I haven’t been to this particular fair in 11 years, but walking through the gates this morning I was struck by how much everything appeared the same. The same booths, the same smells, the same variety of people. I went to eat the food and wander the exhibition halls, again, the same as 11 years ago, until I came to this one booth that reminded me I’m very much at the mercy of change.

It was a Mary Kay booth of all places and the random call of a staffer to enter a drawing that caught, and then held, my attention. I knew the face, but I couldn’t give it a name. Our faces probably mirrored each other as we tried to place the other. For some reason, looking at one of my companions helped her make the connection. I was still grasping as she chatted with my friend, and I had to glance down at a business card before it made sense. Low and behold, here was the wife of an old friend who didn’t stay a friend after the marriage.

The situation became somewhat humorous when she mistook me for a younger sibling instead of myself. After exchanging random nonsense, we moved on, and I was surprised at how swiftly my thoughts turned to that change in my life, when my friend was no longer my friend. It was a perfect example of how rarely we have any control over the changes that happen in our lives, and why, perhaps, we cling that much harder to the things that change less often.

I’m a creature of habit in some ways, but not averse to change as a general rule. I, however, like my change to come with an explanation. Change rarely complies with my wishes, leaving me to wonder why things happen the way they do.

Today was a reminder that I’m not the same person I was 11 years ago. And while I’m grateful and happy to be who I am today, parts of me still feel some regret for certain changes that have flowed through my life during those years. I think when we ignore this regret we cheat ourselves out of opportunities to learn more about who we are really meant to be.

Our current society and culture embraces change as a sign of sophistication, even wisdom to some. I can only hope that as we pursue the latest iPhone and tweet our newest friend that we don’t allow change to change our inner selves to the point that we’re no longer recognizable.

 

Looking Beyond Tech August 23, 2008

Filed under: Gnomedex, bold ideas — Britt @ 10:03 am
Tags: , ,

Looking outward is not always easy or natural. I see this firsthand through my own life. If something isn’t a part of your day-to-day routine or perspective considering its impact on the bigger picture can be a challenge. Last night I had a chat with Chris Brogan about how the tech community, for example, struggles with looking outward. He beat me to the punch, posting on our conversation early this morning.

Going beyond Chris’s suggestion of solving real-world problems, I wonder why groups are so resistant to recognizing the impact of outside influences. Last year at Gnomedex, a couple of the presentations had political overtones, which seemed to infuriate some of the attendees. Some of the feedback boiled down to, “Why are we talking politics at a tech conference?”

Why not talk politics at a tech conference? Despite our preferences otherwise, the potential impact of outside influences on the tech world is huge. Political issues that directly impact the tech community include: media consolidation, net neutrality, internet taxes, patent applications, and copyright enforcement/duration.

Technology, and every other industry, doesn’t have the luxury of operating in a silo, focusing only inward on the cool toys. Despite our desire to maintain the purity of our sandboxes, too many outside forces are at work trying to muck things up for the rest of us. If we aren’t proactive and willing to address related issues, political or otherwise, someone else will do it for us, often in a way that doesn’t best meet our needs.