When the Beatles took the world by storm in the 60s, I was too young to understand the frenzy. Consequently, I'm not the biggest Beatles fan, although I admire the incredible library of popular songs they compiled. A few even have meaningful lyrics!
When the Beatles broke up and went on their solo careers, I was old enough to appreciate their music, but I didn't care much about their generally mediocre success. (Possible exception was the commerical success of Wings with Paul McCartney.) Like many artists, however, now that they are either old or dead, I can appreciate some of their group and solo music.
The song lyrics that stand out for me today are from John Lennon's classic, Imagine. Good timing for this, since my last blog entry (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/diminishing-returns-of-religion.html) basically supports what the song says. The last verse is a little too socialistic for me, so I excluded it, but the rest - just think about it.
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Diminishing Returns of Religion
Anyone who has taken a basic economics class has been introduced to the concept of diminishing returns. In short, this is defined as the point at which an increased unit of production generates lower (not greater) unit returns.
This is also how I would currently define the state of religion, both personally and in the world. Putting more effort into it isn't going to improve things, and at least from a global perspective, it probably makes things worse.
Let's start with the personal. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic since childhood. This included 12 years of Catholic schooling, which in turn included 8 years of nearly daily mass atttendence. After 40+ years, I've attended church services many thousands of times. I long ago learned the routine, the readings, and the symbolism by heart.
So I have faith, and I consider myself well indoctrinated in that faith. The question is, what more is there to know? As long as I lead a life dedicated to respect and the betterman of man and society, it's difficult to see the marginal benefit of continued adherence to the recommended daily/weekly/annual religious rituals.
Plus, over the past several years I've come to realize that the church I follow isn't exactly a role model. Pedophile priests, as well as other politicized Vatican scandals, have conspired to turm me away. And the Catholic church's unrelenting dogma related to gender roles, celibacy, etc. haven't helped. The rest of the world is evolving, my church is not. (How did it ever progress out of the Crusades era?)
My personal religious beliefs take a back seat to the larger world view, however. The fact is, religion is Earth's #1 creator of wars. Name any past or present international military conflict, and you will find that differing religious beliefs are at its core. Hell, even our Civil War was essentially a morality-based disagreement over how humans should be treated.
This is not a good thing. It's maybe the irony of ironies that religion is supposed to give people a reason to live, and we mostly use it to explain why, how, and when people should die.
In spite of this, I do believe that religion is a net good thing for society. If nobody believed in an afterlife, our civilization would be pretty barbaric. We might still be clubbing each other in caves.
But from my perspective, we've reached the point of diminishing returns.
This is also how I would currently define the state of religion, both personally and in the world. Putting more effort into it isn't going to improve things, and at least from a global perspective, it probably makes things worse.
Let's start with the personal. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic since childhood. This included 12 years of Catholic schooling, which in turn included 8 years of nearly daily mass atttendence. After 40+ years, I've attended church services many thousands of times. I long ago learned the routine, the readings, and the symbolism by heart.
So I have faith, and I consider myself well indoctrinated in that faith. The question is, what more is there to know? As long as I lead a life dedicated to respect and the betterman of man and society, it's difficult to see the marginal benefit of continued adherence to the recommended daily/weekly/annual religious rituals.
Plus, over the past several years I've come to realize that the church I follow isn't exactly a role model. Pedophile priests, as well as other politicized Vatican scandals, have conspired to turm me away. And the Catholic church's unrelenting dogma related to gender roles, celibacy, etc. haven't helped. The rest of the world is evolving, my church is not. (How did it ever progress out of the Crusades era?)
My personal religious beliefs take a back seat to the larger world view, however. The fact is, religion is Earth's #1 creator of wars. Name any past or present international military conflict, and you will find that differing religious beliefs are at its core. Hell, even our Civil War was essentially a morality-based disagreement over how humans should be treated.
This is not a good thing. It's maybe the irony of ironies that religion is supposed to give people a reason to live, and we mostly use it to explain why, how, and when people should die.
In spite of this, I do believe that religion is a net good thing for society. If nobody believed in an afterlife, our civilization would be pretty barbaric. We might still be clubbing each other in caves.
But from my perspective, we've reached the point of diminishing returns.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Bad Business
Years ago when I worked for a trade association, the powers-that-be (?) insisted that the annual meeting begin with a prayer. This might have been harmless except for the fact that the prayer was never non-denominational - the prayer-giver always invoked the name of Jesus Christ.
I always complained about this, not because I'm not Christian, but because it was ignorant. We were not a Christian organization - why assume everyone else was? It was pretty simple to conclude that not everyone in the room believed in JC, much less in God, and to throw this prayer in their face was just plain bad business.
With this as a backdrop, over the past few years I've paid particular attention to businesses that show their religious and/or political colors. Of course, it's OK for a private business to do that, but it is also relentlessly dumb to offend potential customers.
My best contemporary example of this has to be those businesses who insist on showing Fox TV in their public areas. First, let's agree on what Fox TV is - a conservative, Republican-leaning broadcast network. Everyone knows this. Fox is to 'fair and balanced' journalism as 'The Beverly Hillbillies' is to a fair and balanced depiction of life in Beverly Hills.
So if a business has Fox on their TVs, one can safely assume they are conservative, Republican-leaning folks. That's fine, but that also tacitly means they don't care to have non-conformists as customers. At least that's what it means to me, and I'm happy to oblige them. It's crazy. Just put the TV on the Food Network or some other benign channel, and I won't think twice about patronizing your business.
Take this weekend, in which I spent time in a corporate tent at a golf outing. The Golf Channel was on every TV but one - which was on Fox. Now, I'm certain I was around a bunch of Republican-leaning folks, but to assume all of the clients there were of the same political/conservative bent is dumb. If people want the news, the can go somewhere else, or use their smart phones.
I don't know, maybe I'm making too much of this, but I think there is a lesson here for businesses: Don't assume everyone else believes the same things that you do.
I always complained about this, not because I'm not Christian, but because it was ignorant. We were not a Christian organization - why assume everyone else was? It was pretty simple to conclude that not everyone in the room believed in JC, much less in God, and to throw this prayer in their face was just plain bad business.
With this as a backdrop, over the past few years I've paid particular attention to businesses that show their religious and/or political colors. Of course, it's OK for a private business to do that, but it is also relentlessly dumb to offend potential customers.
My best contemporary example of this has to be those businesses who insist on showing Fox TV in their public areas. First, let's agree on what Fox TV is - a conservative, Republican-leaning broadcast network. Everyone knows this. Fox is to 'fair and balanced' journalism as 'The Beverly Hillbillies' is to a fair and balanced depiction of life in Beverly Hills.
So if a business has Fox on their TVs, one can safely assume they are conservative, Republican-leaning folks. That's fine, but that also tacitly means they don't care to have non-conformists as customers. At least that's what it means to me, and I'm happy to oblige them. It's crazy. Just put the TV on the Food Network or some other benign channel, and I won't think twice about patronizing your business.
Take this weekend, in which I spent time in a corporate tent at a golf outing. The Golf Channel was on every TV but one - which was on Fox. Now, I'm certain I was around a bunch of Republican-leaning folks, but to assume all of the clients there were of the same political/conservative bent is dumb. If people want the news, the can go somewhere else, or use their smart phones.
I don't know, maybe I'm making too much of this, but I think there is a lesson here for businesses: Don't assume everyone else believes the same things that you do.
Friday, May 27, 2011
The Graduating Hangover of 2011
Over the past week, I've been planning and attending events related to a child's high school graduation. My observations:
* High school graduation is second only to weddings when it comes to transferring wealth from middle-aged people to the younger generation, roughly twenty dollars at a time.
* The graduation cermony is too long. In this age of technology, we still haven't come up with a better method than waiting an hour while hundreds of kids listen to speeches and then walk across a stage for a fleeting five seconds of attention? There has to be an app to speed this up.
* After attending multiple graduation parties with the same invited guests, it's a challege to come up with new discussion topics. Did we comment on college plans? Check. Food served? Check. Venue? Check. Well, let's go to the next party and do that again!
* When all is said and done, high school graduation equalizes things. Everybody has the same piece of parchment, the high school diploma, and the best student is effectively no better off than the worst. It's really a minor step for most. As I've often told my kids, only now will knowledge and effort really matter.
* High school graduation is second only to weddings when it comes to transferring wealth from middle-aged people to the younger generation, roughly twenty dollars at a time.
* The graduation cermony is too long. In this age of technology, we still haven't come up with a better method than waiting an hour while hundreds of kids listen to speeches and then walk across a stage for a fleeting five seconds of attention? There has to be an app to speed this up.
* After attending multiple graduation parties with the same invited guests, it's a challege to come up with new discussion topics. Did we comment on college plans? Check. Food served? Check. Venue? Check. Well, let's go to the next party and do that again!
* When all is said and done, high school graduation equalizes things. Everybody has the same piece of parchment, the high school diploma, and the best student is effectively no better off than the worst. It's really a minor step for most. As I've often told my kids, only now will knowledge and effort really matter.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Berky Meeting Nuggets
I've attended the Bershire Hathaway annual meeing in Omaha for roughly the past 15 years. It sounds boring, simply listening to Warren Buffett and his sidekick Charlie Munger answer shareholder questions for about 5 hours, but I find it to be one of the most entertaining and informative days of my year.
The 2011 meeting held on April 30th was one of the best I've been at in a long time. The questions were good, and the answers were even better. Here's a sample of some of the exchanges:
On commodities and gold:
Buffett said that if you collect all the gold in the world and melt it together, you could form a cube with 67 feet on each side. Here’s what you could do with it: “You could get a ladder and climb on top of it, you could fondle it, you could polish it, you could stare at it.” But his kicker was this: You can’t do anything with it. It has no inherent value. Buying into gold is betting that someone else will come along and pay more for it — who then is hoping that someone else will pay even more for it down the line. Then Munger added his two cents. “There’s something peculiar about an asset that will really only go up if the world really goes to hell,” he said. “I think you’d do better by buying our stock.”
On institutions as 'too big to fail':
Ultimately, Buffett believes in government intervention. But such a rescue must come at cost, perhaps by requiring directors to forfeit five years’ worth of fees, for instance. Munger said that a discussion of bubbles and crashes “isn’t one of evil, but of stupidity.” That said, he blamed unyielding devotion to theories of economics and other fields as a contributing factor.
On business schools in general:
Munger later again got to bash business schools and investment bankers. He couldn't recall Buffett having ever hired a graduate of such a school or a former banker. He noted that Berkshire doesn’t do exact financial projections or modeling, and that the company leaves a lot of wiggle room. Buffett cracked at bankers by saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a projection from an investment banker that doesn’t show everything going up. It’s like why you don’t ask a barber if you need a haircut.” Munger admonished current or incoming business school students to learn how to do financial projections the Berkshire way. But pay their teachers some lip service for the time being.
On growing up wealthy:
Buffett is well-known for not having showered his children with Berkshire riches, and for pledging most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Gates is a Berky director.) Buffett said that growing up rich could rob children of crucial drive and enterprise. And if a child of privilege grows up unproductive, it’s a matter of parenting. “If your kids grow up rich and without incentive, I don’t think you should point the finger at them,” he said. “You should point it at yourself.”
On his legacy:
When asked what he’d like to be known for in 100 years, Buffett responded: “old age.” Munger helpfully added that he thought Buffett would want to be known as “the oldest corpse I’ve ever seen.”
The 2011 meeting held on April 30th was one of the best I've been at in a long time. The questions were good, and the answers were even better. Here's a sample of some of the exchanges:
On commodities and gold:
Buffett said that if you collect all the gold in the world and melt it together, you could form a cube with 67 feet on each side. Here’s what you could do with it: “You could get a ladder and climb on top of it, you could fondle it, you could polish it, you could stare at it.” But his kicker was this: You can’t do anything with it. It has no inherent value. Buying into gold is betting that someone else will come along and pay more for it — who then is hoping that someone else will pay even more for it down the line. Then Munger added his two cents. “There’s something peculiar about an asset that will really only go up if the world really goes to hell,” he said. “I think you’d do better by buying our stock.”
On institutions as 'too big to fail':
Ultimately, Buffett believes in government intervention. But such a rescue must come at cost, perhaps by requiring directors to forfeit five years’ worth of fees, for instance. Munger said that a discussion of bubbles and crashes “isn’t one of evil, but of stupidity.” That said, he blamed unyielding devotion to theories of economics and other fields as a contributing factor.
On business schools in general:
Munger later again got to bash business schools and investment bankers. He couldn't recall Buffett having ever hired a graduate of such a school or a former banker. He noted that Berkshire doesn’t do exact financial projections or modeling, and that the company leaves a lot of wiggle room. Buffett cracked at bankers by saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a projection from an investment banker that doesn’t show everything going up. It’s like why you don’t ask a barber if you need a haircut.” Munger admonished current or incoming business school students to learn how to do financial projections the Berkshire way. But pay their teachers some lip service for the time being.
On growing up wealthy:
Buffett is well-known for not having showered his children with Berkshire riches, and for pledging most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Gates is a Berky director.) Buffett said that growing up rich could rob children of crucial drive and enterprise. And if a child of privilege grows up unproductive, it’s a matter of parenting. “If your kids grow up rich and without incentive, I don’t think you should point the finger at them,” he said. “You should point it at yourself.”
On his legacy:
When asked what he’d like to be known for in 100 years, Buffett responded: “old age.” Munger helpfully added that he thought Buffett would want to be known as “the oldest corpse I’ve ever seen.”
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Smart Phones, Dumb Users
Back when cells phones evolved into a device that one could easily carry around, I would shake my head at the self-important people I worked with who deemed it necessary to answer their phone no matter the situation. I worked at a trade association, for God's sake - I'm pretty sure there was no regulatory or lobbying emergency that couldn't wait.
With the advent of smart phones, things have not gotten better. Smart phones have now allowed people to show everyone in the room how important and busy they are, without even receiving a call. People are texting, emailing, checking social media sites, and attending to all sorts of other unnecessary tasks during meetings.
Some people use the excuse of "multi-tasking" to explain away their behavior. Gimme a break. The truth is, smart phones are a drug for self-important people addicted to making themselves appear they must be available 24/7.
Earth-to-all-self-important-people: There is a time and a place for using personal devices, and meetings are NOT one of those times. So, if you're one of those people who just must play with your smart phone (or iPad) while you're supposed to be listening, get over yourself and get back to work, you obnoxious technology jerk.
With the advent of smart phones, things have not gotten better. Smart phones have now allowed people to show everyone in the room how important and busy they are, without even receiving a call. People are texting, emailing, checking social media sites, and attending to all sorts of other unnecessary tasks during meetings.
Some people use the excuse of "multi-tasking" to explain away their behavior. Gimme a break. The truth is, smart phones are a drug for self-important people addicted to making themselves appear they must be available 24/7.
Earth-to-all-self-important-people: There is a time and a place for using personal devices, and meetings are NOT one of those times. So, if you're one of those people who just must play with your smart phone (or iPad) while you're supposed to be listening, get over yourself and get back to work, you obnoxious technology jerk.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Another Nonprofit Lie - Follow Up
A quick follow-up: The Des Moines Register did publish my letter to the editor mentioned in the last post, without edits. The on-line version allows for comments, of which there were only a few, and they all completely missed the point about how non-profits, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are poorly managed.
Those responses actually fit my profile of someone who would comment on-line to such letters - they must sit around a computer all day with nothing to do, thinking up new conspiracy theories and swatting away imaginary bugs.
Those responses actually fit my profile of someone who would comment on-line to such letters - they must sit around a computer all day with nothing to do, thinking up new conspiracy theories and swatting away imaginary bugs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)