| One of George's best.
BTW, we might not have this project, or this list, if it weren't for Bill Hicks rap on marketing and advertising.,,
Pull quote from the latter: "America's leading industry is still the manufacture, distribution, packaging and marketing of bullshit."
When the first of those went down (early '90s), Hodskins Simone & Searls was one of Silicon Valley's top ad agencies. When the second went down (mid '00s) ProjectVRM was close to happening. Still is, I see. Things take time.
Doc On Sep 16, 2019, at 2:13 PM, John Philpin <
" class="">
> wrote:
The American Dream - George Carlin : https://people-first.net/2019/06/01/the-american-dream/
On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:34 AM, katherine <
" class="">
> wrote:
Guy, Is the “American Dream” limited in its capacity?
It may be or it may seem like it is.
They say that Millennials are the first generation to make less than their parents.
I’ve observed this even when, unlike their parents, these couples are better educated (masters degrees) and both working.
Many large corporations are managed like an assembly line. There are metrics to deliver.
Algorithms calculate what to pay people based on these metrics.
Do anything outside of your job description or unrelated to these metrics and it has no perceived value. Because predictability is more important than exceeding expectations.
NET: Expectations are already low relative to human capital potential. What if that means we’re “leaving money on the table?”
Innovation was supposed to be the domain where the unexpected could happen. But Venture money flows most to models that are predictable. For example, instead of developing new business models in digital media, most venture money invests in the ad model, often bastardizing the original purpose and reason these startups thrived. Google took off because it was the search engine that couldn’t be manipulated by advertisers like Yahoo. Facebook surpassed MySpace because Facebook was private by default.
If more Venture money invested in alternatives to advertising revenue for digital media, VRM type concepts would be much better funded. What if investors challenged bright minds, old and young, to go beyond what is predictable and exceed expectations? On Sep 15, 2019, at 4:02 AM, Guy Jarvis <
" class="">
> wrote: Mary,
a parallel I see is between the patriarchy to which you refer and apartheid.
So 30 years ago or so, I was working for a couple of years as a expat engineer in South Africa, right at the cusp of political change and Ive followed events there ever since.
There was an obvious and entirely understandable expectation on the part of the POC majority that their wealth and lifestyles were going to become identical to those of the wealthy (and by no means was this itself a majority) white elite.
Spreading any given economy wider must result in a unit reduction of available wealth and that gap between expectation and reality breeds resentment an example of which we see currently happening in South Africa, this time directed towards foreigners and their businesses see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iNEbJCD7W4
What I'm driving at here is that we should anticipate that there will be undesired and unexpected consequences flowing from a more accessible VC base and that perhaps the way to mitigate this situation is to promote a parallel meme, that of making do with less, of expecting less, looking at what is needed rather than envying and wanting what others have unfairly had previously?
Guy On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 1:40 AM mary hodder <
" class="">
> wrote: Worse. Because VC's regularly decide what to invest in, in categories to do with women or kids or LGBT, by asking their spouses, and they tend to live in elite classes, they don't relate, and neither do the spouses or kids, to what goes on with women, POC, kids that are in different socio-economic classes (IE the hoi polloi). Also VC's get their data from anecdotal sources vs. aggregate data, often, and when the wrong color / gender / not white-male Zucker looking type is in front of him (very few her VCs), they are a lot less interested.
There's also this factor.. (swearing involved.. be warned):
Where essentially the attractiveness factor is also bad for women, because either you are and they want you for that and not your brain, or you aren't, and they won't even do the meeting, or they will to empty your brain and then take what they learned to a Zucker-type.
Hence the 2% of funding going to women.
Hopefully the patriarchy is on it's way out, and we can get past this and move on to solving VRM type problems because women / POC are funded.
It is so true that VCs call the Direct To Consumer businesses targeting women are “lifestyle” businesses but oh the ones targeting men can scale! Hello!!!! How much would they had made if they had invested in the Kardashians?
But I have to agree that anyone who makes billions and achieves “elite status” by promising false hope - e.g., make-up companies or that stuff that takes grey out of men’s beards - is eye rolling. As my 88 year old mother says “sex and money” . . . . Maybe there should be a boycott campaign with a picture of Jeffrey Epstein and a bubble over his head that says “stop encouraging them”
Just saying . . . exploit him, for a change. Related they are also genius at having many diversified ways of monetizing their fame and attention - And have managed the rare trick of staying in the public eye for now many many years while retaining a lot of financial control of their income and assets. Yes they started with (some) wealth but they have managed a rare trick of growing it dramatically via diversified incomes.
No I’m not their target customer or fan - but neither do I dismiss their sustained achievement. And ascribing them to being dumb or other pejoratives dismisses their clearly demonstrated savvy. Sure luck was likely also involved (but this is true for nearly all successful people - the trick is how well someone capitalizes on luck as it happens and recovers from setbacks.
Their success is also not unique - there are actually a number of massive successes in the direct to consumer makeup and fashion markets and other businesses that largely cater to female customers (and increasingly not just women - men are selling and buying makeup etc). Many of these companies aren’t based in northern CA (some number are in LA) and they are frequently dismissed by some groups of investors (though with each massive success more investors get interested). And some of the models that have worked in businesses targeting women are being looked at for products targeting men (Harry’s, Bevel, Hims and a few others)
Shannon >> There are people who really aren’t terribly good at much but who achieve power and come to influence people. These folks are often placed on the pedestal of the elite. The Kardashians fall into this puka (IMHO)
This is another way of underestimating women and what we do:
Because the Kardashians are in the business of selling feminine product, their business sense is totally underestimated.
I am not a consumer of their wares, but their business sense and ability to track the pulse of the masses is unprecedented and off the charts successful. I watch their business and business activity closely.
They are worth nearly $2b combined (one 22 year old daughter was worth a billion $$$ at 20 years old.. from very smartly crafting makeup sales to millennials that routinely sold out in minutes online). They have built that fortune over the past 20 years, and their Momager™ Kris Kardashian is a genius in slaying the culture and making money off it (us). Some of her kids are better than others at creating the products they sell, so they're are worth differing amounts. But it adds up to $2b in net worth. That's not idiot money.
Do not confuse fluffy product for fluffy brains or fluffy performance or fluffy business. I'm tired of tearing down women who succeed just because they decide to do something that appeals mainly to other women, though some women, and many men, don't understand it.
I’ve been ruminating about this topic since this thread started. This is the way that I see things: - There are people who are exceptionally good at something but who have fatal flaws that manifest in ill behavior — Harvey Weinstein maybe (I have no idea how elite a movie producer he really was) or Aaron Hernandez. Their “professional" behavior was highly regarded and that recognition may have led them to believe that they could get away with breaking the “rules” of society (Weinstein and Hernadez also broke the law). Until such behavior is brought to light and acknowledged, they are recognized as “elite.”
- There are people who are exceptionally good at something, achieve extraordinary success, and seem to come to believe that they know best and can color outside the lines. Michael Sears of Boeing and Darleen Druyan, a USAF senior civil servant, are probably good examples of this. They are, again until their behavior is found out, recognized as elite.
- There are people who really aren’t terribly good at much but who achieve power and come to influence people. These folks are often placed on the pedestal of the elite. The Kardashians fall into this puka (IMHO)
- There are people who are exceptionally good at something, are recognized for their expertise, and become sought after for their opinions or advice on many topics outside their primary discipline. While there is nothing morally or legally wrong with that, it’s ill advised on the part of the opinion or advice seekers. An example here would be one of the 24-hour news channels asking Neil deGrasse Tyson about the issues surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. I have a lot of respect for Dr Tyson, and he is an elite scientist, but what he knows about nuclear and civil engineering could be written on the head of a pin with a road grader.
- The there are people who are genuinely exceptional in a number of areas and are truly elite. The best example I can think of is Richard Feynman who was not only a Nobel Laureate, but a self-taught safe cracker, a fascinating lecturer, an able artist and someone who stood behind his principles. Thinking a bit more on this, I think that George H.W. Bush was a true elite, a warrior, a business success, a diplomat and a leader — and a man who didn’t take himself too seriously.
The problem, aside from the illegal activities of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Felicity Huffman, Darleen Druyan, et alii, is that we humans tend to bestow all kinds of undeserved authority and respect on people because they are rich or famous or powerful — and most of the time, they simply don’t pack the “stuff” to merit that authority. Almost all politicians fall into this category. Someone is going to win every election (because, unlike in the movie Brewster’s Millions, we can’t vote for None of the Above), but that doesn’t mean that the winner is an exceptional leader, it simply means she was perceived by most of the voters as better than the other guy. Nonetheless, we behave as if those elected representatives actually know more than we do — about everything, and they don’t.
The “Halo Effect” of ascribing knowledge or ability to someone because of their past success (related or not) or their power or position, is a real issue. I don’t know if the tech “elite” is morally corrupt, but I am pretty sure that they don’t know a great deal about things outside their area of expertise, and I am also pretty sure that they are as susceptible as anyone else to slipping into behavior (like Sears and Druyan) that is outside the rules of society and can’t stand the light of day.
Most people recognize Lord Axton’s observation on power and corruptibility, but here’s the “extended version,” note the italicized portion (my italics):
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men
are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not
authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of
corruption by authority."
Other quotes come to mind: - "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” Abe Lincoln
- “Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.” Frank Herbert in his (interminable) Dune Saga.
- "Because
power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character
increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams — I think this is key. We tend to tolerate bad behavior. I may not have, personally tolerated Epstein’s behavior, but if I tolerate bigoted, demeaning remarks, I start a chain of tolerance that leads, inevitably, to men (and women too. Ladies, you’re human and not conferred with immunity to the corrupting influence of power) of JE’s ilk.
‘Nuf said, (the second) Guy
Perhaps an adjective is required, namely fake?
As in a fake elite comprises a minority whose common purpose is to take advantage of wider society, crucially without possessing the positive attributes or capabilities associated with the dictionary definition of elite alone, hence fake elite.
Guy
and ‘elites’ are generally not ‘elite’. (my bold below)
and the definition contradicts itself
OED:
e·lite /əˈlēt,āˈlēt/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: elite; plural noun: elites
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society. "the elite of Britain's armed forces" synonyms: best, pick, cream, flower, nonpareil, elect; More antonyms: dregs
a group or class of people seen as having the greatest power and influence within a society, especially because of their wealth or privilege. "the country's governing elite"
Serious question: what's an elite (or, as The New Yorker puts it, an élite)?
Possible clue: if it refers to people who never call themselves that, it's just a label, and not a category. And it's a pejorative one.
IMHO.
Doc
What could we in VRM do at this point? Replace Doc with Joyce?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:49 PM Britt Blaser <
" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">
> wrote: The Federalist papers and the Constitution expect leaders to do the wrong thing. +1
Michael Shea
Chris, I expect leaders to do the right thing. And when they realize they screwed up admit it, not conceal it.
On 9/8/2019 7:58 AM, John Wunderlich wrote:
>>In most societies, for most of human history, elites have attracted (or are composed of) the morally corrupt. Don’t see why tech should be any different. That’s part of what attracts me to VRM/Me2B, MyData and the like. Digital autonomy and
governance for the individual.<<
While I yield to none in my cynicism, I think this isn't right. I don't think elites are more morally corrupt than most people. I think that elites have more money, power, and influence, so their moral corruption has larger consequences and gets more reported
on when it is outed.
Chris S.
Sincerely, John Wunderlich, President BA, MBA, CISA, CIPP/C, CIPM, FIP
<66A18E70370248229A9F8E7B2E6A5F4B.png>
The Confidential: This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the e-mail immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited.
Le présent courriel (email) et les documents qui y sont attachés sont confidentiels et protégés et s'adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L'expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute prise de connaissance,
diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont attachés, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire désigné est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez
m'en aviser immédiatement et veuillez le détruire avec les documents qui y sont attachés.
On Sep 8, 2019, 7:34 AM -0400, Adrian Gropper
" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
<
>, wrote:
--
Adrian Gropper MD
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail
if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.
-- Adrian Gropper MD
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
-- --------------------- Sign up for my newsletter at https://tinyletter.com/rycaut for updates on my banking venture --------------------- cell: 1.510.333.0295 Twitter - rycaut
|