The Empire Has No Clothes

Think about the city in which you live. Think about your country, your company or your family. Now jump in your Marty McFly time machine, rev up your flux compaciter and travel back 100 years. You'll notice that there is nearly 100% turnover in your city, country, company and family. The institutional names may be the same, but the people representing those names are completely different. This is really quite amazing if you think about it. The most successful families, companies, cities and countries over the last 100 years have maintained their success despite turning over their "management" at least 1-2 times. For example, United States founding fathers, Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison amongst others have all been dead 200 plus years yet we continue to be successful under the U.S. banner.

We know to some extent that success breeds success. Children coming from wealthy households are much more likely to earn above average incomes than children from underpriviledged households. This is due to a variety of reasons; education, experiences, development and environment to name a few. So if my great grandpa, whom I've never met was wealthy, I then have a better than average shot of being wealthy myself. Okay, maybe heredity then plays a role. However, heredity can't explain the continuned success of companies, cities and countries. Members of the U.S. Congress have never met James Madison or Abraham Lincoln, yet the United States continues to see success. Out of the 8+ million people living in New York City, not one inhabited that city in 1900. Yet the city continues to be thriving and strong. Which 007 do you prefer, Sean Connery, Timmoth Dalton, Pierce Broznan or Daniel Craig? Doesn't matter, the success continues.

My question is at what point does success stop breeding success and start breeding apathy? Surely decadence and fortune can bring lethary - this is why salespeople are compensated on commision as opposed to high based salaries. We know that "fat cats don't hunt." As I read through historical examples on both a macro and micro level I began to see patterns of success beginning to give way to oppulence and ultimately failure. Let's start at a macro level and work our way backwards.

The Roman Empire dominated much of the eastern world for centuries. They ruthlessly expanded their territory through brute military force which necesitated increased taxation to lay the infrastructure of a large republic. That said, the sheer scalability of Rome could not divert its inevitable collapse. Rome experienced tremendous growth and success for hundreds of years through many generations. Success bread success for what seemed would be an eternity, but that success came to an end. Why?

Philosopher Glub Pasha studied the rise and fall of many of the worlds empires. He noticed that each followed a similar life cycle:

1. The age of outburst (pioneers)
2. The age of conquests (expansion)
3. The age of commerce (economic development)
4. The age of affluence
5. The age of intellect
6. The age of decadence
7. The age of collapse

Some of these stages are self explanatory. Each preceeding stage inevitably overlaps and leads to the next. Post pioneering, conquests of territory take place either through force (Rome) or through commerce (Louisiana Purchase). Ultimately, this leads us into the commerce stage where less emphasis is put on military and geographic expansion and more focus is directed at econmic growth. As our commerce focused world yields affluence, we begin putting up barriers to protect our wealth; note the Roman Emperors Hadians Wall, the Great Wall of China, even the Maginot line of 20th century France. These barriers allow the focus to remain internal where powerful empires then assemble universities to stimulate the minds of their people. The growth in intellect ultimately leads to the questioning of how and why the empire has reached such heights. People begin to reject their foundational values and morals as the age of decadence begins. People begin worshipping false Gods; celebrities, athletes, political leaders as opposed to religious Gods or military and business leaders of the past. The moral decay, brought on by oppulence, greed and comfort ultimately lead to apathy and thus collapse.

As the generations turn over and wealth, comfort and decadence become a right as opposed to a priviledge the empire begins to fall. There seems to be a point of dimishing returns. Where is the U.S. right now? That may be the subject for another blog. Let's continue the analogy.

The Roman Empire story is essentially retold in the form of Detroit, Michigan albeit with a shorter life span. Detroit is a city who rose to power in the early part of the 20th century through economic expansion brought about by the demand of military goods. Detroit prospered by manufacturing goods for World War I and World War II. The next generation in Detroit evolved (age of commerce) into the automobile manufacturing capital of the world. The wealth in Detroit continued to grow. Detroit's next generation, the grand children of the successful military manufacturers grew apathetic toward innovation and ingenuity. As process improvement took hold in the business world (TQM, Lean, Six Sigma), Detroit was passed by the speeding German and Japaneese cars that were lower cost and higher quality. The city of Detroit has still not recovered and likely never will see the glory days of the past. An American industry and city fell on the laurels of their past.

This evolution has been seen countless times within companies. In the 1950's the Fortune 100 list was populated with giants like US Steel, Easmark and Union Carbide. Companies like IBM have been a victim of what we call "creative destruction." What happens in these organizations who saw continued success under many generations? The book "Innovators Dilemma" offers some insight as to why many of these monstrous organizations fail. As success continues, large organizations invest in "sustaining" technologies or advancements. Many of these advancements don't actually add value to the product because consumers are unaffected by them. For example, at a certain point you don't notice the processing speed of your computer increasing. Likewise, at a certain point additional computer storage is no longer of benefit for you (my Ipod can hold 20,000 songs- I own about 5000). In the golf world, you don't notice that a carbon driver head is slightly more sturdy than a titanium head. Yet, the longstanding successful organizations innovate these changes and try to charge a premium for them (age of affluence). This opens the door for what "The Innovators Dilemma" dubs "disruptive technologies." These products, or technologies are introduced to the market as a cheaper, easier and more consumer friendly alternative. Think about the personal computers from Apple and Dell that helped make IBM obsolete. Disruptive products or technologies have slayed many great companies of the past. It was their comfort in success that lead to a culture apathy in innovation which manifested itself collapse.

How many generations of extreme success within a family does it take bring about a sense of entitlement? The old wives tale is that the third generation generally screws up a successful family business. One of my favorite new TV shows starring Will Arnett is called "Running Wilde," a story of a rich spoiled son of an oil executive who lives a life of luxury and ignorance. He is the perfect example of what generations of continued oppulence and success can do to a persons internal drive. Should we have expected the fall of Paris Hilton by making her analogous the Roman Empire? I think there is truth in that.

I've always said if it happens once, its an anomaly - if it happens twice (or repeatedly) its a pattern. The story of Rome, Detroit, IBM, US Steel and the ficticious "Wilde Oil," are stories of human behavior. People, families, companies, cities, countries and empires rise to power and prominance. At some point, the values that helped them to reach elite levels gives way to contentment, lethargy, entitlement and apathy all of which precipitates the decline. History may say that arming yourself with this information will do little to deviate the impending outcome. It is a cycle perpetuated by our biological brain waves. I refuse to believe that to be the case.

Sure, 100 years from now my company will have an entirely new workforce most of whom will probably never have heard of me. The U.S. population will be between 300-500 million people, none of which probably are alive today. My immediate family will be lead by my unborn grandson who will likely have kids of his own trying to make their own mark on the world. Turnover happens. It is the connective tissue between generations, leadership, countries etc that determines whether success breeds success or ultimately failure.

"Empires" blinded by perpetual success are eventually exposed and left naked in the cold.

Payton Manning vs Russell Crowe

We've all seen the cinematic brilliance and horrific violence presented in the movie "Gladiator" starring Russell Crowe. As a society we gasp in visceral angst by the copious display of gore. We are comforted by the fact that we live in a more civilized and sympathetic time in relation to human life. According to wikipedia (yes, its a reliable source) "a gladiator as an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. Some gladiators were volunteers who risked their legal and social standing and their lives by appearing in the arena. Most were despised as slaves, schooled under harsh conditions, socially marginalized, and segregated even in death." That said, gladiators offered audiences an example of martial ethics and in fighting or dying well they could inspire admiration and popular acclaim. They were, in a sense entertainers.

Dying well was considered honorable. A gladiator who was obviously defeated would kneel before the victorious opponent, drop his head and wait for the quick, swift stab to the back of his neck. There was great honor in "dying well."

Death and/or physical harm was entertaining to a desensitized Roman Republic. Watching a violent death was as disconcerning to the Romans as watching one of Brett Favre's retirement press conferences is to society today. A human life did not carry the value we perceive life to carry today. Or so you would think...

A few weeks ago I watched with anticipation and excitement on the NFL's first Sunday of the 2010 season. Of considerable interest to me was the Philadelphia Eagles game as I was eager to see if Kevin Kolb could take over this team for the departed McNabb and also because there were several former Huskers in the game. Stewart Bradley was a standout middle linebacker for the Huskers during my college tenure. He has excelled with the Eagles over the past few years thus worked himself onto the starting unit. Midway through the second quarter, Stewart made a big tackle, popping the ball carrier hard. After the collision Bradley struggled to get up. Once vertical he took three wobbly steps and collapsed like a drunken sailor.

Many of you know the seemingly extreme measures the NFL has recently taken to prevent and treat concussions. Announcers Joe Buck and Troy Aikmen both mentioned that we'd seen the last of Bradley as he was clearly concussed. Just three minutes later Bradley reentered the game and played out the half. Call it tough, or call it stupid. It reminded me of the parady "Not Another Teen Movie," based after "Varsity blues" where Reggie Ray says "Coach says its okay to bleed from the ears" and re-enters the game.

Kyle Turley is a giant of a man standing over 6 feet 5 inches and weighing in at nearly 300 lbs. Turley retired as an offensive tackle for the New Orleans Saints in 2007. He is perhaps best known for his wild antics (youtube Turley chucking an opponents helmet) and big hits on opposing defenders. Over the course of Turley's career he suffered a dozen documented concussions and likely many more undocumented concussions.

In 2008, Turley went with his wife and a few friends to a bar in Nashville, Tennessee. As the warm up band played, Turley sipped his first beer. All of the sudden he felt light headed and extremely hot. Turley began to sweat profusely and fell to the ground. His buddies helped him regain consciousness and took him out to the street for fresh air. Turley vomited repeatedly before losing control of his extremities. He was having a panic attack. His wife rushed him to the hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, these attacks had become a frequent occurence since his retirement from the NFL.

In an article in the New York Times called "Offensive Play" by Malcomb Gladwell, Turley recalls his playing days. "I'd get hit so hard my eyes would go cross eyed for a few plays. Sometimes on longer drives I'd get blurry vision. There'd be three guys for me to block so I'd just hit the middle one." Turley said in the NFL you are either hurt or you're injured. If you're hurt, you can play, if you're injured, you can't.

Recently you may have noticed the influx of former NFL players in the news for what appears to be premature deaths. Mike Webster, the Steelers great great ended his life a recluse living in an Amtrak station. Terry Long, another Steeler great drank a bottle of antifreeze to end his life. Former Philadelphia Eagle Andre Waters pleaded with his girlfriend to get him help, but got none and shot himself. More recently Kenny McKinnely of the Denver Broncos shot himself in his Denver condo. Damien Nash, a 24 year old teammate of McKinnely collapsed during a charity pick up game of basketball and died. Owen Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania defensive end committed suicide in 2008. The list goes on...

What do these players have in common?

In 2003, a man thought to have died of Alzheimer's and dementia donated his brain to science. Doctors studied the cerebral tissue of the brain expecting to find two things: 1. Beta-amyloid and 2. Tau. Beta-amyloid is thought to lay the foundation for dementia inside the brain while Tau is present on the outer tissue signaling brain damage. To the doctors surprise there was absolutely no trace of Beta-amyloid inside the individuals brain. This was a huge find because it signed that the Tau, found on the outside of the brain was not caused by a disease, but caused by injury. This individual had C.T.L. (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy). What injury had this man sustained? The doctors later found out that this individuals occupation was a professional boxer. He had taken repeated blows to the head.

Certain institutions are now working to collect the brains of deceased athletes to study C.T.L. Recently a former NFL linebacker died of an accidental gunshot to the head. He was 40 years old. When examining his brain doctors again noticed Tau on his frontal and temporal lobes. Absent was Beta-amyloid. This linebacker had sustained 11 concussions (documented) over the course of his career. The same doctor that studied the linebackers brain also looked at a deceased lineman's brain. The bruising around the outside of the brain could be seen even without a magnifying glass!

Strange things happen to NFL players when their careers end. Slurred speech and depression are common. Men who were always concerned about health become alcoholics. Men who adored their wives become abusive. Men with great educations fail even the simplest remedial tasks. Of the former NFL players over 50 years of age, 6.1% have been diagnosed with dementia which is five times the national average. Do we have an epidemic on our hands?

Scientist Guskieicz wanted to measure the true impact of the hits football players take on a daily basis. He inserted six sensors into the helmet of a defensive end during summer double days. This defensive end first took an 80-g hit to the front of his head. Later that morning he took a 98-g hit to the exact same spot. A 100-g hit is identical to hitting a brick wall at 25 mph in your car and smashing your head against the windshield. This player essentially survived two crashes that morning. He again took a 60-g hit in the afternoon practice before calling it a day. This is just in practice!

Ok, you may say this is just a problem for aging adults. Wrong! It has been estimated that between 10%-50% of high school football players suffer at least one concussion during the season. Over 75% of those are unreported and undocumented.

So what do we do, ban football like we've banned gladiators? Turns out, it has been attempted. In 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt attempted to ban college football as it was thought to be dangerous to our young men. The 12 major universities at the time came forward to vote and came within one vote of banishing football at all universities across the country. Life without football is not a life worth living, but maybe that is what the Romans thought about gladiators.

Football players, like gladiators are entertainers. They subject themselevs to violent acts to excite the masses. Yes, gladiators were often enslaved and forced to participate while football players opt in knowing many of the risks. My point is the societal thirst for violence is now quenched at Lambue Field instead of the Colosseum. Just because we don't see the health effects in the short term doesn't mean they aren't there and it doesn't mean they aren't just as severe.

I can hear Adrian Peterson now: "My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of Northern Minnesota, General of the Felix backfield, loyal servant to the true emperor, Brad Childress. Playmaker to an aging quarterback, leader to a prima donna reciever, and I will have my vengence, in this life or the next."

Maximus! Maximus! Maximus!

I'm Awfully Tired of Raking Up Your Underwear

Why is it we inherently feel more informed, more rounded and better contextualized than our parents and grandparents regarding world views? This generationalcentrism, while condescending, may seem valid considering the social and political issues that plagued the first half of the 20th century. I, like most of you have a great deal of respect for the trials and tribulations our elders endured. World War I, the great depression, World War II, the civil rights movement, Vietnam, the absence of Play Station 3...etc. You get the point.

Attempts to romanticize history conjures up images of black and white parties in a much more formal and civil time. How many times have you heard "They don't make them like they used to." "They don't write (fill in the blank - books, movies, plays) like they did in my day." "Kids today and their music!" "We didn't act like that when we were young." All these comments are forms of generationalcentrism. It doesn't just come from GenY or GenX. Each generation believes their generation was the gold standard. My question is, do things really change that much from generation to generation?

Certainly, as a society we've made tremendous strides in specific areas such as civil rights. However, there are a number of divisive issues in which we tout great change, but have yet to see any meaningful movement. There are two key issues here, the first is why do we feel this social change if there is very little and secondly are you really that much more enlightened than the generations that preceded you if little change is seen? In other words your generationalcentrism is built on a foundation as faulty as the San Adreas.

Let's start with Americans views on drinking alcohol. According to Gallup, 67% of Americans today consume alcohol and 33% abstain completely. What is your best guess as to how these numbers would come out in 1945? Interestingly enough, while Truman dropped successive bombs on Japan in 1945, 67% of Americans drank while 37% abstained. Ok you say, one coincidence is an anomaly, maybe two is a trend - show me more.

Views of capital punishment must have changed since our war-tested grandparents day, right? In 1937, 59% of Americans favored capital punishment. Surely less Americans favor the brutality of the death penalty today, right? In 2010 65% of Americans are in favor of capital punishment, slightly more than the two generations before us.

Let's get a little more controversial. The feminist movement has seemingly taken hold over the past 4 decades giving women more choice and equality. Or has it? The percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal under any circumstance in 1978 was 19%. These views had to of changed in the past 30 years. Even some right wing pundits favor giving women the choice. In 2010, 19% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances - the exact same number. Moreover, 55% favored abortion under certain circumstances in 1978. Today, 54% favor abortion under certain circumstances. The trend should be as obvious as Joaquin Phoenix's probability of a hip hop career (could Letterman have handled that interview any better? hilarious).

In 1966, 66% of American's didn't feel safe walking at night within one mile of their home. In 2010, exactly 66% of American's didn't feel safe walking within one mile of their home at night. In 1982, 44% of Americans believed God created humans in their present form. In 2010, 44% believe God created humans in their present form. 58% of Americans said religion is important in my day to day life in 1992. In 2010, 56% of Americans say religion is important in day to day life.

Here is another controversial issue in which we perceive and celebrate great strides; gay marriage. In 1978, 43% of Americans said gay couples should not be able to wed legally. Again, guess what this number looks like today? In 2010, 36% believe gay marriage should be illegal which is a relatively small change considering the enormous gay pride movement that has taken place.

Some of the social issues that have changed are counterintuitive to what I would have guessed. For example, in 1985, 28% of Americans gave priority to economic growth over the environment while 61% gave the environment priority over economic growth. Ok, that sounds about right, but which way would you expect this to go in the more enlightened, more "green" 21st century? Today a whopping 50% of Americans give priority to economic growth over the environment while only 48% give the environment priority over the economy.

You think you're more enlightened than your grandparents, you're not. You think you're more progressive than your parents, you aren't. Fact is, we've seen very little change in most of these social issues. Why are our perceptions so far from reality?

In my opinion it has something to do with what Malcomb Gladwell calls "the law of the few." In today's society, we have a small group of influencers. This group, whom I consider to be the mass media and Hollywood, promote their ideas which are not congruent with the general public. The ideas are subsequently publicized by these powerful groups which causes the perceptions to begin to feel like realities when in actuality they are far from it.

So does this have an effect on public policy? You bet it does. For the first time in history, more Americans believe it is NOT the governments responsibility to provide healthcare (50%) than people who do believe it is the governments responsibility (47%). So why was there such a push for socialized healthcare in 2010? Is it possible the "influencers" were able to supplant a false reality in our subconscious? There is another leading theory called "the loudest voice syndrome." It works on both sides of the political isle (see Townhouse meetings). If you were to sit down for an interview and were given a viewpoint to which you disagreed, you'd tell the interviewer "I disagree." However, if you were in a 10 person focus group with a loud, intimidating and persuasive individual who agreed, you likely wouldn't share your opinion or at least your honest opinion. Do the influencers have the loudest voice over the public in shaping our policies? What happened to "a government by the people, for the people?"

I stumbled across the comic (above) as my lovely wife asked if I could start hanging my dress pants and dress shirts from work on a more consistent basis. She may have just as well said "I'm getting awfully tired of raking up your underwear," because apparently, things just don't change that much.

Parables From Ricky Bobby

The weather was unseasonably cool for the Labor Day weekend in Okoboji, Iowa. This of course was of no concern to me and my family as we enjoyed a lazy weekend at the lake. Saturday morning we laid around like Macaulay Culkin waiting for a casting call. Food lined the kitchen counter as we over indulged in coffee, orange juice, banana bread, egg dish and even some dessert from the night before. This is how Labor Day should be.

Before the food coma completely set in, "Planet Earth" was put in the DVD player. For those of you who haven't yet seen this series, I highly recommend it. The footage captured is some of the most breathtaking I've seen. Scene after scene, a pattern began to emerge. An animal, down on the food chain would inevitably lose an uphill battle to a larger, stronger and hungrier beast. Salmon were shown trying to swim upstream as bears looking like John Goodman at a Thanksgiving buffet tore into the them. Elk were shown drinking out of a seemingly quite pond when a gator would burst through the serene scene to drag the unsuspecting elk to its watery death.

The animals who were prayed upon were not the only animal out there. In fact they were, without exception, traveling as part of a larger pack. My sister, Melissa astutely made the comment "you don't have to be the fastest, you just can't be the slowest." If you are a Salmon, what good does it do you to be the strongest fish? Or if you are an Elk, does being the fastest give you any sort of advantage? Probably not. Therefore, you just have to be the worst +1 (until that fish gets eaten of course).

To some extent, this exception of mediocrity seems to have pervaded the human race. It would seem we don't have as many people adhering to the Ricky Bobby philosophy "If you're not first, you're last mentality" as maybe we once did. I'm guessing right now you are sitting back, arms crossed like Nancy Pelosi at a Tea Party event saying to yourself "Am I a fish swimming upstream simply not trying to be the slowest of the group?" I'm fairly certain you are not of the Ricky Bobby mentality that if you're not first, you're last. Are the two mutually exclusive?

Below is an example of a normally distributed curve. Imagine the population is graphed on the "Y" axis and performance is graphed on the "X" axis.

Look at the tales marked in white on either end. Can you honestly say you strive to be one of these outliers? Or are you fairly content being part of the 95% majority, swimming upstream with little fear of getting eating by Johnny Goodman? Most of us are.

According to a Gallup poll, 66% of Americans currently believe China has a larger economy than the United States. In reality, China recently passed Japan as the world's second largest economy with a GDP of over 5 trillion. The United States, by contrast has a GDP of just over 14 trillion, nearly tripling the GDP of the much more populous China. The fact that not only do 2/3 of Americans think China is larger than the United States, but they also seem to be apathetic towards that fact is almost as depressing as "The Hills" season finale. Have we as Americans lost our competitive drive?

My inclination is to say no. Sure, China is growing at a much fast pace than the U.S. Who cares, they are essentially in their own version of the industrial revolution. The U.S. has been in this situation before. Gallup's CEO Jim Clifton often tells the story of when he turned on the news 30 years ago and heard the world's leading economists predicting that within 10 years Japan would have the world's largest economy at nearly 5 trillion dollars, followed by Germany at just over 4 trillion and then the United States at just under 4 trillion. They were all wrong. The United States has tripled since that point becoming the world's lone superpower.

Several key factors contributed to this growth. First off is the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. People like Bill Gates not only amassed wealth for himself, but created wealth for hundreds of thousands of people. Microsoft employees, upstream partners, downstream partners, companies who used the product to gain efficiencies etc are all beneficiaries of his masterful creation. One could actually argue that Bill Gates, in stepping down from Microsoft to fully focus on his charity "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," is actually doing a disservice to humanity. How? Bill is an outlier on the far right hand portion of that curve. Sure, he can give away 20 billion dollars, but does that have the same effect as creating a 60 billion dollar company like Microsoft? You could certainly argue that his entrepreneurship ability is of far greater value to society overall. Just a thought...

The second major reason the U.S. has grown is something called "brain gain." The United States has a good, not great education system. Our students, 50 million strong are up against over 200 million Chinese students. This seems to be an uphill and losing battle, especially when you consider asian cultures spend more time in school than western cultures. They outperform American students in math and science on a consistent basis. Should we be alarmed? I don't think so.

While the gap in math and science must be addressed for America to retain the world's economic national championship, migration will likely keep the U.S. atop the world. The best students from China, India and other eastern countries come to the U.S. to further their higher education, seek employment and amass wealth. We have become and must continue to be a melting pot of cognitive power, propelling our growth and subsequently the world's standard of living onto a level never seen.

So, as a society do we gravitate more toward the Ricky Bobby line of thinking or are we more like the school of fish where only the weakest gets eaten? Maybe neither, maybe both. Either way, we'll finish the race.

Slinkies, Circles and our Promiscuous Economy

Ask any child to draw a picture of your face, what is the first thing they draw (insert smart alec comment here)? Inevitably, the child will draw a circle. As I chomped into my circular orange for breakfast this morning, this shape started my mind down an interesting track, a track that ended up leading me back to where I started, bringing me full circle. Stay with me here.

Circles seem to pop up everywhere in life. The very ground on which you stand is part of a large circular mass known as earth, which spins on it's axis in a circle while revolving around the circular sun as our moon circles around us. Our seasons are cyclical, so is fashion. Our political tendencies are cyclial and so are Lindsey Lohan's stints in rehab. Perhaps the best known entity for being cyclical is our economy. But is it really cyclical? A cirlce is an unending line which ultimately leads you back to your origional point of origion. While our economy fluctuates like Mel Gibson's emotional maturity, we most certainly are not back at square one.


Imagine spreading a slinky out from the base of your staircase to the top stair. Could this be a visual microcosim of the economy? We see a cyclical economy with linear nature over time? If this were the case it would sure put investors nerves at ease.


This type of economy would be ideal. Slow and steady linear growth offering modest returns and security. Most people are under the dilusion that this is how the United States has grown over time. However, the United States story reads slightly different.


Growth, of any kind is event driven. We see this in both a macro and micro sense. The United States, by and large has seen multiple periods of stagnant growth since our inception. We move through time not seeing a great change when BAM - the industrial revolution. Big spike in growth. Following this exponential growth the economy again tapers off like a Chevy Chase movie. BAM - the technological revolution and anther big spike. We expect our economy to look like this:




When in reality it has looked like this:

Look at 1890-1940- very little growth. Then the 70's, again very little growth. What happened in the 40's, in the 80's and in the 90's to cause such huge growth in Gross Domestic Product? Industry, tax cuts, technology. Events happened.

This holds true in a micro sense as well. How much did innovators like Bill Gates and Steve jobs change the economic and cultural dynamic along the west coast in the 70's and 80's? Think of one of your own great successes - can you trace it back to a single event which acted as a catalyst for the success to come? Probably.

So if linear growth is ideal and event driven growth is real what is the life analogy? To me, event driven growth (like our economy) is the perpetual bachelor. He is somewhat unpredictable and has wide swings in emotion. He parties like Charlie Sheen (90's economy) and depresses like BP's PR team (2008 economy). Our bachelor friend met Apple in the 70's and is on top of the world, this could be the one that sets us up for the rest of our lives! No, not interesting enough in the 80's, we break up and hit a lull. Wow, our bachelor friend is dating Enron...shoot that was a messy break up. The constant up and downs are a roller coaster of emotions, but with each failure comes additional knowledge to at least keep us trending up (think of the spread out slinky going up the stairs). Recently our friend called it quits with subprime lending and has been having casual one night stands with Ford. That too will fade.

The ideal economy is more like a marriage. You put in the time up front to fully understand what you are getting into. Your emotions continue to grow steadily over time as your feelings deepen to a level our somewhat promiscuous bachelor friend will never know. Like marriage, a linear growth economy is comfortable, reliable, dependable and rewarding. You can't have both (unless you diversify - and I don't condone the swinging culture).

So, to bring this full circle; are things as cirular or cyclical as they seem? No. If marriage is to the ideal economy what bachelorhood is to the real economy than our finishing point must be far different than our starting point. Makes perfect sense, right?

Foundations for Analogies, Realities and Idealities

The clock read 11:07 p.m. as I sat in my dark home office waiting for creative inspiration to magically begin pouring out of my brain and onto Microsoft Word in a witty, smart and cohesive form of thought. For six weeks now I've been having creative thoughts race through my brain with more frequency than an Obama family vacation. Should I write a book? Of course I should! But just as sure as the sun will rise, and Christian Bale will lose his voice if he continues to play Batman, all my thoughts suddenly evaporated and I was left with a blank page and blinking curser.

Ok, maybe I was a bit ahead of myself with the book idea. What I need is to record my thoughts and inspirations as they come. Thus, the motivation for Analogies, Realities and Idealities.

Lately, I've immersed myself in various kinds of literature ranging from best selling business books to lesser known works of human behavior and psychology. As I broaden my perspective I continue to realize the ever repetitive and cyclical nature of world events. This seems to commonly apply to my particular areas of interest; economics, politics, sports and human behavior.

In any given situation, three things seem to present themselves. First up, Analogies. Any given complex situation or decision will be analogized for a variety of purposes including but not limited to humor, simplification, persuasion or clarification. Let's face it, there are no unique ideas, only new ways to apply existing ideas to reach a new outcome. This is one reason our society continues to experience exponential growth from a technological point of view. With no unique ideas, everything is analogous to something else. Drawing these parallels gives us greater context.

Number two, Realities. I've come to the conclusion that having a realist perspective is an innate talent. God gave you the abilities to sort through all of the noise and clutter to understand the realities of the world. This leads nicely into number three; Idealities. Not to say Idealists and Realists never share the same point of view, but they often fall at opposite ends of the spectrum. Any critical decision has an ideal solution and a real solution. In my view, the two are mutually exclusive 95 times out of 100.

Pull open today's paper (for anyone over 50) or pull up your favorite news website of choice (for anyone young enough to know Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus are one in the same). You'll likely see hundreds of stories that present situations, dilemmas and conflicts all which have analogies, realities and idealities. Consider this blog an attempt to draw parallels in the world around us while offering both a realist perspective with sympathy to the idealist. My intention is to touch on topical current event issues with a comical undertone and thought provoking ideas. I greatly appreciate feedback and comments (as long as they flattering). Seriously though, feel free to share you thoughts and ideas. Enjoy.