$$$Yachting Mean Some Big Dough$$$

Big yachts usually mean big mansions too, and that is certainly true here in Florida.

Often it means multiple mansions across states or even in different countries.

In one case, we saw two mansions demolished to build an even bigger single mansion in their place. 

All the while others are going homeless and are having difficulty making ends meet. 

The last boat isn't a yacht per se, but I like the ocean blue color!

(Credit Photos: Andy Blumenthal)

$$$Yachting Mean Some Big Dough$$$

-25,000 Jobs NYC

While some politicians are hard at work to create jobs, revive our manufacturing, and expand our economy...

...Others like NY Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are busy destroying jobs from her city. 

After a grueling competition for the Amazon HQ2 with 200 cities offering incentives to land one of two 2nd Headquarters for Amazon, the winners were Arlington, VA and Long Island City, NY.

These lucky cities were to divide 50,000 new jobs and $5 billion in investment by technology and e-Commerce behemoth, Amazon. 

Instead of thanking G-d for their good fortune and celebrating their win under the political savvy of New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo and NYC's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez railed against the "corporate welfare" and basically killed the deal. 

What should be critically noted is that incentives for Amazon were based on meeting their performance benchmarks for NYC and Arlington and were not corporate charity or handouts. 

What Socialist, Ocasio-Cortez failed to understand is that Capitalism is successful precisely because of competition and incentives for performance, and that capital is ideally allocated to where it can get its highest return. 

In short, New York and Virginia weren't giving away the farm, they were competing for great jobs and investment in their cities--and that's what 200 cities recognized from Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. 

Aside from AOC's blatant bigotry and Anti-Semitism so far, she has goofed with a Green Deal that promised income security (socialist handouts) to those "unwilling to work" and sought to get rid of everything from "farting cows" to Airplanes, and now she's lost 25,000 jobs in NY. 

Voters in NY and Democrats in Congress should be paying attention to their new Socialist champion and one of its extremists in chief. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

-25,000 Jobs NYC

Feeling A Little Relative Deprivation

So this was a little funny-sad. 

We were taking a walk.

And we passed these two houses side by side. 

One, this tall stately-looking all brick manicured corner house.

The other, this cozy and sort of beat up little white siding house. 

The juxtaposition of these two as neighbors couldn't have been funnier. 

Sort of like strong and determined Rocky and the nebbish that couldn't. 

Listen, there isn't anything objectively wrong with the little older white house.

Taken by itself, it may actually be a nice place to live--as I said, it's sort of charming (even while the other is commanding)! 

But when you put it against the big new brick fellow, it's just a story of relative deprivation ready to be intensely felt. 

Both have a roof over their heads...and both in the same nice neighborhood. 

Yet neighbor and neighbor--but for no reason, one ends up feeling probably a little shitty--that's putting it in comparison, of course.  ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Feeling A Little Relative Deprivation

Some People Got Money

So we're in the mall, and right when you walk through the doors is a car in the entrance hall. 

This one is a lovely two-tone 2016 Rolls Royce. 

At just a measly $384,025!

Honestly, the car looked awesome. 

This was no Hyundai or Yugo.

The thing looked like a tank of art on wheels. 

What is amazing is that such an expensive car is on display in the mall...I mean who is the demographic they are trying to appeal to for this?

Well maybe it's not that bad, since another sign advertises a lease option for just $3,469 per month plus tax for 48 months with $30,000 due at signing...so that still runs you over $50K per year to drive this thing. 

Well I guess if you earnings millions, what's the big deal anyway!

And out of curiosity, as of 2009, almost a quarter million IRS filings (people and households) show earning of that much or more...nice for them, huh. ;-)

(Source Photos: Andy Blumenthal)

Some People Got Money

Solve That Problem Simply

I have always been intrigued by simple solutions to complex problems.

Bloomberg Businessweek has a great example of how a Fulbright Scholar studying in Beijing solved the smog problem for many people wanting to reduce the danger to themselves and their families.

Air Filters that purify the air can cost around $800, and often one is needed for each room. 

But Thomas Talhelm founder of Smart Air Filters found he could do the job with a simple HEPA filter, fan, and velcro strap to hold them together for just $33/kit. 

He tested the results and found that he could remove 90% of particles 2.5 microns and above in the room. 

Talhem's biggest problem now are copycat DIY air filters hitting the market. 

If only inventors could come up with a simple solution to protecting intellectual property in places where either there aren't rules or they aren't strictly enforced.

When innovations are so easily copycatted, there is less incentive to problem-solve and think out of the box, and that's a problem for society where the s___ really hits the fan. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Solve That Problem Simply

Dystopia Man

I love this picture that I saw in the art gallery here in Florida. 

I named the person in the portrait, Dystopia Man, because he reminds me of how people would look in a speculative futuristic society.

The way the man looks askew with bloodshot eyes, head split, and hand partially covering his mouth all make me feel like the future is quite unknown, somewhat risky, if not sort of ominous.

We have lots of national and global challenges--with security versus privacy, openness versus secrecy, sharing versus private ownership, social entitlements versus capitalism, theocracy versus democracy, control versus freedom, and man versus machine.

How will these turn out for society, for us?  Will we maintain a healthy balance and respect for individuals? Will these and other conflicts be resolved peacefully? 

Hopefully G-d will grant us the wisdom to solve these dilemmas and many others that await us in the present and not so distant future. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Dystopia Man

The Privacy Slope

I read with interest Ronald Bailey's book review of Privacy by Garet Keizer in the Wall Street Journal ( 16 August 2012). 

In a nutshell, privacy is founded in the Constitution's 4th Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

I would define privacy as the freedom--to think, to feel, and to act as ourselves (within ethical boundaries) without fear of intrusion, revelation, or reprisal. 

In other words, it should only be our business who we love, what we are interested or believe in, who we vote for, what we choose to do with our lives, and more. 

I think in grade school, the children generally sum it up well when they playfully chant: "Mind your own BI," where BI is used for business (or biziness). :-)

According to Keizer, the danger to privacy come into play from two main sources: 
- Commerce--who want to sell you something and
- Government--that needs to surveil for security and law enforcement purposes 

After 9/11, their was a perceived need for greater surveillance to enhance homeland security, and with advances in technology and communications (smartphones, Internet, social media, etc.), the ability to snoop became far easier.

In 2002, the DoD program for Total Information Awareness (TIA) was an attempt to know everything (i.e. total) about those who would do us harm, but fears about this capability being used against the innocent, quickly required a rethinking or perhaps, just a rebranding. 

Some say that the new NSA mega data center in Utah is the fulfillment of the TIA dream--according to the Washington Post, already in 2010 NSA intercepted and stored "1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other types of communications." Further, law enforcement demanded records from cellphone carriers on 1.3 million subscribers "including text messages and caller locations" over just the last year's time. 

Keizer cautions that "the ultimate check on government as a whole is its inability to know everything about those it governs"--i.e. without the people holding the cards, there is the risk of spiraling into a Big Brother totalitarian society--goodbye democracy!

I think Keizer perhaps oversells the fear of government surveillance and underemphasizes intrusion from business--his thinking is that "If consumers are annoyed with a merchant's monitoring, they can buy elsewhere." 

But what Keizer misses is that industry as a whole has moved toward the use of technology--from club cards and promotions to use of Internet cookies, RFID, and more--to systematically track consumers and their buying behavior and that information is readily captured, packaged, used, and sold for marketing and sales--as well as to the government!

As a common practice now, where is a consumer to go that will shield them from hungry business looking to capture market share and earn nice profits?

At the same time, while government surveillance can certainly be misused and abused with terrible consequences for individuals society---there are potentially a lot of people looking over the shoulder of those carrying out public programs--and this "sunlight"--where and when it shines--can help to prevent bad things happening. 

The problem is that the system is not perfect, and there are always those program people who act of out of bounds and those watchers who are ineffective and/or dishonest.

Overall, it's a zero sum game, where those that hype up security and capitalism, can tramp down on privacy, and vice versa.
In totality, we can never just assume everything will be okay when it comes to privacy and how information is used, but we have to be active citizens helping ensure that right things are done, the right way. 

For regular, hardworking, decent citizens, there is a definite need to safeguard privacy--and technology can be helpful here with anonymizers, encryptors, and other shielding tools.

For the bad guys, I would imagine, no question, that the government will continue to develop the means to thwart their secrecy and planning to inflict harm on the American people. 

For business, it's okay to capture consumer information and sell, but pour it on to thick and people will think twice about your company's ethics and brand--and even a lawsuit may be in the making. 

Yes, privacy is a slippery slope, and not only can a person's self be revealed or used inappropriately, but the voyeur can get burned too if they overdo it. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

The Privacy Slope

Goldman Sachs Reputation Sacked?

When Greg Smith published his editorial in the New York Times (14 March 2012) on the alleged debased culture and greedy exploits at Goldman Sachs, this was far from surprising after the many misdeeds of Corporate America over the last decade that saw the rise of Sarbanes Oxley in 2002 and the massive financial bailouts in 2008, which does not represent who we really are and can be. 

It's not that Corporate America is bad, it's just that they frequently get rewarded for doing the wrong things. 

All too often, promotions, corner offices, year-end bonuses, and stock options are the rewards for racking in profits, but are not necessarily tied to innovation and/or customer satisfaction.

I believe over the years this has taken many word forms from snake oil salesman, charlatans, spoilers, and many others.
Greg Smith who worked for a dozen years at Goldman--in of all things "recruiting and mentoring"--described the venerable Goldman Sachs as a place where:

- "Interest of clients continue to be sidelined" 

- "Decline in the firm's moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to it's long-term survival."

- If you make enough money for the firm...you will be promoted."

- At sales meetings, "not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients." 

- Leaders callously "talk about ripping off clients" and call their clients "muppets," a British slang terms for "idiots."

The funny-sad thing is that after all these horrific accusations, Goldman has not come out and full-on-full repudiated these claims. 

On March 15, the Wall Street Journal reported "Goldman Plays Damage Control" saying that "it will examine the claims."  

Rather than denying the accusations in specific ways and pointing out their true moral fiber, the Chairman in a memo to employees chose to downplay the accuser calling him only one "of nearly 12,000 vice presidents" of 30,000 employees. In other words, this is just the opinion of a lone wolf. 

More generally, the Chairman wrote coyly that this does "not reflect our values, our culture, and how the vast majority of people at Goldman Sachs think of the firm and the work it does on behalf of our clients."

In another article, in Bloomberg BusinessWeek (19-25 March 2012), it states similarly that "Goldman Sachs would have you believe it's learned from the financial crisis. Don't be fooled."

The article goes on to list a scathing history of scandal from Goldman Sachs Trading Corporation that "blew up" after the stock market crash of 1929 to Goldman's settlement with the SEC for a whopping $550 million in 2010. Further, it describes a current conflict of interest case with El Paso and Kinder Morgan that they call a Goldman "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach."

While I have always respected the likes of Goldman Sachs for their unbelievable brainpower and talent, the accusations against them and by extension against others in Corporate America is very concerning.  

The notion that customers are but idiots for Corporate America to pillage and plunder is not democracy and capitalism, but greed and evil.  

When we no longer value a creed of service above pure profiteering then moral bankruptcy is just a prelude to financial bankruptcy. 

No company can stay afloat and be competitive over time, if they do not work to strengthen their balance sheets, income statements, and cash flows.

However, at the same time, no competitor can thrive for long on a culture of greed and duplicity that sees people as victims to spoil, rather than as customers to serve.

While I do not know the details of Greg Smith's accusations, this last part I know in my heart to be truth. 

(Source Photo: here)

Goldman Sachs Reputation Sacked?

Happiness Is Not The End

I was outraged to read the opening article in the May 9-15, 2011 issue of BusinessWeek (

which I usually greatly respect): "Why Bin Laden Lost."

Here are some of the "highlights" from Businessweek:

- "The United States has no purpose. That is perhaps its greatest achievement...the United States was not founded for the greater glory of anything."

- "The most successful organizing principle the world has ever known is a simple guarantee that we can buy and do things that have no point greater than the satisfaction of our own happiness."

- "We human follow base and pedestrian needs...Freedom. Self-determination. Democracy. All of which are means to an end. For us humans, the end is almost always just a house."

- "You might consider embracing what defeated him. Do something private and ridiculous, something that answers no creed. Pursue happiness."

Yes, we won the battle against Osama Bin Laden this week, but the war is not over.

Bin Laden's henchmen are already forswearing that they will turn our joy to sorrow.

Why?

Because the clash of ideas and principles remain.

One one hand, we have belief in mandated, restrictive religious sharia law and the return to a 7th century caliphate (i.e. government of the people--the state is supreme) and on the other we have principles of freedom to choose--how to worship, what to say, what to publish, when to gather etc. (government for the people--the people are supreme).

With the Spring Uprising in the Middle East, it seems that the people are leaning toward the latter, although there is much work to be done to transition from the former.

Bloomberg Businessweek's article misses the whole point of our great democracy and the freedoms it provides.

Rather than being a society whose end and purpose is simply to "shop until we drop" and that is free to orgy itself on prosperity, physical pleasures, and materialism, we are about so much more.

The United States and its partners do have a purpose.

No, we are not a society that mandates a certain religion or in fact any religion, we leave that to for the individual to choose. But we are a society of laws, principles, and belief in freedom to choose one's destiny.

Not everyone chooses well, but that is part of the freedom to learn from our mistakes and grow.

The end, for most good and upstanding citizens of this country and others, is to be driven by principles and righteousness--such as human rights, curing the ill, feeding the hungry, rescuing the downtrodden, innovating and creating opportunity, and building stronger personal protections and cultural institutions.

I think it is sad that Bloomberg endorsed exactly the view that the terrorists hold of us -- a view that is shallow and wrong.

We do not focus exclusively on the "pursuit of happiness," rather that happiness is a means to a higher end. Similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which begins with physical survival and proceeds to self-actualization through connection with others and giving back.

Happiness Is Not The End

“National Innovation Strategy” and Enterprise Architecture

I believe most people would say that the United States is one of the most innovative countries in the world. And this in no small way has led to immense wealth creation for the people of this nation collectively.

If you think about most of the modern day conveniences we have, I believe the vast majority were innovated right here in the good ‘ol US of A. For example, think internet, computer, automobile, airplane, and so on.

Nevertheless many have argued that our innovativeness and engineering prowess has declined over the years.

One interesting news blog on CNET on 7 February 2008 calls for the need for a “national innovation strategy,” to get us out from being “stuck in ‘incrementalism.’”


The author, a former Harvard Business School professor, gives a number of reasons that we should be concerned about our innovativeness:

1. Inadequate public education system—this one is not new; people have complained for years about the state of public education in this country. And while the No Child Left Behind initiative has helped, the system is still not where it should be. As the author states, “the U.S. public education system does not adequately prepare students.”
2. Federal grant system—“inconsistent priorities and lacks funding.”
3. Overseas opportunities—“there are more opportunities for students and scientists in places outside the United States.”
4. Fewer doctorates (and engineers)—For example, “Finland has twice as many Ph.D.’s per capita as the U.S.”
5. It’s a free for all—“different countries have different models, ranging from heavy government direction like Finland, to the U.S. style ‘let ‘er rip” system that relies on bottom-up innovation…a better model is a hybrid that involves many parties, including government, academia, business, and entrepreneurs.”

While I agree that we face many problems in retaining our edge in innovation, I do believe that at heart we are a nation of innovators. And this is founded in republicanism, liberty, capitalism, and our market economy, where we are taught from birth that anyone can be anything (even the President of the United States).

Moreover, I have never seen a dearth of good ideas being talked about, but rather the shortage is perhaps more in the ability to execute on those than in the creative process itself.

Enterprise architecture is itself a discipline founded in creativity, and hence the structure of defining the baseline, looking outward and establishing a target state, and planning the transition. This does not have to be about incrementalism, but can in fact represent true enterprise innovation.

“National Innovation Strategy” and Enterprise Architecture

Creative Capitalism and Enterprise Architecture

CNET News, 24 January 2008 reports that Bill Gates calls for creative capitalism “in a speech Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Gates is calling on companies to think more broadly about how their products can benefit society.”

What is creative about creative capitalism?

For the last 500 hundred years or so, capitalism was considered the creative economic system based on private ownership of capital, a free enterprise, and a market economy. Capitalism was the economic “light unto the nations,” while socialism, an economic system, based on state ownership of capital and a managed economy, was deemed as inefficient and almost totalitarian in nature.

Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money. Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early forms of merchant capitalism flourished during the Middle Ages. Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of feudalism, It gradually spread from Europe, particularly from Britain, across political and cultural frontiers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world.” (Wikipedia)

Well, as of today, Bill Gates has declared that capitalism is no longer creative, and we need a new capitalism called “creative capitalism”.

Is creative capitalism really a form of socialist capitalism, where the state and companies redistribute private capital based on economic and social factors? Hasn’t the country’s progressive tax system and various social programs (Medicaid, Food Stamps, Student Financial Aid…) been doing this all along, so that as a society we can take care of the needs of the less fortunate? This is an important aspect of social justice and an expression of humanity in our otherwise free enterprise system, where everyone must fend for themselves. In a purely capitalist society, you can be successful and rich beyond your wildest dreams, like Bill Gates or end up destitute and desperate. Socialist capitalism is a way to maintain an overall capitalist economy, but conceptually still take care of all people.

Is Bill Gates sincere?

“Forbes magazine's list of The World's Billionaires has ranked Gates as the richest person in the world from 1995 to 2007, with recent estimates putting his net worth over $56 billion.” (Wikipedia)

At the same time, Bill and Melinda Gates have become some of the world’s largest philanthropists (after Warren Buffet). “Much of Gates' work at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has centered on two particular shortcomings of capitalism--solving health problems that affect only the poor and improving educational systems.” Of course, these are noble goals and the Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation’s contributions have been magnanimous. Moreover, “in July, Gates will step down from full-time work at Microsoft and shift his focus to the foundation.”

Then again, it’s sort of easy to call for creative capitalism, when you’re the richest man in the world.

From a User-centric Enterprise Architecture perspective, the need to take care of those less fortunate in society, rings true and just as a principled architecture goal. Our nation and our enterprises must remain human and charitable, even while we compete in the global marketplace. We cannot architect our nation and organizations to succeed merely based on economic factors, but rather must instill human dignity and altruism in the fiber of our nation, organizations, and as individuals. And while of course companies can help by being altruistic and developing products that are cost-effective for those less fortunate (some examples are the One Laptop Per Child Initiative or the $2500 automobile by Tata Motors of India), at the end of the day government must really play the primary role in ensuring that the fundamental needs of all people in society are met.

Creative Capitalism and Enterprise Architecture

Adam Smith and Enterprise Architecture

Adam Smith, known as “The Father of Economics”, is best known for his "laissez-faire" economic theory. Smith believed in the right to influence your own economic progress freely, without the puppet strings of guilds and/or the state. His theory caught on and changed much of Europe into a free trade domain, allowing the emergence of the entrepreneur. Smith's work helped to build the foundations of free market economics that includes:

• Capitalism (an economic system in which the means of production—land, labor, and, capital—are privately owned and operated for profit, and in which production and distribution of goods and services are determined through the operation of a ‘market economy’—free markets and free pricing system)
• Libertarianism (belief that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property)
• Free Trade (trade in goods and services between or within countries flow unhindered by government) (Adapted from Wikipedia)

“Smith laid the intellectual framework that explained the free market and still holds true today. He is most often recognized for the expression "the invisible hand," which he used to demonstrate how self-interest guides the most efficient use of resources in a nation's economy, with public welfare coming as a by-product. To underscore his laissez-faire convictions, Smith argued that state and personal efforts, to promote social good are ineffectual compared to unbridled market forces.” (lucidcafe.com)

Here’s the User-centric EA question…

Based on Adam Smith’s framework for an efficient free market unencumbered by the state, how are we to view enterprise architecture planning and governance “hindering” the organizational end-users from making the ‘best’ choices for what systems, products, and standards they want to purchase or use? Based on Smith’s notion of "laissez-faire", doesn’t the end-user know best? And won’t they make the most efficient use of corporate resources? Why does EA ‘interfere’?

The answer is…

The end-user does know best and we do need to let them ‘guide’ decision-making. However, there is a difference between letting them guide decisions and pursuing their own interests completely unimpeded. We do not have to use a great amount of imagination to recognize the wasteful spending on redundant solutions, stove-piped data and applications, and inefficient processes that would exist.

• Taken to an extreme, if all users in the enterprise would purchase and implement whatever business and technology solutions they desire, without any form of governance what-so-ever, you would have total chaos!

So the User-centric EA view is that we put the user front and center in the decision process. We work diligently and ongoingly to understand user requirements. And as architects, we work to satisfy those requirements by rationalizing them, enforcing enterprise standards, developing enterprise solutions, and looking out for the greater good of the enterprise. This is the great EA balancing act!

Adam Smith and Enterprise Architecture