The Affluent are Less Likely to Reach Out to Others in Times of Trouble

'The rich are different from you and me.' So said F. Scott Fitzgerald, author and bon vivant.

And recent research supplants what, in his case, was simply fond envy, with revealing data.

The point of this study is that the coping mechanisms people employ to deal with economic dislocation are often profoundly dissimilar and sometimes antithetical. Loss of income and status is accepted as an unfortunate but unsurprising occurrence by lower income groups who will often come closer together for mutual support during difficult times. Wealthier people, the research discloses, are more concerned with protecting what they have, especially material possessions, and will do what they need to do to accomplish that goal.

In evaluating opportunities, the less affluent, when offered a job in a distant location, will often decline in order to stay closer to friends and family. The wealthy will generally take it if the terms are right, assuming that financial success is more important - and that ties can be maintained through travel unaffordable to others.

The implication is based as much on values as on value: what people consider precious may vary according to what they already have, the way they have been raised and their perceptions of how they will be judged by others. This may imply that communitarian spirit provides stronger psychological and emotional support for those who have it, while those who eschew it for individualistic or materialistic benefits could be more brittle if things do not go their way.

This is not to say that one is better than the other, but that the two standards reflect world views that are more disparate than social, cultural and religious bounds might have led us to believe. JL

Science Daily reports:

Crises are said to bring people closer together. But a new study from UC Berkeley suggests that while the have-nots reach out to one another in times of trouble, the wealthy are more apt to find comfort in material possessions.

Revolution Beats Disruption

Disruption has had a good run.

Since Clayton Christensen coined the term 'disruptive innovation' during the dotcom era it has gotten a lot of play as one of the most significant factors driving productive change, particularly in the technology universe which has come to encompass almost all aspects of human endeavor.

But as a civilization we still face an awful lot of challenges. Technology has not eliminated poverty or violence or many other human ills. It may have increased opportunity for many, but the pace of change is slow. Which is why tech leaders like Twitter's Jack Dorsey are advocating revolution. Not, we suspect, in a storm the barricades sense, but as a means of hastening the breakthroughs necessary to create a more just - and - more commercially viable global society. Especially as the two are intertwined in consumer driven economies.

Disruption merely distracts. Revolution offers profound change that can shift the axis of the enterprise and create new opportunities, significant in impact and scale.

How, exactly, to do this remains uncertain. But it is a conversation worth having and an effort worth making. JL

Greg Satell comments in Digital Tonto:

Jack Dorsey, the celebrated founder of Twitter and Square, who is the probably the man most often compared to Steve Jobs in Silicon Valley, urged his audience to seek not disruption, but revolution.

More specifically, he said that “Revolution has value, revolution has purpose — a direction and leaders… We don’t want ‘disruption,’ where we just move things around. We want a direction. We want a purpose.”

When the Male Market Softens...Hooters Discovers Demographics

51% of the population are women. So are 60% of college students. And you know what is happening in the work force.

So it is no surprise that a bar/restaurant chain catering egregiously to 'dudes' is not enjoying the same financial success it might once have done. With household incomes in decline, there isnt enough money to go around for segmented family entertainment. Family, more than ever, has to be inclusive. Places where women feel uncomfortable, never mind unwelcome, have some 'splainin' to do.

In addition, getting expense account charges approved when the boss is just as likely to be a woman as a man makes submitting bills from the raunchy bar scene a more questionable career-enhancing strategy.

The larger issue is change in the face of demographic and psychographic changes that portend shifts in mores, values and, ultimately, purchase decisions. In the post-industrial economy, people are what they buy. Their choices broadcast more about them they did when price was all that mattered.

Men, perhaps more than women, have had to adjust. It's a process - and it is far from over. But any enterprise that assumes attitudes are static is likely to find itself on the wrong side of history. JL

Duane Stanford and Leslie Patton report in Bloomberg Businessweek:

Four years of revenue declines have forced Hooters to revamp its appeal. Women, even fully dressed ones, are welcome

What Does Healthier Mean?

Words matter.

Organic food is the fastest growing segment of the food market.

The reasons are varied but are essentially based on the belief that organic foods are healthier because they are exposed to and contain fewer chemicals harmful to humans. The world has many developed, affluent societies with aging populations for whom longevity has become a prominent issue. In developing countries, especially China, food safety is quite literally a matter of life and death. Organics appeal to both sets of concerns.

So when researchers at Stanford University issued a study suggesting the additional health value derived from organics was illusory and quite possibly contrived, it caused quite a stir.

A few years ago, organic advocates would probably have been devastated by the criticism from one of the world's most prestigious universities. Not any more.

Critics of the study challenged the researchers' methodology while other commentators, such as the one below, raised pertinent questions about the vocabulary employed to communicate what may well have been a bias or predisposition inherent in the study.

Either way, notice has been served. Prominent academics and 'experts' no longer get a free pass when it comes to matters of popular concern. The internet has democratized knowledge and communications. And we are all healthier for that. JL

Curtis Brainard comments in the Columbia Journalism Review:

“Healthier” is a word the media often use without enough care, and that shortcoming was on full display during last week’s coverage of a study examining the nutritional value and presence of contaminants in organic versus conventional foods.

Should YouTube Censor the Anti-Muslim Video Sparking World-wide Violence?

YouTube and its parent, Google, are faced with a difficult choice.

Their policy has always been quite publicly defined. Nothing will be censored unless it contains hate speech, advocates violence against others or is the subject of a local law banning specific content.

The video "Innocence of Muslims" is subject to none of those conditions. But it has sparked rioting and violence around the world that have left four American diplomats dead as well as rioters and security personnel in a growing list of countries.

The dilemma is whether to moderate its own policy in the face of the physical dangers to human beings the video has sparked - or whether to stand firm in honor of the best traditions of free speech, civil liberties and civilized discourse.

Most of the commentary on the 'net has castigated YouTube for taking the video off in Egypt and Libya where the violence began. The critics' claim is that YouTube and its parent company, Google, have already violated their principles by caving in to extremists' cynical manipulation of popular will in those nations. But then it is easy to be critical when you are sitting in the air-conditioned comfort of your handsome, comfortable office or home in the placid safety of New York or San Francisco.

Others believe that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary action. You take the video off the net as a matter of public safety in a volatile world. And then, of course, there are many Muslims who claim to be genuinely offended by a deliberate attempt to insult the holiest evocation of their faith.

The challenge is that in a world of global communications, certain messages may seem obnoxious but tolerable in some parts of the world but terminally offensive in others. This controversy is exacerbated by the fact that some of the protest is now and has been in the past (such as the cartoon controversy in Denmark a few years back), manipulated by elements intent on using it to further their political, ideological and military ends.

The free speech advocates are right to be concerned about the longer term implications of censorship. Is every image or statement offensive to one group automatic grounds for deletion? And is it utterly self-serving? Will Muslim groups support the deletion of images offensive to Judaism? We already know the answer to that question is a caustic no.

The problem is that many governments are using the riots as a way of currying sympathy with the mob. They claim, wink-wink, that they'll move their security forces in when things have calmed a bit. The manipulation of public opinion against 'the other,' any other is as old as history. It has had its most recent, horrific uses in Germany, Bosnia and Rwanda, among others.

YouTube is not the UN. But it has derived much of its success from its globalism. In the world of modern, instantaneous communication but ancient cultures and beliefs, it may have to consider revisiting its standards to reflect its arguably unwanted but undeniable power. JL

Ari Melber comments in The Nation:

The protests against the now infamous YouTube video disparaging the Prophet Mohammad have thrust YouTube, and its parent company Google, into a tough situation.

While the company says it values free speech and usually only removes videos that violate its policies, it is experimenting with a deliberately inconsistent approach to the crisis surrounding the video, “Innocence of Muslims.”

Deceptive Delight: Secrets of the Fast Food Industry's Dollar Menus

How do they do it?

How can they possibly sell food for less than it would cost you to make it at home - and maybe even buy the raw materials at the grocery store?

It is not, as surprised as you may be to hear it, out of the goodness of their hearts.

The dollar menus are not loss leaders in the classic sense, although they work in a similar fashion to increase volume by enticing more customers to buy. According to the industry, they do not lose money, though they barely make a profit. And as many consumers have noticed, the size of the offerings has diminished as the price of meat, vegetables and the energy cost of transportation has risen.

The real secret to the dollar menu's power is that very few people ever buy just the dollar menu items. And that is where the profit lies. The drinks (super-size me!), sides and desserts that people purchase to accompany the basic dollar menu are the highest margin items. Drinks are especially big money makers since the volume of ice and water in the biggest sizes disguises the fact that in terms of ingredients they are almost indistinguishable from the smaller ones.

So, the combination of increased traffic and additional purchases makes the dollar menu a profitable strategy option for an industry whose customers have seen their incomes shrink in real terms over the past generation.

This is a relatively benign form of advantage-taking, especially when compared with the truly predatory mortgage lending practices of the past decade. People can buy just the dollar menu if they want to, whereas in the financial services case, they were required to agree to conditions that were patently misleading.

Americans have become more cost-conscious as real estate prices, jobs and wages have declined. Household debt is being paid down and depressed retail sales suggest that an economy built on credit is readjusting to reality. What the dollar menu example does illustrate is that people have to be discerning stewards of their own resources, however small the costs involved, particularly in times of constraint. JL

Candice Choi reports in the Huffington Post:

That cheeseburger on the value menu may end up costing more than you think.

Does Listening to Music at Work Make You More or Less Productive?

Is your work cognitively demanding?

Because that appears to be the crucial determinant as to whether listening to music makes you more or less productive. If it is, ie, if you actually have to think while you work, rather than performing rote tasks, the research suggests it is more likely than not to be a distraction.

If you 'have' to listen at work, classical or instrumental music is the most conducive (though for those Boomer survivors of the 60s and 70s this probably does not include the 17 minute riff from 'In-a-gadda-da-vida'). Music with singing and lyrics is less beneficial to completing tasks accurately and to quicker output. Singing along is most emphatically not a productivity enhancing activity.

There are, of course, exceptions. 'Well-practiced experts' like surgeons have reported that background music relaxes them and helps them concentrate. Unfortunately, anesthesiologists report that such music is distracting.

There is probably no right answer applicable across all jobs, personalities, age groups, functional specialties, office configurations, shoe sizes or whatever other metrics may influence performance. Knowing that it can be measured is worth remembering the next time someone in the office comments about your expensive headphones. JL

Annie Paul reports in Time:

Music can lift your mood and give you a relaxed focus, but it decreases your performance on cognitively demanding tasks.

How the Peripheral Becomes Central: Apple, Islam, Economics and the Unified Theory of Everything

Second year in a row: Apple introduces a new phone. Which, in many ways, is not all that different from last year's model.

Except for one thing, that most people think is peripheral, literally and figuratively. Until it becomes The Point.

Last year's controversy was about SIRI, the voice-activated assistant that was considered a toy-like after-thought. Except that it dominated the conversation and defined the new model.

This year? The new adapter. Which renders obsolete all previous adapters as well as all the connections to all the other Apple devices you might own, never mind the adapters in all the hip hotels and clubs in the world that finally got around to providing universal Apple connectivity.

Meanwhile, back in the rest of the world that doesn't orient its life around new phones (shrinking though its size and influence may be), there are riots in what last year were considered those brave and praise-worthy peripheral societies that produced the Arab Spring. In Europe, the affluent, central countries like Germany, France and the Netherlands are trying to figure out what to do with the nations no the periphery - Greece, Portugal, Spain et al - that are imploding economically.

So, maybe Apple is doing this as part of some global deep wave theory of change. Maybe the periphery is where the future gets revealed. We thought that convergence was where it was at. The end of history. Universal power sources. One platform fits all. But maybe that was bunk. Maybe Steve was right. His way or the highway. You dont want to fork over another $29 on top of whatever you're paying in yuan, euros, pounds or dollars? Fine, flash your Nokia and Android to your friends and watch them grimace at your humiliation.

Maybe all these seemingly peripheral changes in peripherals reveal something profound about the future as well as conceal something not so profound about the present. Like, that we're not quite ready for whatever the next big thing is but we have to produce a new phone or a new government or a new economic plan to keep our customers/voters happy.

Politics, economics, technology and $29 adapters. Who knew?JL

Andrew Leonard comments in Salon:

A hotly contested presidential election hits the stretch run, a deadly foreign policy crisis breaks out in the Arab world, new census figures prove that the richest Americans are still gaining on everyone else… and yet one of the most alarming stories of the week (judging by my perhaps unbalanced Twitter feed) appears to be the news that Apple’s iPhone 5 will come with a brand new dock connector

What's the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?

The history of technology is replete with stories of companies that had a great idea but didnt know quite what to do with it.

Xerox PARC, the celebrated Silicon Valley-based R&D center is the most famous of these. Its staff and the creative genius they unleashed are legendary in the tech community, both for the brilliance of their inventions - and for the fact that others often benefited far more than did the parent company that paid for it.

There have been other fonts of innovation over the last century including RCA and Bell Labs. But the increasing prominence of Apple's SIRI has drawn attention to a once secretive company whose primary function is to win government contracts in order to help the US military realize its technological dreams.

SRI International, the company that spawned the idea that became SIRI has a distinguished provenance. SRI originally stood for Stanford Research Institute and was the university's research arm. It was eventually spun off in order to provide greater opportunity to become profitable and it has achieved that goal.

SIRI is emblematic of the company's focus on innovation rather than 'mere' invention. The notion is not so much to be the cleverest (though that doesnt hurt)or to come up with cool new stuff, but to be sure that whatever is being created is intended for a market that enables both SRI and its clients to secure a financial return while solving a problem that may enhance other commercial opportunities.

This focus on practical applicability has assured a steady stream of new business while financing ever more audacious experiments that lead to even newer and potentially profitable new fields. It is quite an innovative business model. JL

Dan Friedell reports in Fast Company:

SRI International, the brains behind Apple's Siri, has launched a dozen consumer products since its digital assistant got famous. We venture inside SRI's labs to find out why you haven't you heard of any of them.

You Are What You Retweet: Twitter Presents New Targeting Method for Advertisers

You are the key to you. And to others you know.

This is the essence of the new targeting capability Twitter is providing advertisers. Whether by interest or device or a host of other factors, advertisers, whether commercial or political, can target the audience most likely to be susceptible to their message.

The targeting is based on the preferences of the individual user and those in his or her network. Those preferences may also permit the advertiser to know whether Android, iPhone or Blackberry users are more or less likely to vote or buy what's being sold.

No consent is required - yet. Privacy advocates are, once again, raising concerns about the implications for misuse or abuse of the data. But consumers have steadfastly ignored all previous entreaties in this regard. Given the choice between a discounted latte and protecting personal information, that'll be half-caff soy milk, thanks.

Twitter is rather late to this party. Google, Facebook and others have already taken the leap, with mixed results. But it is clear that the trade of information for service is considered a fair one by consumers, so far. And that both the targeting and the sale of that information will only escalate. JL

Steve Friess reports in Politico:

Twitter is finally joining its competitors in making money off of what it knows about its users.

The booming microblog quietly rolled out to advertisers earlier this month a new targeting method, one that helps campaigns and companies reach people based on what users they follow and what they retweet

Ignoring the Obvious: Why Economics Cannot Acknowledge the Triumph of Finance

Paging Dr. Pangloss.

In 'Candide' Voltaire created a character who stated he believed that whatever was happening around him represented the 'best of all possible worlds.' This included such catastrophes as the Lisbon earthquake and tsunami of 1755 that killed between 10,000 and 100,000 people. The devastation was so comprehensive that no one has ever been able to calculate the final toll with certainty.

The recent economic unpleasantness sometimes called The Great Recession hasnt killed that many humans, as far as we know, but it sure did a number on the global economy. As the following article articulates, however, the economics profession has so far largely refused to address how so many esteemed advisors from its discipline could have been so wrong. Nor has it made many meaningful changes to what passes for received professional wisdom based on this experience.

The reticence to acknowledge the results - if the word failure is too harsh and judgmental for polite society, then perhaps 'unanticipated outcomes' will suffice - has many sources. Embarrassment. Professional courtesy. Protecting one's own. The fact that the finance industry probably endows many of its academic chairs and continues to offer juicy consulting opportunities. One could go on.

But the financialization of the global economy has not been a success for most of the world's population and the institutions that inhabit it. At some point, that fact and the reasons why will have to be honestly elucidated. We're waiting. JL

Yves Smith comments in in the Naked Capitalism blog:

The economics discipline has for the most part managed to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room: that of the role that the financial services industry has come to play.

Astonishingly, even though the reengineering of the world economy along the lines preferred by mainstream economists resulted in a prosperity-wrecking global financial crisis and a soft coup by financiers, the discipline carries on methodologically as if nothing much had happened. And one of its huge blind spots is its refusal to acknowledge the role of banking and finance in modern commerce

Is Your Workplace Industrialized or Humanized?

The soul-deadening nature of traditional management practices is an easy target.

In fact, it has become a cliche. Insensitive bosses with anger-management problems, inflexible rules, calcified procedures and an overarching culture ripped right out of 'Father Knows Best.'

It is hard to know to what extent that ethos has survived the past 20 years of technological innovation, globalized competition and tsunamis of downsizing that have left a few stunned survivors to complete with the help of a random laptops the tasks that dozens used to accomplish. Certainly the selfishness of senior executive compensation in the face of almost universal economic suffering suggests that the mindset exists even if the practices have been papered over by facile references to team work.

But those who work now, even in the hip, open, collaborative workplaces personified, at least theoretically by Google et al, also risk a different kind of threat. It's root is that very technology and the flexibility it offers. 24-7 can be an opportunity to manage one's own time - or it can mean always on, always tethered.

The notion that Apple products somehow represent freedom of thought and action is more than somewhat diminished by the knowledge of incandescent Jobs-ian verbal abuse of underlings and his demand for total control of the business' every aspect.

The stories coming out of Zynga about megalomaniacal founders and the equally searing management horror stories from a host of other allegedly 'new economy' avatars suggest that the twists of human personality and emotion can transcend even the coolest, most bleeding edge atmosphere.

Technology can set us free. But it can also enslave us. Whether it humanizes or industrializes a workplace has less to do with the devices than with the mindset of those who use them. JL

Jody Thompson comments in the Cali & Jody Blog (hat tip Greg Satell):

Are you a PC or a Mac?

You remember those commercials, right? Talk about the ultimate way of "humanizing" your company. Apple personified it's product as a hip young person you could relate to (at least, who their target market would relate to), and personified their competitor as a stiff, boring spreadsheet geek who didn't "get it."

Young Adults Are Dropping Out of the Job Market

Is it any wonder?

Almost five years into the post-crash recession there arent many jobs available and those that are tend to be in food service. Living at home because they cant afford their own place, reducing auto purchases because the price of gas, insurance and the cars themselves is becoming unsustainable, young adults have - in some cases quite sensibly - either gone back to school if they can afford it - or are working in the gray economy where their efforts and pay can not be tracked.

The causes have been endlessly debated: technological advances in which many have not kept up; a generation's worth of cutbacks in education that have left emerging workers under-prepared; ideological opposition to the current President that has stymied attempts at government stimulus; loss of faith in the future by senior executives whose compensation is structured to reward them for risk avoidance - and, therefore, denies long term investments.

Whatever the combination of reasons - and all of those above plus others are candidates - the implication is that the societies emerging from this period will be less well equipped to seize the opportunities that may be coming. JL

Chris Isadore reports in CNN:

The drop in the unemployment rate in August isn't particularly good news for the economy -- it's driven mostly by nearly 400,000 people dropping out of the labor force, rather than more people finding jobs.

But those dropping out aren't so much the discouraged 30-, 40- or 50-year olds. In fact, the Labor Department said there was a modest decline in the overall number of discouraged job seekers. The drop is because so many young adults, aged 16 to 24, are no longer looking for work.

Tech Design and Human Behavior: When Did Addiction Become a Good Thing?

Ethics and design.

The issue has been lurking out there for a while but we've ignored it, largely because we're so fascinated by the marriage of technological wizardry with behavioral manipulation. It's astonishing what people can be convinced to do without their realizing it.

But how is this different from what marketers have done for ages? From the earliest dealers in grains and fruits, to rug merchants, encyclopedia sales and TV pitchmen ('call now, operators are standing by...'). And why now?

Well, scale is one reason. The 'net has given us the ability to reach vast new audiences instantaneously. Unlike TV or radio or other media, there is no regulatory oversight governing truthfulness. So, the impact may be greater and the damage, when it occurs, both more widespread and harder to correct.

Secondly, there is that queasy human reaction to being manipulated without realizing it. Tell us partial truths, disguise the downside? Caveat emptor; let the buyer beware. Do your homework, check your sources, take responsibility. That is the mantra of the new age. Corporations have offloaded that burden on the rest of us, claiming somewhat virtuously, that self-governance makes for a stronger economy and probably makes us better people, too.

We could quibble with that, but in the service of greater convenience we have largely capitulated. The problem in technology and internet commerce comes with the absence of transparency. The lack of any explanation, let alone sufficient. Is it legal? Probably. Is it moral? Depends who you ask. Is it a positive development? We'll have to see. But we have some experience with this in the world's housing markets: Ireland, Spain, China, the UK, the US. And it ended up crashing the economy. The questions raised by the article below therefore pose some worthy questions the implications of the answers to which hit us where we live. JL

Jason Dreha comments in GigaOm:

Tech companies have become increasingly adept at manufacturing desire, but to what end? Behavior designer Jason Hreha argues that the industry needs to seriously consider the impact of its products. Are we helping our users lead better lives, or are we making them compulsive, impatient and distractible?

How Green Is My Cloud? Tech Companies, Cloud Computing and Energy Use

This started as a weak signal. But the heavens are starting to rumble thunderously.

The questions about the energy usage required to power cloud computing were initially considered by many the concern of an obsessed minority. Their worries were sublimated by fascination with the technological potential, the financial opportunity and the strategic implications for corporate competition.

But this is becoming a mainstream concern. Executives take pains to address it even when not asked. Press releases emerge. Articles are written. Analysts assess the countervailing claims.

The reason, as so often happens with environmental and sustainability issues in business, has less to do with what is right and more to do with what is efficient. There are two primary impacts: one is cost-related. Energy use reduces margins, which reduces free cash flow and affects however one measures profit. Which, in turn, impacts stock price performance, compensation and executive longevity. Talk about hitting someone where it hurts...

The second set of issues has to do with brand and reputation. Most tech companies, more than other corporations, like to be thought of as clean. That is usually how their founders were brought up and how their education and their peer-group have inclined them. It is also how many of their customers and, increasingly, investors like to be perceived. So in the global battle for pre-eminence in the tech sphere, every new issue is an opportunity and a threat. The opportunity is to convince others that what you are doing is smart AND good. The threat is that something bad will happen, you will be blamed, your brand sullied, your honor besmirched. Which might also affect stock price and those related factors.

Instinct and self-interest will prevail. The companies are playing catch-up because this was not top-of-mind when the trend broke. But they get the message. And they know that if they falter, plenty of observers will feel free to announce it to the world. JL

Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss comment in Scientific American:

Why is Greenpeace upset with some leading tech companies for so-called “dirty cloud computing?

Twilight of the Elites? America After Meritocracy

Has America been failed by its elites?

Or more to the point, has it been failed by the system that has produced them for the past three quarters of a century?

That system emerged to replace historical reliance on caste and privilege. It was formulated to promote a feature of American life which appeared to be the fairest, most democratic and meritocratic: education. The presumption was that education favored no one who did not have talent, intelligence and the willingness to work to achieve excellence against a common set of standards.

The problem, as Professor Marshall Meyer of the Wharton School noted, is that 'metrics begin to degrade the moment they are announced because everyone affected begins to game them.'

And how.

Universal education may still be available, but there are circles within circles. Private schools, private tutors, legacy admissions to 'need-blind' competitive institutions, cultural biases in nationally-administered standardized tests. And that's just to get to the starting line. To be considered for the elite professions in finance, law, medicine, commerce and yes, even government. Beyond that, the benefits of distinguished lineage have been supplanted by the web of relationships based on school ties, friendships and common experiences.

The sense of entitlement may be all the more entrenched because those so annointed believe that their achievements were merited, not the random luck of bloodlines. As has become clear the system has been gamed and those who have the money or connections prevail.

The bigger problem, however, is the result. That nation is riven by factions who truly despise each other. The economy is faltering, the country's standing in the world has receded and faith in the future is at a low ebb. Cheating and self-dealing are rampant. Investors flee the equity markets because they are so notoriously tilted to favor insiders. Whatever leaders the system was supposed to have produced either did not heed the lessons taught or emerged due to factors other than ability.

So the question is what the post-meritocratic world will look like. Despite their evident disdain for each other, both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street factions agree that the elite are out only for themselves. And the French, Chinese, Russians, British, et al, have done no better.

What we can say with some assurance, however, is that whatever new system may replace the old - and that is not even certain - a new elite will emerge. What we can hope is that, at least for a time, before they begin to favor their own kith and kin, that they take to heart the lessons from this experience and try to build a more inclusive and effective system than the one they will try to replace. JL

The Samuel Goldman comments in The American Conservative:

“Elite” wasn’t always a dirty word. Before the 19th century, the term described someone chosen for office. Because this typically occurred in the church, the word possessed distinctly ecclesiastical connotations. The pre-Victorians transformed a word imputing religious status to individual persons into a collective noun with class implications. By the 1830s, “elite” referred to the highest ranks of the nobility.

Those meanings are no longer primary.

McDonalds Goes Vegetarian

OK, slightly exaggerated headline.

No, McDonalds is not eliminating meat. Put the epinephrine away and tell the ambulance dispatcher it was all a misunderstanding.

But they are opening their first all vegetarian restaurants. In India.

What's really interesting about this is not that they are opening these two locations in a country where eating meat is a religious taboo for many. Acknowledging local tastes is just common sense when you are a global corporation.

The mind-blowing aspect of this decision is how it may juice their business in the US, Europe and other carnivorously inclined markets. Organics are one of the fastest growing categories in food. As the population ages in most developed countries, the urge to prolong life becomes fiercer. So eating healthier has become a movement, which helps explains the exponential growth of locavore, greens-oriented cuisine.

In addition, businesses have noticed that when they offer products or services for one market, particularly when advertised online, demand emerges in markets for which the items were not intended and in which they are not available. At first.

Levis, among others, noticed this when it created smaller, tighter, less expensive jeans for what it thought was the Chinese market - until orders from other parts of the world starting pouring in.

So Mickey D's may be experimenting in a safe place where they know demand is present. But they have their eye on the prize, which is all those consumers who think the company's offerings have been too fatty and unhealthy. Until now.

And PS, yo. French fries are potatoes. Which are vegetables. So dont be questioning their street cred in this market. JL

The Associated Press reports in the Chicago Tribune:

McDonald's Corp., the fast food chain that brought the hamburger to the world, is opening what may be its first vegetarian-only restaurants.

The Social Media Paradox

Social media is such a ripe target.

The breathless hype. The overeager advocates. The self- promotional ethos. And the under-performance personified by the disappointment in Facebook, Groupon, Zynga and a host of other new-age avatars.

The critics are legion and occasionally number this blog among them. But they are characterized by a paradoxical conflict. Which is that their success as critics is dependent upon - and one might fairly claim - created by the very medium they so enthusiastically scourge.

There appear to be elements of discomfort and self-doubt in all this. Taking advantage of something one professes to despise will do that. But there is also some honest reflection on the false claims and misdirection so conspicuously prominent in the medium's essence.

The following essay, by Bob Hoffman, eloquently captures that paradox. He is an veteran advertising guy who has created an online persona called The Ad Contrarian and he has benefited mightily from his critique of social media myopia in his industry. He articulates why it can work for some, but probably wont work for most. And his honesty is as valuable as his clarity. JL

Bob Hoffman comments in his blog, The Ad Contrarian (hat tip Greg Satell):

I was invited to speak at a social media conference. The hen was in the fox house. My presentation was billed as a "fireside chat" between the organizer of the event (a guy I like and respect, Jason Falls) and myself.

The first question Jason asked me went something like this... "You have been critical of the social media marketing world from the get-go, yet you use it… quite well I might say. What's your point of contention and how can you reconcile that with your prolific use of the medium?"

Are Groups More Rational Than Individuals?

We have come to believe in the wisdom of crowds.

Even as technology and globalization have put ever more power and knowledge in the hands of the individual we mistrust his or her ability to act in their own rational self-interest.

But the results of additional research suggest that the outcomes are not so clear cut. That, in bowing to the great uncertainty of human endeavor, it depends.

This is, naturally, extremely frustrating to those who like their future secure and their facts irrefutable. The problem is that all that knowledge and power in the hands of more individuals has created greater instability because the additional information has led too many to confuse wattage for wisdom.

The dramatic growth of group-oriented enterprise, from social networks to crowd-funding venture capital has reinforced this bias.

So the larger question is how, when and why the differences occur. It is probably impossible to categorize all of the various instances in which these forces may come into play. The most logical approach is to understand that they exist and that presuming optimal - or sub-optimal - behavior is probably never a sure thing. JL

Timothy Taylor comments in his blog, The Conversable Economist:

A decision maker in an economics textbook is usually modeled as an individual whose decisions are not influenced by any other people, but of course, human decision-making in the real world is typically embedded in a social environment.

How Apple's and Google's Digital Mapping May Be Mapping Us

Privacy is no longer the issue.

We conceded on that one eons ago - or whatever measure is relevant in digital time.

But questions are being raised about whether the ubiquity of mapping technology and our dependence on it is changing the way we view the world economically, politically, militarily, diplomatically and, well, personally. In other words, are the assumptions that go into presenting maps and the data included with them - or left out - somehow altering how we think about the world around us?

It is probably too soon to answer the question. And this is not to suggest that either Apple or Google or any of their competitors (with the possible exception of Amazon...) have a conspiratorial master plan for global domination. But it is not clear that we want their assumptions to be our assumptions. Especially for those who live outside the United States and work outside the world of large corporations. Because the concern is that that is precisely the world view being communicated, however subtle and understated the presentation may be.

Whether this rises to the level of generalized, popular and, eventually, organized expressions of discontent remains to be seen. The likelihood is not great, given society's acquiescence to most other trends that enhance convenience. But it will be interesting to see whether the questions being raised are being heard - and that companies involved, given their focus on solving problems in order to expand market opportunities - may actually pay attention. JL

Oliver Burkeman reports in the Guardian:

Digital maps on smartphones are brilliantly useful tools, but what sort of information do they gather about us – and how do they shape the way we look at the world?