A Modern Def'n of Equality - Access is a Better Determinant than Biology

An excerpt from "ff21st" Chapter 12 pps. 277-278

---------------------------

Up until the attempt on my life, I more or less proposed the thinking that humanity was equal by the standards of the United Nations.  I did, however, hold some deep reservations that everyone was actually equal in terms of contribution to society, and of value to others on an individual level.

To me the sole determinant of equality should simply not be the fact that you biologically exist.  Not to create a lousy analogy, but there is still a common phrase in use, which people who have contributed little use in terms of validation, in comparison with those who have contributed significantly more.  That phrase is:  “their shit stinks the same as mine.”  My typical response to this assertion is to say “if your sole criterion for valuing another human’s relevance is the smell of their excrement, then you are right.”

The one area where I do fully believe there should be equality is in terms of “equality of access” and this principle I hold dear.  Every individual should have access to the ability to earn a living.  Every individual should have access to basic healthcare and medicine.  Every individual should have access to clean water, food and shelter.  Every individual should have access to free movement around the globe.

I do not look at these as innate rights, rather ones that we as evolved citizens of the US should strive for, not only for our fellow Americans, but for people around the globe.  I don’t consider there to be any other equality claim other than the access points.  Every individual with their basic needs taken care of, now has the ability to live where they want, earn a living, choose how to live their life.  They must find their own way which to me is the true life experience.  Of course, even now as we approach 2050 there are still many parts of the world that have to improve in all of these areas.

Valuing Wealth

Chapter 2 - pages 25, 26

The foundation of my thinking was that those individuals who make the greatest contribution to their field should reap the greatest returns in terms of power, leadership and of course financial reward.  The other premise is that there needed to be a shift in what was considered a rewarding industry.  For example, actors can make millions of dollars for entertaining American children, while teachers make tens of thousands for teaching them.  Business leaders make millions or even billions of dollars while scientists make a fraction of that.

As a corollary thought, those who made the least contribution should not expect to receive much beyond basic sustenance.  America was founded on hard work, initiative and honesty and these types of efforts would gain reward in the immediate future.  However, those who chose to do very little or thought that life owed them a living were soon to find out that America owed them nothing.

My goal was never, nor will it ever be, to dictate the income, power or leadership that any individual could attain, but rather to have society at large play a greater role in determining what roles are worthy of substantive financial rewards, and which are not.  Just to make a simple argument, does a baseball player deserve to make five million dollars while a fireman makes fifty thousand dollars?  Many Americans of course who believe in complete freedom say yes due to their belief in freedom and the free market.  Many people will find it hard to comprehend that I agree with these principles as well.  What I set out to do though, was to have the market and society change the definition of freedom to personal responsibility and have a free market where ethics, values and contribution were considered the most valuable characteristics of successful people.

Excerpt from Chapter 6 -- Constructive Capitalism

Chapter 6  --  page 100

-------------------------

One of my guiding business principles is what I referred to as “Constructive Capitalism."  Let’s face it, I got rich simply by making the world a better place.  That was always my goal from a young age.  I’ll be honest and admit that I also went into business for recognition, wealth and challenge.  However, I always operated with the philosophy that I would like to build a legacy that would be respected.  When my company developed the efficient food product known as “NutrisHouse” Bars which delivered a person’s complete nutritional daily requirements, then that really was the fulfillment of my dreams.  I ultimately have far surpassed any and all of my hopes.

Upon my company’s ultimate success in the USA and Europe, we then started developing the same food products for poorer countries.  The products for these regions cost about a third of the more consumer-oriented products that were being sold and marketed in the western areas.  Of course, everyone knows that the flavor was not as good and the packaging was not as elaborate, but the nutrition value was the same.  Every single country in the world that imported NutrisHouse Bars saw improved health almost immediately.  Even where there were still dictators and civil wars at the time, the health of the citizens improved.

 “Constructive Capitalism” evolved as a concept that in essence requires a company in order to be successful to do doing something tangibly beneficial to improve the state of the world.  This was not necessarily a unique concept that I developed, rather a progression of the changing consumer-mindset and some companies realizing that it was in their best interest to go this route in order to maximize profitability.  “Constructive Capitalism” was also not just about financial contribution either.  Just writing a check to a charitable organization seemed unsettling to most people after the success of NutrisHouse Bars where genuinely positive results were being realized.  Consumers would not accept anymore that if a company does business they just cannot hand over a payment to make them feel or in the worst case scenario, look good.  The contribution of the company must be genuine, involve the resources of the company and be done with the spirit of improving the conditions in the surrounding areas.  Even in the US, the spirit of corporate contribution became more about first-hand infrastructure development rather than continuing to do “fun runs, bake sales and raffles”, as Bill Gates put it in 2007.

Excerpt from Chapter 1 - changing perspective towards wealth

Chapter 1 -  Pages 8 & 9

---------------------------

Historically, where the personal valuation had gone awry, however, was in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth.  The mere possession of money had come to supersede the means of accumulating it.  In the early twenty-first century, any individual could accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one made on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of that system, however, is that one could accumulate wealth at the expense of others.  This was a flawed model, as the most aggressive people and organizations, that seemingly prioritized wealth and power, ended up accumulating a disproportionate amount of both and subsequently started persecuting and taking an authoritative position in relation to those who had less.  This ultimately led to the “Occupy Movement” in 2011 and 2012.

America fortunately came to realize that accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. Through the “New Freedom Initiative” (NFI), wealth that was accumulated without adding value to individuals or society, started to become less respected or desired, and per my initial point regarding human judgment, “unsavory money” actually became judged as negative by a great majority of Americans.  Just as an easy example, banks in America came to refuse drug money out right by 2015.

The effect of this unsavory label was to encourage individual and corporate wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of society.  It would also serve to keep those who had amassed their fortunes in a less than honorable manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.  No one ever argued that any individual could not make money in America any way they liked.  What came to pass, however, was that the holding of that money did not automatically include power and influence along with it.

By the mid-2030s, ethics have since returned and are now a key component to wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is reasonably proportionate to the contribution one makes throughout that process.

In today’s world, those individuals that provide the greatest benefit to society receive the greatest return in terms of money, property, power and authority.  As a result, most people can claim a higher level of happiness and stability in 2043 than they ever could in 2013.  This claim to happiness extends well beyond American borders into parts of the world where in 2013 even having a claim on clean water was rare.  The world genuinely has improved significantly as a result of changed attitudes toward money.

Money As A Measure of Individual Value

Money is a great development to humanity.

Humanity by nature is extremely judgmental and money at least is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth and our placement in society.

Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.

The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than savory manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.

Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.

Let me state clearly that anyone is still free to amass as large a fortune as they may want.

Ethics though need to be re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.

The Recognition Era - Part 2, What It Means "Top Ten" List conc.

This post is the continuation of a previous post on Friday, June 15, 2012.

---------------------------------------------------

Six.  Irresponsibility.  The world is very complex and it is pretty tough in today`s social, business, political arenas to assign blame to an individual.  Even in instances whereby direct blame is is obvious the subject can easily find excuses for poor performance.  Problem solving and putting out fires is a better skill these days than foresight.

Seven.  Apathy.  People care about what they consider important more than ever and not much else.  Further,as the need for recognition is paramount, effort will only be put towards areas whereby there can be acknowledgement.  Subsequently, if recognition cannot be attained then people won't care and will not put any effort at all towards areas in which there is no success.

Eight.  Triviality.  Recognition for its own sake does not require significance.  Therefore, people will attempt to succeed in areas that are niche and quite likely inconsequential.  Being acknowledged for being good at something trumps the importance of the activity as well as any type of moral contribution.  As recognition is the key driver, the means of acknowledgement is inconsequential therefore non-traditional socially acceptable means will become mainstream.  Crime, pornography, abhorrent behavior.

Nine.  Ease.  Very few people appear to want to work hard for anything these days.  Recognition and success have to come easy and early for anyone to pursue it.  No one wants to see the fruits of their labor materialize three years down the road.  Instant impact and rewards are what drives motivation in the twenty-first century so abandonment of difficult tasks will occur frequently.

Ten.  Individuality.  Recognition is greatest when it is a singular achievement.  More and more people will strive to be acknowledged for their own efforts rather than being part of a collaborative team. Within the team environment as well there is a need to be considerate and follow much more procedure which is the bane of individuality. As everyone feels that they know what is the best course of action for them, then teamwork will become the antithesis of the individually minded person.

All these things in total do not necessarily require negativity rather a willingness to be accommodating and an ability to manage in this new Recognition era.

The Recognition Era - What It Means "Top Ten" List

As the world becomes less focused on accomplishment and more on recognition here is what we can expect.  Here is a proverbial Top Ten list split into two postings.

Firstly, an overall decrease in quality of just about everything.  From clothes, to cars, to food you name it, it will get worse.  The exception of course will be at the high-end or luxury type items whereby those who can afford quality will be able to purchase it.  Everything will be built or grown to ultimately be disposable so quality will be a secondary goal.  Consumers expect their products now to be functional and design-oriented.  Durability is not something younger generations strive for as they are used to products being replaced regularly due to advancing technologies, evolving trends which has lead to an inherent obsolescence of goods and services.

Two.  Transiency.  There will be an increased growth in movement as people can simply leave one area or sector where they are not getting enough attention and search out greener pastures.  The easiest way to get recognition is to be the "new guy" as expectations are usually lower while attention is usually at its peak.  People will however, will still want to gravitate upwards in their careers so expect a lot more movement as candidates for internal promotion become less and less available.

Three.  Sound-bites.  The recognition era is of course driven by short attention spans and digital media.  Therefore, do not ever expect to have time to explain yourself fully.  Every message including personal conversation has to be delivered quickly.  The result will be that society and business more forward in a piece-meal fashion and requires leadership who can respond quickly and effectively but also mobilize those around them to respond as well.  Think of it as flash mob leadership.

Four.  Inconsistency.  Most people these days hold more of a go with the flow approach.  Just look at the political world to see that what the candidates said five years ago is no longer meaningful nor are they even individually accountable for it.  The world is changing very fast and new information surfaces constantly so what worked last week may no longer be even relevant.  Planning will become less influential when compared to the need for speedy reaction times.

Five.  Success.  Success will not be 100% measured in terms of pay and income.  Flexibility of working, unique processes and freedom of action will become paramount.  No one who thinks they are special want to do things the same way as everyone else.  Quick promotion and titles will be more important.  Expect the companies that get and retain the best people to be the ones with the least amount of management.  Plus, many younger people have access to their boomer parents wealth and know they are OK financially.

Numbers 6 through 10 will be available on Wednesday, June 20, 2012.

Bringing Back Ethics: "The Spirit of Law"

America needs to bring back morality and ethics into the private operations of corporations and in the mindset of individual citizens.

One hallmark of the modern world is that organizations, corporations and individuals try to find loopholes in the system that work for their advantage and then stand on the their principals and claim that they did nothing wrong when it blows up. This practice absolutely has to be ended.

The recent Wall Street meltdown is a primary example of this practice whereby the financial firms ultimately had a whole team of lawyers who tear apart every piece of legislation in order to find the gaps or the opportunities within the legislation that are open to them. They then proceed to find ways around the overseeing institutions such as the SEC in order to continue their actions. 

The obvious problem in this approach is that it undermines the intent of the legislation and results in border line illegal activities that benefit very few people but also serve to undermine society in general. Whether one sees intervention in the private sector as socialist or not it has been demonstrated time after time that if left to its own devices, the free market forces will do what is in their selfish best interest and then not be held accountable for any damage done to others.  They do this with a clear conscience as they are able to claim that they have technically done nothing illegal.

The issue is not that they have been able to usurp the legislation rather that what they have done, though not technically illegal, it is definitely 100% unethical.  Morality has gone out of the current American way of thinking.

However, in order to overcome this monstrous gap in America, weherby societal ethics have been abandoned by the "ME generation", what needs to be implemented are "Spirit of Law" provisions whereby the actual intent of the legislation is considered legally binding over and above the actual specifics of the legislation itself.

In today' world, it is pretty unrealistic to imagine that any legisaltive body would be able to create a set of rules that will cover every and all future situations that might arise or have yet to be imagined.

The "Spirit of Law" legal provision will make individuals and corporations legally bound to follow through on the intetnion of the legisaltion rather trying to find ways to circumvent it. Under the "Spirit of Law" mantra any entity that finds loopholes in legislation and then exploits them would be held criminally liable and subject to prosecution.

Americans have to embrace a mindset whereby they respect the intent and spirt of the US way of life rather than imagining ways to co opt it for their own selfish purposes. 

Myanmar: How To Help Emerging Democratic Nations

The election of Suu Kyi yesterday in Myanmar is a great opportunity for US foreign relations in terms of assisting the evolution of democracy in a new part of the world.

The traditional USA role of "all or nothing" support for the pro-democracy forces has to be abandoned by a willingness to work with the entirety of the Myanmar government, including President Thien's ruling party in spite of it's human rights history.

America has the opportunity now due to softening hard-line domestic policies there to act as a consultant along with other foreign powers rather than as an unilateral force which imposes it's will. The best way to lay a foundation for a free and democratic future in Myanmar is to offer expertise and infrastructure and not militant rules and threats.

As many more emerging countries enter the global economic community, I would suggest that an advisory group be established that represents many national and private interests such that Myanmar and others avoid many of the democratic failures which ultimately end up no further ahead in the long run (look to just about every country in Africa for examples).

The advisory panel goals should be to stabilize the country, encourage and protect foreign investment, educate the citizens on democratic principals and support the ruling party. The advisory board needs to be collaborative rather than punitive such that the nation can move forward in the right direction and will also help to avoid the attempted coup's and public rebellion which seem to be inevitable in the 21st century.

A democratic and economically focused international advisory board would be a first step in assisting emerging countries cope while maintaining their sovereignty through non-political or military intervention.

"Contribution" -- The Future is not so Bleak

More and more people want to be involved with the political system.

A spirit of disillusionment with all levels of government has crept into the psyche of many Americans.  In general, people want America to continue to be a global powerhouse but have lost faith in those who govern as well as our institutions.  This current spirit of disenfranchisement if permitted to continue will lead America further away from position as the worlds thought-leader as well as its economic engine.

The culture of selfishness that is the defining characteristic of the "ME" generation has lead to the place we are now.  This generation sadly has abandoned the spirit of JFK who requested of his fellow Americans to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".  I feel it is pretty safe to say that our current members of government and the financial elite of this nation do no think this way in the least.  This is not surprising that these same individuals have lived a hedonistic, self-centered life in terms of their own lives, careers and families.  They hold little regard or interest for their "fellow Americans".

This innate selfishness of the current generation of power-holding Americans however, is being over-shadowed by a movement that embraces compassion, contribution and personal responsibility within the under 30 group of Americans.  Younger Americans want to make a difference not only for themselves but for those around them and not just in their immediate sphere of influence.  Young people want to make a positive impact not only for themselves but for their neighborhood environment as well as the national and global communities.  

The "Occupy" movement was a tangible manifestation of this new spirit of Americanism that the younger generation feels.  However, where they stumbled was in their ability to properly articulate and coordinate themselves during their attempts to express their level of frustration if not outright contempt for the current systems.

Our next generation genuinely puts America first even if they don't know how to say that just yet.

"Contribution" as the foundation of ones personal success will be the hallmark of the new generation and is the correct future for America.

"Ethical Capitalism"...The Next Big Thing in Corporate Profitability

Corporate America is the foundation of America's strength.  The greatest hope for America are its corporations...really!


Many people would likely argue that corporations are self-interested, money-grabbing organizations devoid of any human empathy.  And, this is in fact in most instances is probably quite true. But, embedded inherently within that attitude lies the potential for that self-interest to make a significant positive impact on Americans.

The business movement that is currently evolving is that corporations will see increased profits as the direct result of benevolent actions. I refer to this as "ethical capitalism".

Case in point is the "green" movement.  As public pressure and business opportunities are created due to a demand for cleaner environmental initiatives then it has been demonstrated that this is an area where companies will focus their attention.  The decision by corporations to pursue profits in the environmental arena is a business one and not personal.  To my earlier point, businesses will naturally gravitate to the revenue opportunity and therefore environmental initiatives have become part of the American corporate mindset thus providing a strong sustainability platform for long into the future.


What should be the next step in the green revolution of profitability is that corporations profit more from doing societal-friendly activities.  From a marketing perspective, companies have long known that being seen as part of the community and a good corporate citizen is good for business. Companies will line-up for opportunities to sponsor charitable causes and to provide safe products because the consumer population demands them and it is good for their brand building objectives. Therefore, corporations know that the appearance of being a good citizen is good for business in terms of building brand value and from a product standpoint safety leads to a reduction in the number of law suits and reducing insurance premiums.


The next tactic then in the evolution of corporate contribution is to go well-beyond charitable support, fund-raising and brand building and to make resources and expertise available to the public at large.  For an easy example, one area where corporations can have a dramatic and immediate impact is in terms of disaster relief.  Whenever something happens around the USA the corporations should be the first ones on the scene to help.


The Hurricane Katrina flood in New Orleans could have benefited dramatically from local and national corporations by having access to their expertise in order to provide relief, rebuild the city and care for those affected by the devastation.  A wide variety of companies could easily have pitched in by providing human expertise, labor, supplies, management coordination rather than just providing funds or basic supplies like water and blankets.  Further, corporations are used to working within an integrated network of other companies and suppliers to achieve their goals which is something that governmental agencies cannot claim.  It would have been much easier for a home improvement retailer to work with engineers and contractors to rebuild parts of the city rather than having to wait for governmental resources to coordinate the effort.  Corporations also have the luxury of operating by objectives and have to be less considerate of public attitudes.


If corporations actually pitched in first-hand to actually address the immediate problems then they would be rewarded by increased brand recognition, sales increases and consumer loyalty...all of which which would lead to enhanced profitability and stock price for the company. The result of "ethical capitalism" is increased corporate benefits to the bottom-line through benefiting America.

The Real Value of Money

Money is a great gift to humanity.

Humanity by nature is judgmental and money is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth and our placement in society.

Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.

The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than savory manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.

Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.

Let me state clearly that anyone is free to amass as large a fortune as they choose.

Ethics though need to be re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.