Good Enough

So, I promised to blog about solutions, and not just problems. And, after a lot of thought, here's what I've got.

I think the biggest point that I took away from my last post is that the Invisible Hand reflects the needs and desires of the individuals who participate in the market. So, I've used this as the foundation for how we might approach solutions to our economic crisis and, more specifically, what I need to do as an individual. After listening to all the talk about the cause of the economic crisis, the bottom line is pretty clear: too many of us spent more than we could afford and we hit the tipping point that turned the many individual debt situations into a national and international economic crisis. We can debate who's fault it is (Main Street's for taking the credit or Wall Street's for giving the credit) but regardless, those of us who are equipped with this knowledge are responsible for applying it.

That being said, I think our first step is that we all have to take a really hard look at our financial situations. We have to ask this question and be really honest with ourselves when we answer: Do I have the money to buy [fill in the blank]? And, btw, the definition of "money" here, lest it's not completely clear, is real-time, real cash and not credit. Now, I'm going to speak from personal experience and say that, sometimes, this isn't enough. I can't count how many times I've asked myself this question, answered "no" and still purchased something, and not even something necessary. So, I've been asking myself, why does this happen? For me, a lot of rationalizing happens. My definition of "need" can be become very flexible: Well, I can't walk around work with a pair of scuffed up pumps, I need to look professional to compete in the workplace. My definition of "money" can become very flexible: : I know the money is coming in on Tuesday when I get paid, so I'm not really paying on credit. And, for me, a host of social and emotional factors can come into play.

Also, it's embarassing to admit, but at 31 I still sometimes struggle with the concept of being "cool", the more youthful cousin of fitting in and being good enough. And, this brings me to something that I believe is more at the heart of the matter, at least for us Americans. I believe that our culture thrives on the use of economy to stoke the fires of social competition. Meaning, that we live in and promote a culture where nothing is ever good enough and, thus, none of us is ever good enough. And, this doesn't just apply to 31 year old ladies with residual self-esteem issues. I am flabbergasted when I hear mothers talk about the stresses of buying school clothes for their children, or throwing the best birthday party with impressive enough gift bags, or not wanting to give a birthday gift that is considered insufficient. Or having to find the best school, the best camp, the best tudor, the best gymnastics, dance, piano, band, soccer, football, baseball, karate...the list goes on. We have all "bought" ourselves a culture of competition of things. Rather than focusing on our fundamental, internal selves and promoting a lifestyle of acceptance and support that cannot be taken from us, we have built a bubble upon which our self-worth is precariously balanced and inextricably tied into material belongings that we, so obviously now, cannot sustain. And, while this applies to "Main Street" folks, it seems to me it is only magnified substantially by the people at AIG, Lehmen Bros, etc....who were so willing to sacrifice other people's livelihoods to provide the lifestyle they required. I'm not suggesting we sympathize with the rat bastards. I'm in full support of yanking their golden parachutes. But, they are humans, and I have to wonder if they weren't seduced into a more extreme version of what we are facing and that resulted in their exteremely poor judgement and behavior. This is a different blog entry, though.

So, from my perspective and for my own personal experience, I believe the bedrock of a long term solution to this problem is changing our paradigm about "stuff". This is a journey I've been working on a few years now, but there are always things along the way that contribute to your progress and I view this moment in our history as a particularly significant one because it is shared by so many. And, I think the real message here is that: We are good enough. We are good enough just as we are, right now, right this minute, with our without the stuff we have, regardless of our financial situations. We are just plain ok. And, that's good enough.

And, building upon that we have to integrate this belief into our daily lives. For example, living in DC with a social group of, for the most part, affluent social peers, even going to dinner can become an issue. It is not uncommon for me to spend $50-80 dollars (on 1 person) while out with friends at a nice restaurant. Now, I'm not saying that this in and of itself is bad. Except that, the reality is, I can't afford to do that as frequently as I do. The reality is, this needs to be a special occassion for me. Which means, thanks to a wonderful array of friends, I am going to have to learn to say "No" more than I say "Yes". And, because I happen to enjoy facilitating social events, I'm going to have to learn to stop myself from instigating certain types of social events before I've thought through whether I can really afford them. But, what I face, even as I write this, is that it does make me feel a little "less than" to admit that I can't afford the lifestyle I've been living. But, that's the point, isn't it? That is the bottom line of the change I'm proposing we have to make. We first have to admit that we can't afford the lifestyles we've been living, and then we have to be ok with that. We have to find a way to feel good enough even in light of this "failure". This, I think, will be hard. But, this, I think, will be a significant accomplishment for our social psyche. And, this, I think will require support from one another. Perhaps this is optimistic, but perhaps the fabric of our American community can turn from being so erroded by our current situation and can be fortified by the support we can give one another, that we are just right, just as we are.

Ok, enough on that particular topic. Beyond this, there is another thing we need to do. As I said in the beginning of this blog, the market reflects what we as participants in the market do. That said, we can't operate on the assumption that our financial instituttions will employ the ethics that we would expect or approve of. So, we as individual consumers are going to have to start making conscientious, intentional choices about where we put our money and what we do with it. This is hard because, who has time really to figure this stuff out? But, just like making environmentally friendly choices (or choices that reflect whatever beliefe we have), we have to know what we're supporting with our wallets. This is the primary way that we can hold them accountable. And, just like many investments, it will take time and lots of people to make it happen. But, it can happen. We just have to stick with it. If we want the price of hybrid cars to go down, we have to buy more hybrid cars, not less of them, so that the companies will make more hybrid cars and we can then gain the benefit of scale. Same with the banks. If banks are participating in operations we don't approve of, we have to go to another bank. We have to show them that there is no market for what they are offering and, eventually, they will have to provide other products and services. This certainly isn't the end all, be all. But, it's the leverage of the Invisible Hand at work.

We can also take civil disobedience as an approach. We can protest/march/sit in on institutions who are promoting and pursuing tactics that we take issue with. This may speed up their response. But, it will take our time and committment. And, again, we're voting with our feet. If we want it enough, we'll do it. If we don't....we know what can happen.

On an individual note, we can make other choices to protect ourselves. Related to credit, people with good credit were amazed at how their creditors kept piling it on. But, you know, you don't have to take it. You can, again, say "No". Call the bank when they give you another extension to your line of credit and say "No". You can exercise this control over your financial situation. And, it's a responsible thing to do. It shows you understand your financial situation and the risks involved. It also shows you have a sense of what is enough for you.

And, lastly, because I've gone on long enough, I would refer people to an Oprah show from this week (I know, I know). Ali Velshi, CNN senior business correspondant, gives a great basic and understandable explanation of what is going on. Then, Suze Orman gives some great basic advice about how to manage your money right now. Here's the link to the show summary on Oprah's website: http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/20081003_tows_economy/1
And, here' s a summary of Suze's rules:
1. Protect your savings
2. Pay on your credit card debt
3. Get health and term life insurance
4. Continue contributing to your retirement
5. "Stop spending what you can't afford!"

Enough is Enough

The time has come for my little problem-solving blog to grow up and look to more serious issues than games. The obvious choice is the current economic crisis that America is facing. I don't claim to be economically savvy. The only D I've ever gotten was in an economics course in college (at the time I had the brilliant idea to study Russian and economics so that I could bring capitalism to post-Soviet Russia...uh, not so much...I never even enrolled in a Russian class). I have unnecessary, shameless consumer debt (no mortgage though) that would make Suze Orman yell at me on national television. I don't balance my checkbook. I borrow from Peter to pay Paul....and Mary and Bob and Bruce. My idea of budgeting pretty much consists of paying my bills and enjoying what's left as expendable income, usually in denial of the long term goals that I really would like to achieve but I don't seem to have the ability to commit to. Or, when I am being cognizant of such matters, feeling stupid and guilty for being in this financial predicament. My point here is that I'm a regular "Jill Six Pack" when it comes to economic matters and I pretty much fall in with the masses who live beyond their means.

That being said, I'm roaring mad about the country's financial predicament and, despite my personal financial shortcomings, I'm still entitled to an opinion about what we should do about the national situation. And, because I believe in trying to solve problems, and because I believe fervently that Americans will have to solve America's problems, I'd like to discuss it here. I believe this particular moment in history is an incredibly profound opportunity for us all to take a long, hard look at our individual situations, as well as for us to re-examine ourselves as a community, many communities, forming a significant nation.

My thoughts on the matter fall into the following categories:

The Invisible Hand is good
The Invisible Hand didn't know about viral marketing or the secondary mortgage market
The people using the Invisible Hand are...not so much good as greedy
This is not just an economic problem

Here we go....

One of my most profound and vivid memories from school was learning about the Invisible Hand. Learning about Adam Smith and his thoughts, his theories and lessons about this almost magical economic force resonated with me. It seemed logical. It is logical. I don't dispute it today. Well, not really. This is where my lack of economic savvy gets me. I like the Invisible Hand. It seems plausible. It makes sense. It seems natural. This is why I like it. And this is why, in theory, I still like it. It's the voting with your feet aspect of it I like. You need something, someone provides it, you pay a fee. If someone else makes the same thing for cheaper, you go for that. Someone makes a better product for not too much more, you go there. The market balances itself out, theoretically to the benefit of all involved. In smaller communities, in a bubble, in another time and another place this might happen. Without unnatural external influences, this might happen.

What do you mean, "unnatural" influences? Well, I think that back in Adam Smith's time, there was a natural limit to the scope of product and the choices in the marketplace. For example, without cars and trucks, ships and airplanes, consumers were limited to the product in the relatively immediate vicinity. This naturally limited 1) the quantity and quality of product available, 2) the number of producers who could provide it, and 3) the number of consumers who might need or desire the products. I'm sure some will argue that this doesn't matter, we're a global economy now, and all this does is give consumers greater choice. That may be true. I'm not against the global economy. It's just not as manageable, for individuals, or governments, apparently. Simply speaking, things were simpler, therefore the economy was simpler.

Secondly, there wasn't the ability to mass advertise, identify target markets, spam snail mail boxes, email boxes, voice mail boxes, and proactively advertise to the unwilling. Sure, there was some of that. But, honestly, there just wasn't time, or expense, or demand. No doubt, the Pony Express surely carried some unnecessary and unsolicited mail in its day. But, honestly, how much do you think it really was? There was just no point. Now, we have some much data and information, plus the means to propagate it, practically without cost...or consequence. Except, I think there is consequence. I believe these factors provide, if not unnatural, unexpected impacts to the economy that, perhaps, couldn't be predicted, identified or measured early on.

Lastly, without the leisure time afforded by the industrial age, or the data access, analysis and storage offered by the computer age, it would not have been possible to create and (mis)manage some of the financial products created that contributed to the current economic crisis. I just don't believe that it would be possible create and sell and manage mortgage-backed securities in a time that had to keep paper files. It would be too much. Too much paper, too much complexity, too much math to handle. "Invented" products just get out of hand. Some will say the same applies to stocks and other investment mechanisms. I agree that, to an extent, that is true. However, it appeared that, to a certain degree, things were manageable. And, then they weren't. They aren't. And, they don't seem likely to be for a while.

Now, if you will accept my argument of "unnatural" influences, I'll move on to my next point. That is, given all these new mechanisms to apply to the Invisible Hand, certain people, greedy people, became inclined to twist the strings and manipulate the Invisible Hand like a marionette with an invisibility cloak. These people (AIG, Lehman Brothers, Congress, others) have used these mechanisms to their advantage, all the while ignoring the consequences of their actions. Intended or not, at this point they are indisputable. They were identifiable long before now. But, these people did not care. They continued to take their actions, without regard for their fellow Americans, or America. They contributed to grossly disproportionate economic values. An article from www.thewashingtonpost.com (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/after_bailout_aig_executives_h.html?hpid=topnews) states "Joseph Cassano, the executive in charge of the company's troubled financial products division, received more than $280 million over the last eight years, Waxman said. Even after he was terminated in February as his investments turned sour, the company allowed him to keep up to $34 million in unvested bonuses and put him on a $1 million-a-month retainer. He continues to receive $1 million a month, Waxman said." Let's think about this: This individual averaged $35 million a year for 8 years, and even now he makes $1 million a month. For the 8 years he ran a problem work division that, I presume, was troubled in the sense that it was losing money. Now, he continues to make $1 million a month, or $12 million a year "on retainer". "On retainer" usually means doing other work, contributing to his bottom line while collecting money for not much. Now they are reporting that one of these troubled banks, some of whom turned down reasonable offers to be bought, before turning to Congress for a better deal, just a week later have gone out and spent $400,000 on a retreat. Here's my question: Is there any one person who is really worth $1 million a month? Really?? Here's another one: Is a $400,000 executive retreat at a spa ever necessary?? Really?? I just don't think so.

And, this brings me to my last point. This is not an economic crisis, or not just an economic crisis. This is a crisis of morals, of democracy, of our national identity. We, as individuals and as a nation, are simply not able to accept when enough is enough. Now, I can't put an exact dollar value on "enough". But, I feel quite certain that $12 million dollars a year is more than enough for anyone. Don't get me wrong, I believe in capitalism and entrepreneurialship that might allow someone to make that much money. I do believe in that Invisible Hand. But, what I don't believe is that anyone really needs that much money. And, I don't believe how anyone who does make that much money sleeps at night if they are doing so in a cowardly, selfish way that takes the skin off the backs of other people. Enron, AIG, Lehman Brothers...the rest of them...line them up. They are a group of individuals who decided that free market meant they didn't have to give a damn about anyone else. Any of the real people who worked for them, who helped them get where they are.

I do believe in the Invisible Hand. And the Invisible Hand does balance out to the market. But, that market is created by the needs and desires of the people who make it up. If we are a people who care about the Earth upon which we live and the people and animals with whom we share it, our choices will be different and the ever masterful Invisible Hand will reflect that. If our choices are based upon greed and intentional denial of the consequences of our actions upon others, the Invisible Hand will show that as well. There is no poker face in the free market. Like it or not, the Invisible Hand always shows our cards eventually. And, given our global economy, we are all in it together. We can't avoid the fact that as individuals our actions impact others and that the actions of other individuals impact the whole and, as a result, us as individuals. Frankly, I've had enough.

Forget Scrabulous

OK, so, it's clear that I'm not exactly the blogger I set out to be. After some root cause analysis I've determined that I'm being far too much of a perfectionist about it. I'll think of something and think "I should blog about that." But, since I don't have hours to put towards the effort and it might not be perfect (i.e., smart, intelligent, interesting, unique enough...I could go on), I'm cutting myself short of the good enough and acceptable and perfectly fine blog entries I might post. This is not to say it's quantity over quality, I'm just striving for balance here.

So, that said, here's the next post, in all of it's imperfection. And, it does happen to be about solving a gaming problem and that game does happen to be on Facebook. I do not plan on doing any analysis of the corollary between my lack of hours to perfect articulate, intellectual, witty, and compelling blog entries and my possibly many hours spent examining the FB user experience, permissions structure, and multitude of applications and virtual games. I just want to know if there is a way to merge a few of my favorite things:
- Sudoku/puzzles
- Parlour games
- The Internet/FB

So, yes, there are Sudoku games on FB and they are perfectly acceptable for a solitary number game on the Internet. I can even time myself and compare scores. I do love to better and best myself - it shows growth. (Although, I do admit I prefer to play without a timer.) And, when one is too lazy to take the laptop off the lap and work with pen and paper, it allows for greater convenience to fully submerge oneself into the webosphere along with email, messaging, blogging, etc....

There are also a few Sudoku games that allow you to "challenge" your FB friends. I do love to (try to) better and best my friends in the virtual space because it can be humorous, amusing, fun, and the results are in writing for your whole virtual world to see. Note that I am not a terribly competitive person and am just as happy with losing as winning (most of the time, Monopoly is an exception that surely has put nations into war and broken up the most solid of marriages). I just like to play, with people. However, there are a few problems.

Here's the first: The challenges are completely dependent upon REAL TIME. That is, for it to be any fun at all, you and your "virtual" friend must be playing the game at the very same time, usually within a short period of time. To me, this sort of defeats the purpose of the virtual community and interactions. And, I do believe it was a part of the appeal of Scrabulous to have the time to ponder and play around with your word, play it, and come back later to have a little linguistic present waiting for you upon your return to FB world. It had a rhythm to it that made it not demanding, but leisurely, natural, and easy, even with the most distant of friends.

The second challenge is that Sudoku is, by its very nature, a solitary game. So, the challenge versions of Sudoku involve two people playing the same Sudoku game and competing strictly on time. This disappoints me. It's not fun. You can't see what the other person is doing, how they came to do what they did. It brings to mind the lyrics from the great Three Dog Night song: "One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do / Two can be as bad as one /It's the loneliest number since the number one." No, I don't believe they were pontificating the feelings of an online gamer of sorts, but the sentiment resonates nonetheless. This form of multiplayer Sudoku leaves much to be desired.

Now, it may just be that Soduku is meant to be a solitary game. And, it may even be debatable that Sudoku involves much strategy, if any. So, perhaps, it wouldn't be enjoyable as a multi-player game. But, I'm intrigued.

So, my problem to be solved is this: Is it possible to make a multiplayer version of Sudoku that would be enjoyable online, in the FB format? What would that game be like, taking into consideration the challenges noted above.

Inaugural Post - Hasbro/Scrabrulous incident

I can't think of a better, or more fun, way to kick off this blog than to throw the Hasbro/Scrabulous incident out there for collaboration and discussion. I'm going to come back and answer my own questions later. But, for now, what are your thoughts? Is there a mutually agreeable solution that will allow people to play Scrabulous, the copyright infringements to be resolved, Hasbro to receive revenue from Scrabulous, and the Scrabulous developers not have to be sued? I think so. Let's figure it out!

Background:
NY Times BITS
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.co
m/2008/07/29/facebook-shuts-down-scrabulous/?scp=1&sq=scrabulous&st=cse

Problem: People want to play Scrabulous on Facebook (if they didn't, the problem and all related legalities would be moot) but Scrabulous infringes on copyrights owned by Hasbro.

Solutions:

1. Hasbro buys Scrabulous
2. Hasbro and Scrabulous makers come up with agreement (at least figure out how to make it work at reasonable speeds)
3. More???
   

Tangential possibilities:

1. Hasbro borrows some Scrabulous and reinvigorates their stagnant board/bored (no pun intended) game in real life.
2. Hasbro strikes a deal with Scrabulous makers to reinvigorate some of their other board/bored (again) games IRL.
3. What else??
   

Just for thought:
How can we transform, or at least make modernize, the following games IRL?

• Scrabble
• Connect Four
• Candy Land
• Chutes and Ladders
• Taboo
• Battleship
• Cranium
• Monopoly
• Boggle
• Clue

Which of these games, or others, would translate to Facebook? How would they work? Would you play?

Related Issues:

1. Is this any different than putting it on Facebook: http://www.scrabulous.com/?
   
2. Productivity - Many articles/blogs about this incident are making off hand remarks about increased productivity. Should we be taking them seriously?
   
3. Free on the internet - Is it a realistic expectation that these games should be made available to us for free on the Internet?
4. How does this fit into Lessig's IP model?