Mauldin on Energy
John Mauldin comments on the US energy policy in a recent newsletter subsection called
Some Thoughts on Energy. This is a great piece. He presents some great analysis and solid opinions. This passage sums it all up:
Either we are going to see the economic life sucked out of this country, or we can respond by doing everything that is in our power. There is not a shortage of energy. There is a shortage of leadership to produce the energy we need. A real energy policy would also have the benefit of boosting the beleaguered dollar.
Net. Net. We just need to start investing today, across the board, in all facets of cleaner energy, and in domestic natural resources. Period.
Alternative Energy Research
Leo Tolstoy once said: "The struggle with evil by means of violence is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud, in order that there may be no rain."
The US Government spent nearly $440 billion on military expenditures for the Department of Defense during fiscal year 2007. In 2008, the proposed spending increased to over $480 billion for the same subject matter. Of that amount, from what I've read, the US spends roughly $67 billion annually on this war.
In contrast, the US spends a mere $3 billion on energy research each year, according to the National Science Foundation. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the creator/inventor of the Internet (computer networking and hypertext) amongst other things, manages a roughly $3 billion budget as well. This is the agency of the US Department of Defense that has been responsible for funding the development of many technologies which have had a major impact on the world, in past years...
President Bush currently says that he is seeking about $10 billion for alternative energy research over the next five years as part of his proposal to reduce U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent by 2017. You have got to be kidding, right?
Albert Einstein once said: "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them."
It doesn't take a genius to realize that you're always better off solving the problem at the root cause (foreign energy dependence) rather than patching solutions (imperialism and aggressive foreign policy). This is such a exhaustive subject, but I'm hoping that the more we mention it, the more likely we spend our tax payer dollars on fixing the problem sooner rather than later.
We don't even need to spend that much on research to make simple changes to our energy policies. In the 70s, France migrated substantially away from oil and now generates about 75% of its power from nuclear power plants. That's worked successfully for them for nearly 30 years. In the US, in contrast, over 70% of our energy is derived from coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Although nuclear energy isn't ideal, it doesn't produce the air pollution that burning natural resources does and it unshackles us from a dependence on the Middle East. And, the technology is here now; including impressive solutions for nuclear waste remediation.
What do you think would happen if we tripled our annual energy research budget? Would we come up with a better solution than ethanol sooner? Would we have a better solution to our high consumer gas prices than the Prius? Possibly, probably... Considering the relative spend in the context of our war funding, it would seem like a smart diversion of funds if you ask me.
Demographics of Social Networks
Forbes has an interesting
article on the differences between users at Facebook and users at MySpace - arguing that the demographics differences are splitting among class lines.
Affluent kids from educated, well-to-do families have been fleeing MySpace for Facebook since it opened registration to the general public in September, while working-class kids still flock to MySpace.
This is an interesting notion, but I wonder if it hold up. Isn't the Internet the great equalizer?
I've touched on the subject of the natural
evolution of multiple social networks when I referred to Danah Boyd's essay. To touch on the subject again, I'm sure there is a lot of room for continued evolution and I think it's still to early to determine what the real differences will be between Facebook and MySpace. I'm still curious as to the evolution of the likes of Friendster, ASmallWorld, LinkedIn, Hi5, Orkut, Bebo, Bolt, Tribe, Rapleaf, doostang, AsianAvenue, BlackPlanet, GLEE, MiGente, and others that have yet to come about.
Empowering the Enterprise End User
This is probably not an entirely new topic, but I've been thinking about it for the past couple years. It's on the subject of choice in the enterprise IT department. I was tempted to call this post "The Rise of the Stupid Enterprise" but I figured that might be mis-construed. David Isen had it right as it related to the decentralization of communications networks. I believe that a version of this decentralization will happen to the CIO's office.
The software industry is emerging from a painful depression and entering an era where software as a service is without a doubt one of the most important innovations we've seen in a long time. That movement away from expensive client-server solutions & wide-scale enterprise site licenses to user-specific hosted solutions by third parties is rapidly changing the way enterprises buy software. It's enabling & empowering the end-users to identify, select, and adopt more quickly and, most importantly, act without having to rely on the IT or MIS department. What's this? Decentralization.
Wherever standards have been established, this trend is likely to take continue. We've seen it start with CRM, but I think that other enterprise apps are only inches behind. Tools such as VoIP and Mail/IM clients, ERP and SCM interfaces, and even business productivity suites, could become more influenced by end users, rather than mandated by IT / MIS. Movements such as SOA will only further distribute choice down from corporate to the business line to the end user. Bring it on! The enterprise software industry is entering the Age of Decentralization - let's keep empowering the end user.
Intellectual Happy Hour
Jack Welch posted a column in the April 23, 2007 issue of BusinessWeek that's dear to my heart. He posits that the US faces a "brain drain" from the "best & the brightest" MBA's electing to work for private equity firms & hedge funds rather than taking management roles in operating companies. This is a real problem in my opinion, and I wrote a thesis on the subject nearly ten years ago. I suggested that the "best & the brightest" undergraduate engineers were electing to work for consulting or investment banking firms rather than taking product development roles in operating companies.
That same BusinessWeek issue had a wonderful
article on the race to build an affordable car. That sounds like a losing proposition to any one of the major OEMs today if you ask me. Given the corporate overhead, expertise, & current troubles at the likes of GM, Ford, Daimler, Renault-Nissan, Chrysler, etc, a $2,500 car initiative couldn't be any less appealing to me as a shareholder. Why would you ever move downstream? Again, these sorts of decisions just highlight the incompetent managment of these organizations... it's not about volume folks, the game is profits!!
And,
Metcalfe has a fun read in Forbes on network effects and the evolution of computing & the human mind.
And so it goes...
Unfortunately, this is a very sad day,
Kurt Vonnegut, a classic writer & creative who was dear to me passed away today. I hope that he finds creative peace and company, Kilgore Trout will not be forgotten here....
The Myth of Market Share
A Wharton marketing professor,
J Scott Armstrong, recently published an article in Knowledge@Wharton on a subject matter that I've agreed with for as long as I can tell --- focusing on market share is not necessarily a good business strategy. Heck, I've posted here about how that strategy is clearly a false one in the auto industry. I'm sick to my stomach when I hear Ford or GM talk about market share. I really wish they spoke more about profits and profit margin (a concept that's clearly foreign amongst the Big 3).
A Life of Living Dangerously
Maxim has an
essay in its January issue titled "A Life of Living Dangerously" by Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, that is a must read. As usual, Hitchens is well spoken and opinionated in a subtle in-your-face way.
Most disturbing about his subject matter is the fact that this no-smoking revolution is even taking over France where all public places are already smoke-free and by January 2008 bars & cafes will be as well. I just can't imagine a Parisian cafe without the opulent stench of fresh Gauloises cigarettes. I obvsiously like it for my own health, but not for what it means to the culture - the image of France is defined in part by its smoky cafes and cigarette-puffing intellectuals.
As it relates to the US governing principles, Hitchens' conclusion is classic:
This is the only country in the history of the world that stipulates "the pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable human right. I once produced a book about Thomas Jefferson, who wrote those words, and I can tell you that nobody knows whether he meant pursuing happiness, or happiness itself as a pursuit. Whichever meaning he intended, it would clearly include the right to go to hell in your own way, and also the right to tell other people to go do the same.
A must read.
