______________________________________________________________________________

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

Well at least that’s to code, this is a wee bit more questionable:

At least this one isn’t, umm, slightly less than stable, but at a certain point, your pet’s favorite napping spot needs some TLC:

Or perhaps it’s just the house itself that is the abomination. How exactly is someone supposed to live in this thing:

Worry not folks, there’s more to come…

___________________________________________________________________________

Part 1

Part 2

______________________________________________________________________________

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

Four Loko Ban – For – Anti-Choice

Light bulb Choice – Against – Anti-Choice

Right-to-Work – Against – Anti-Choice

School Choice – Against – Anti-Choice

Abortion – For – PRO-CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess 1 out 6 equals pro-choice. However, if abortion is all about choice, should men get to choose whether to financially support a child they don’t want for 18 years? I suspect there would be little enthusiasm for such choice. Things that make you say ‘hmmm.’

I should note I could extend this list quite a long ways and will probably do so in the near future.

________________________________________________

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

Or how about this one, it’s a little dark put look closely:

Yes folks, that’s a ducting connected to plumbing. Luckily it was connected to the plumbing stack and not the rest of the ductwork. Now you just have a basement filled with poop instead of a house that smells like it.

And then there’s this monstrosity. The greatest/worst deck ever made:

And one more just for fun:

More to come.

______________________________________________________________________________

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

I consider Jim Collins to be the gold standard when it comes to business management literature. He has previously authored the bestselling and highly informative Built to Last, Good to Great and How the Mighty Fall. This time, he has teamed up with Morten Hansen to write Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos and Luck-Why Some Thrive Despite Them All. This book rounds out the, err, quadrilogy (so far that is) about what makes some companies great and others not-so-great. This one focuses, as the subtitle implies, on how some companies thrive in volatile environments.

Jim Collins’ strength is in simultaneously using massive amounts of research and finding a way to boil that down into a readable, coherent, almost bullet-point type narrative. For this boo, he had a team of 20 some researchers look through every major company in at least the last 50 years to find which one’s beat their industry averages by at least 10 times in highly volatile, unstable environments. He then puts forward memorable phrases to help build an overall framework. Terms such as “Level 5 Leadership,” “BHAG’s” and the “Hedgehog Concept” have become a part of the business lexicon. And in Great by Choice, he adds a few more.

I will start at the end, however, with what in my judgement is the most important part; great companies don’t survive turbulent times by luck. He and his team painstakingly went through each of the seven 10Xer’s and their comparisons (similar companies that did not perform well in uncertainty) and lists every notable event of either good luck or bad luck. As it turns out, there was no statistically relevant difference in the amount of good luck or bad luck the 10Xer’s had as compared to the control companies. In fact, the control companies had ever so slightly more good luck.

As a small aside, much was made about the case Malcolm Gladwell made in Outliers that much of what makes super successful individuals, super successful is luck. And while there is certainly some truth to this, he also makes the case that those outliers had to put at least 10,000 hours of work into their craft and have an IQ of around 120 or better (at least if they were in an intellectual field). It should also be noted that the less successful people he discussed who still had those types of qualifications were still quite successful, they just weren’t outlier successful. There are many less companies than individuals. Doing things the best way as an individual gives you a very high chance of success, and a shot at greatness. For companies, doing things the right way can all but ensure greatness. After all, tragically bad luck, like getting cancer, can kill an individual. But even if the CEO dies, a great company can still endure (assuming that CEO was a level 5 leader, of course).

Indeed, what Jim Collins finds is that a “return on luck” is what is important. Great companies make the most out of it when they are lucky and are able to stomach the blows when they are not. Mediocre companies, not so much.

How? Well, the keys all seem to lie in preparation and prudence. Here are some of the major points:

- 10Xer’s “20 Mile March.” In other words, they try to make consistent gains year after year, instead of taking major risks to try and jump ahead of or catch up to their competition.

- 10Xer’s “fire bullets instead of cannonballs.” What this means is that when entering a new market or adopting a new strategy, they test it out with a small cash investment instead of jumping into something new full throttle even if there appears to be a great opportunity or a sense of urgency.

- 10xer’s “live above the death line” and carry large cash reserves (much larger than the control companies). This way they are never in danger of bankruptcy and can jump on opportunities when they arise (i.e. return on luck).

-10Xer’s are paranoid about every possibility and prepare for every conceivable scenario in an almost fanatical way.

As Jim Collins discovered in How the Mighty Fall, making big bets with bad information is what usually kills great companies, not simply sulking into a slow, painful decline. And this book shows the other side of the coin. Great companies that thrive in uncertainty (and elsewhere) do so by marching at a steady pace while making prudent, careful decisions. Success, folks, is not flashy.

If Jim Collins, and Great by Choice as well, have a weakness, it’s the flip side of the same coin that is its strength. While I think they’ve employed solid “research foundations”, one always has to be careful in boiling down the massive amount of information available into a few catch phrases, no matter how well supported they are. After all, we only have seven cases here, and it’s all correlative. Correlation does not by itself equal causation. Are there lurking variables? Did they oversimplify?

Probably, in a few places here or there at least. Indeed, even his discussion on luck is, by necessity, rather subjective. After all, which events should qualify?

If there is another reason to criticize Collins, it’s also, at least, superficial evidence that he is right; most of what he writes here, and elsewhere, rings true. Is it not better to be prepared than not prepared? Is it not better to try to get better at a consistent rate then go all in?

But these lessons, like the one’s that Dale Carnegie illustrated in How to Win Friends and Influence People seem obvious at times, but so few practice them. Much of what Jim Collins writes feels similar. In a way it’s obvious, in a way it’s genius.

But the most important thing is that he’s right. At least I think so. And therefore, I recommend reading his book. It’s not as good as Good to Great, so start there, but it stands on its own and is a very good addition to his seminal series.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: GUProfessionalInstitute.com,  MichanDaily.com and WillowCreek.com

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Liberty Pen 

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

So I’ve decided to put together a project documenting all of these disasters. Let’s start with the foam:

Or how about this:

Sometimes things are done well, they just shouldn’t have been done at all. For example, if you’re looking to break more glass than a wedding season in Israel, this is a good idea:

And sometimes, it just boils down to spelling… oh way to go public schools:

More to come folks. We’re just scratching the surface here, It gets much, much, much worse…

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Liberty Pen 

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

Photo Credit: Liberty Pen 

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

You can find the rest here at www.ecominoes.com.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit:  www.ecominoes.com

For more Swift Economics, subscribe now to our RSS Feed
Follow Swift Economics on Twitter
LIKE Swift Economics on Facebook

So a while back I wrote an article about the wacky world of music where talent is ignored in favor of prepackaged, overproduced tweenie heart throbs and beauty queens who have little discernible talent other than a voice that would typically rank around 7 to 8 on a scale from 1 to 10. I have a friend who’s in a very good band called The Hoons. Quite a few have commented that they should be famous or that they will soon become famous… You know, when people realize they’re really good. Unfortunately, since being good is not a qualifier for musical fame, I would hesitate to make such predictions.

The problem is this; people really like music and thereby many will dedicate themselves to it even if the odds of financial windfall are small. Who wouldn’t rather be a musician than say, an insurance salesmen? Thus, there are a lot of really talented musicians and bands out there and they get lost in a sea of other music. The market is over saturated. Whereas there is probably plenty of room for improvement regarding the talent of insurance salesmen.  This may have not been the case in the past as much, but it certainly is now. People can only keep so many bands in their heads at any given time. Dunbar’s number dictates human beings can only conceptualize something like 150 people as friends or acquaintances of note. Everyone else is a number. I suspect our tolerance for musicians and bands is substantially smaller.

Record companies know this, so they’re not really selling music, they’re selling a brand. Why do you think every movie that comes out today is a remake/reboot/reimagining/sequel/spinoff/prequel or adaption of a TV show, video game or at least a book (which seems to be becoming more and more rare). The established brand helps guarantee that the $100 million or so the studio dumps into filming our 2 hours of escapism will come to the top of the enormous mound of garbage begging for our attention (and money). And so it goes with music, just make a smaller investment up front and try to sell a charismatic and attractive “musician” who can technically sing and maybe dance a little. Then sell them songs written by someone else (or something else) that have been scientifically tested to be as catchy (and empty) as possible. While the songs are often overproduced, they are also simple, with very few and very predictable chord changes. This makes them easy to dance to, sing along with and get caught in the head. Throw all that together with said “artist” and boom, a famous musician is born… or probably more accurately designed, tested, manufactured and marketed.

This all makes me rather sad. But at least I could console myself that we had so much music at our disposal anyone could dig through and find stuff that is actually of quality. The production side may be an upside down mess, but the consumption side is an oyster or smorgasbord or something like that.

Then I had a recent conversation with my guitar teacher (who is very good musician, and of course, not famous). He mentioned that in Mozart’s day, he was well known for his operas no his symphonies. At the time, operas were the music of the masses. Lawrence Edelson describes it as follows:

The opera house was the first musical institution to open its doors to the general public. The first opera house was opened in Venice in 1637, presenting commercial opera and run for profit!  …It offered new entertainment to anyone who could afford a ticket.  By the end of the seventeenth century, Venice had sixteen opera houses open to the general public. [Bold in original]

Can you imagine Joe Shmoe or some trailer park rednecks going to the opera today? Or maybe some wanksta’s: “Yo Homie, let’s get hella faded and then catch some Pavarotti up in this hizzie!” Sorry, I digress. Sure, it’s great that the masses had a form of entertainment available to them they hadn’t previously had. Indeed, Edelson notes the [positive] change that was starting to take off in the early to mid 1800′s, “During the first half of the nineteenth century, “new forms of popular culture were developing as the industrial revolution generated the two preconditions for mass entertainment: mass production and a mass audience. “

That is great. The problem, is that today opera is considered the music of the snobby elite. It’s classy music meant for a more sophisticated audience. So opera went from being a music for the general public, to a music for the elite. My guitar teacher is convinced this is the trend throughout time, and unfortunately, he’s probably right.

Jazz and blues’s were both considered to be the music of “bars and brothels” during the early 20th century. Now they’re classic. The Beatles made mindless, pop music, now they’re the epitome of classic rock and hugely respected as musicians. And I should note, while I do like the Beatles, the simplicity of their songs and the ease with which they are too play, is rather astounding.

OK fine, I like blues and jazz and the Beatles are OK. And I don’t particularly like opera. In fact, I don’t like it at all. But look where this trend is going! Liberals may worry about leaving a wrecked planet to their children (or maybe I should say child…) and conservatives worry about leaving a massive debt. But we can both agree we shouldn’t be leaving Katy Perry and Justin Bieber to our children… dammit, too late… to our children’s children. They’re popularity should die with us.

Unfortunately, it seems we are intent on justifying our hormonally influenced adolescent musical preferences in adulthood by giving such pop music the “classic” label. And with the way this trend is going, it appears that the likes of Britney Spears and Ludacris will become the “classic” music of the next generation. Hell, today their stuff is already turned into symphony arrangements for college marching bands to make fools of themselves with. It’s just a matter of time. Hence a generation more and Beyonce and T Pain will become the operas of the 21st century. Snotty elites will pontificate about the important matters of the day while embracing the deep themes of how “I kissed a girl and I liked it.”

Or maybe they’ll all just go the way of New Kids on the Block… hopefully.

Or maybe it’s just too much to risk and it would be better if robots just took over.