I just read a very witty response to the Rolling Stone article on Goldman by Michael Lewis (via Bloomberg).
There was one quote that I found particularly interesting:
"The bozos at Merrill Lynch, the dimwits at Citigroup, the nimrods at Lehman Brothers, the louts at Bear Stearns, even that momentarily useful lunatic Joe Cassano at AIG -- all of these people took risks that no non-Goldman person should ever take"
Now probably Michael Lewis is right. Maybe Goldman Sachs is just much better than all of its competition and they should be richly rewarded for their performance. In fact, they're probably so good that I'd be willing to award them victory. It's time that they're crowned king of their industry and now we'll break them up and let competition flourish again. It's time for all those idiots who are running the other companies to fail & die and let the smart folk over at GS run everything, but at separate companies. Thus letting the capitalist enterprise work by having competition create the efficiencies.
Obviously this is an impossibility in this world, but something amusing to speculate. We thrive on an ideal that the free market creates the best value and most efficiencies; but we fail to recognize that in a competitive arena, companies will drive towards one victor and to that victor, they are awarded the coveted Monopoly status. Which effectively ends our free market.
So go take your spoils and your monopolistic position over your idiot enemies. I'm not going to stop you, and really, no one will.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
A note on Waterloo and a response to Brand New
I apologize to the people of Brand New for having to comment about this on my blog, but the way their site is structured, I can't really tell who this Armin person is who posted about the logo of my school (U of Waterloo) nor am I going to give in any sign in information to a site that has no about page. But I will give attribution to the link here so you can trackback.
If you hate the logo join the Facebook group.
I take offense in the general tone of the article but mostly at this particular part of the authors blog post:
"But somehow, a crest, like thousands of other crests — who the majority of people don’t know what they stand for anyway — does. Unfortunately this is antiquated thinking. Universities can not get by with traditional crests in today’s über branded environment and, if you look around, most large universities operate with a “marketing” logo and use a traditional seal for boring things like diplomas or the back covers of their catalogues"
1. Majority of people don't know what the crest stands for
- One of the benefits of having a crest, even among thousands, is that it is part of our visual vocabulary that denotes a University. While the new "W" logo is plain hideous (to which he also agrees) an non-crest is not automatically the answer.
- While Armin is certainly correct that "a majority of people" don't know Waterloo's crest. I would also guess that presenting a random internet sampling of people with a red crest with the word "VERITAS" on it wouldn't get instant recognition of Harvard University either.
2. Most large universities operate with a “marketing” logo and use a traditional seal
- I'm not sure where the author is claiming that most large universities operate with 2 sets of logos. In a quick scan, U of T, Queens, McGill, UBC do not use a separate logo.
- The exception I found was Western, but that has a specific use for the Western Mustangs, the sporting logo.
- It seems that American universities tend to do so in order to create a specific and separate brand around the sporting and alumni aspect of the university separate from the academics. At Waterloo (and in other Canadian universities), we do not support athletics in the same manner and really Waterloo's alumni efforts concentrate around how it is an excellent academic institution.
- If there is a comparison to Californian schools, like my own UC Berkeley, you have the Cal logo and the crest logo. Where it is also an excellent academic university, however, it is a University of California school, so all of the UCs (LA, Irvine, Berkeley, etc) all have the same crest, so a second logo is necessary for such differentiation.
3. Universities cannot get by with with a traditional crest in an über branded environment
- One of the thngs about brand is that it generally takes a while to be recognized. Waterloo is a fairly young university and probably does a better job with recognition compared to other instituions that are 50 years old.
- Waterloo has already invested over 20 years in the crest (wikipedia link) with the primary growth happening in recent times with graduates successes at RIM, OpenText, and various companies throughout the Silicon Valley.
- Brands take time and effort to cultivate. In the über branded marketing world, there's often millions of dollars that are put into launching or re-launching a new brand. Waterloo as a public university will unlikely have such an ability to put a new brand front and centre so it will try to rely on word of mouth to push this new logo. Which given the Facebook group and other conversations informally here in California, it will alienate the alumni.
If I could go back in time to talk to President Johnston, I would keep the word of mouth going and invest more time in alumni to promote the brand and the existing logo which most alums are accustomed to. All that time in committee could instead be put into really building the community and reputation of Waterloo rather than drawing up the next big "W".
[If you're coming here randomly, I have not worked in a branding focused agency. I'm a designer formerly in the advertising world and I've done branding at the Haas Graduate School of Business at UC Berkeley]
If you hate the logo join the Facebook group.
I take offense in the general tone of the article but mostly at this particular part of the authors blog post:
"But somehow, a crest, like thousands of other crests — who the majority of people don’t know what they stand for anyway — does. Unfortunately this is antiquated thinking. Universities can not get by with traditional crests in today’s über branded environment and, if you look around, most large universities operate with a “marketing” logo and use a traditional seal for boring things like diplomas or the back covers of their catalogues"
1. Majority of people don't know what the crest stands for
- One of the benefits of having a crest, even among thousands, is that it is part of our visual vocabulary that denotes a University. While the new "W" logo is plain hideous (to which he also agrees) an non-crest is not automatically the answer.
- While Armin is certainly correct that "a majority of people" don't know Waterloo's crest. I would also guess that presenting a random internet sampling of people with a red crest with the word "VERITAS" on it wouldn't get instant recognition of Harvard University either.
2. Most large universities operate with a “marketing” logo and use a traditional seal
- I'm not sure where the author is claiming that most large universities operate with 2 sets of logos. In a quick scan, U of T, Queens, McGill, UBC do not use a separate logo.
- The exception I found was Western, but that has a specific use for the Western Mustangs, the sporting logo.
- It seems that American universities tend to do so in order to create a specific and separate brand around the sporting and alumni aspect of the university separate from the academics. At Waterloo (and in other Canadian universities), we do not support athletics in the same manner and really Waterloo's alumni efforts concentrate around how it is an excellent academic institution.
- If there is a comparison to Californian schools, like my own UC Berkeley, you have the Cal logo and the crest logo. Where it is also an excellent academic university, however, it is a University of California school, so all of the UCs (LA, Irvine, Berkeley, etc) all have the same crest, so a second logo is necessary for such differentiation.
3. Universities cannot get by with with a traditional crest in an über branded environment
- One of the thngs about brand is that it generally takes a while to be recognized. Waterloo is a fairly young university and probably does a better job with recognition compared to other instituions that are 50 years old.
- Waterloo has already invested over 20 years in the crest (wikipedia link) with the primary growth happening in recent times with graduates successes at RIM, OpenText, and various companies throughout the Silicon Valley.
- Brands take time and effort to cultivate. In the über branded marketing world, there's often millions of dollars that are put into launching or re-launching a new brand. Waterloo as a public university will unlikely have such an ability to put a new brand front and centre so it will try to rely on word of mouth to push this new logo. Which given the Facebook group and other conversations informally here in California, it will alienate the alumni.
If I could go back in time to talk to President Johnston, I would keep the word of mouth going and invest more time in alumni to promote the brand and the existing logo which most alums are accustomed to. All that time in committee could instead be put into really building the community and reputation of Waterloo rather than drawing up the next big "W".
[If you're coming here randomly, I have not worked in a branding focused agency. I'm a designer formerly in the advertising world and I've done branding at the Haas Graduate School of Business at UC Berkeley]
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Sick of health care debates
I was just reading this article on the health care debate (via Fox News) and I'm really tired of lawmakers trying to stall and do nothing instead of passing a bill that gets closer to fixing the system. The number bandied about is 1 Trillion dollars over 10 years. For an economy the size of the United States, who cares?!?!? It's chump change. Just take a look at the US's GDP number last year.
14 Trillion, in one year.
And how much of that is health care? Well, Mr. Krugman summarizes it here as a percent of GDP (via NY Times). Assuming it's around 16% this year, the cost of health care is 2.25 Trillion dollars in one year. Hmm, 1T in 10 years or 2.25T in 1 year (and rising).
Why is fixing this an issue?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Paul Krugman on Goldman's bonuses
Paul Krugman put it much more eloquently than I did in my last post (via NY Times). And was also put better than I (and more vitriolically) in this Rolling Stones piece.
I think my attitude has fallen to the wayside as pure cynicism. My experiences over the years here in the United States is that the will and desire to make change has evapourated. Maybe there was some spark and glimmer of said change when Obama took office but at the end of the day, he's still a politician. Anyone that would try to really fight for social change and economic change that truly benefits the people is labeled a radical and ridiculed to the point where their impact on politics is reduced to zero.
The small hope I do have is within the realm of technology. Much in the way that the financial industry has gained control of this country; technology can move it in a different direction. The principle in my mind is the same.
That in a political system, the easiest message is the one that gets voted on and debated. All others slip through the cracks.
Technology, like finance, has the ability to make more efficient the growth of the state. Also like finance, the workings of the technology are very difficult to understand without an in-depth knowledge of the rules and procedures that govern it. With technology, we can virally introduce concepts that undermine the finance industry, such as transparency. So a small change like www.citability.org can create a technological framework and a political framework that makes transparent the rules in which this political system is based.
It could also be used in more nefarious ways to such end as well. For example, we could have a police state in which all transactions are tracked and monitored by the government, so Goldman Sachs only paying 1% in corporate taxes would be monitored and funds automatically seized and placed into government coffers.
Or we could be subtle, such that rogue financial systems with peer to peer lending and financing aggregate to have the same impact on raising capital and borrowing against futures on an individual level so you don't just have institutional investment, when someone owns part of your company, they are a Facebook profile and not some faceless shareholder to be duped or cheated.
I'm reminded of the book by Thomas Friedman, the Lexus & the Olive Tree. The olive tree is a representation of us and our pride in our homes & homeland. One of the consequences of this rampant economic growth & increased wealth is that we're becoming a globalized people without the pride of being an earthling. It's easy to not care about things like oil piracy since it happens in some other country. I'd like to think that our global financiers are also global citizens but it's hardly the case.
I think that while the purse strings of the world are controlled by people are without care for their fellow human, we're only going to continue along this same course of development. Maybe Bladerunner is going to come true after all.
I think my attitude has fallen to the wayside as pure cynicism. My experiences over the years here in the United States is that the will and desire to make change has evapourated. Maybe there was some spark and glimmer of said change when Obama took office but at the end of the day, he's still a politician. Anyone that would try to really fight for social change and economic change that truly benefits the people is labeled a radical and ridiculed to the point where their impact on politics is reduced to zero.
The small hope I do have is within the realm of technology. Much in the way that the financial industry has gained control of this country; technology can move it in a different direction. The principle in my mind is the same.
That in a political system, the easiest message is the one that gets voted on and debated. All others slip through the cracks.
Technology, like finance, has the ability to make more efficient the growth of the state. Also like finance, the workings of the technology are very difficult to understand without an in-depth knowledge of the rules and procedures that govern it. With technology, we can virally introduce concepts that undermine the finance industry, such as transparency. So a small change like www.citability.org can create a technological framework and a political framework that makes transparent the rules in which this political system is based.
It could also be used in more nefarious ways to such end as well. For example, we could have a police state in which all transactions are tracked and monitored by the government, so Goldman Sachs only paying 1% in corporate taxes would be monitored and funds automatically seized and placed into government coffers.
Or we could be subtle, such that rogue financial systems with peer to peer lending and financing aggregate to have the same impact on raising capital and borrowing against futures on an individual level so you don't just have institutional investment, when someone owns part of your company, they are a Facebook profile and not some faceless shareholder to be duped or cheated.
I'm reminded of the book by Thomas Friedman, the Lexus & the Olive Tree. The olive tree is a representation of us and our pride in our homes & homeland. One of the consequences of this rampant economic growth & increased wealth is that we're becoming a globalized people without the pride of being an earthling. It's easy to not care about things like oil piracy since it happens in some other country. I'd like to think that our global financiers are also global citizens but it's hardly the case.
I think that while the purse strings of the world are controlled by people are without care for their fellow human, we're only going to continue along this same course of development. Maybe Bladerunner is going to come true after all.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Banker's pay is just another tax
I'm just as miffed as many other people were over the recent announcement that banks will be raising salaries for employees that will restore their earnings back to their 2007 level. Like in this NY Times article or in many of the other ones around the same time.
Not that I'm angry about people getting paid a high amount of money, if you're doing good work and bringing in lots of value, I don't have a problem with salaries at an average of 1/2 a million dollars per year.
The main issue is that it's my tax dollars that are supporting this industry and that it's not good value that they're bringing in. Financial institutions need to provide a fluid financial market to let
borrowers and investors connect. An investment bank is not the group that puts together circuit boards and aluminum to make iPods, it connects the financial forces to let a company get enough capital to put them together, and market them, and sell them, and service them, and everything.
It's like in my own industry in the media & advertising world. The media business is a connector, it doesn't really produce anything. Like if Huggies diapers wanted to get their commercials on some shows on ABC Family, they'd pay a media company to negotiate the 15 or 30 second spots but the media company doesn't create the TV commercials, nor does it manufacture diapers. The media company takes it's cut and connects the 2 happy parties.
Both are still valuable services so why am I annoyed at the pay? Well, I happen to also be a techie and I love it when technical innovations drive down the cost and makes it easier to do things yourself. The newspapers have seen much of their media dollars erode from people
advertising on search engines. Google even goes as far as to make it simple to bid on your own advertising terms and target them on where they should appear. The niftyness of Google ads is that it makes it easy to see your customers and it's very visible on how your ads appear and your advertising dollars are spent in their auction system, driving prices down and changing the way media companies work.
With the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been pumped into the banking industry to preserve 1/2 million dollar salaries; I think we're about time for the same change in the way we do financial services. Right now the mess of regulations and multi-million dollar lobbying efforts is keeping this system at the status quo. If there's enough political will to open up & simplify the banking system then we can create a platform for smaller and more competitive financial
innovations instead of mega corps that are too big to fail.
So instead of being worried about losing your top employees and paying out billions of my tax dollars; I say let them go! Start something new and then give me a good value for my money.
Not that I'm angry about people getting paid a high amount of money, if you're doing good work and bringing in lots of value, I don't have a problem with salaries at an average of 1/2 a million dollars per year.
The main issue is that it's my tax dollars that are supporting this industry and that it's not good value that they're bringing in. Financial institutions need to provide a fluid financial market to let
borrowers and investors connect. An investment bank is not the group that puts together circuit boards and aluminum to make iPods, it connects the financial forces to let a company get enough capital to put them together, and market them, and sell them, and service them, and everything.
It's like in my own industry in the media & advertising world. The media business is a connector, it doesn't really produce anything. Like if Huggies diapers wanted to get their commercials on some shows on ABC Family, they'd pay a media company to negotiate the 15 or 30 second spots but the media company doesn't create the TV commercials, nor does it manufacture diapers. The media company takes it's cut and connects the 2 happy parties.
Both are still valuable services so why am I annoyed at the pay? Well, I happen to also be a techie and I love it when technical innovations drive down the cost and makes it easier to do things yourself. The newspapers have seen much of their media dollars erode from people
advertising on search engines. Google even goes as far as to make it simple to bid on your own advertising terms and target them on where they should appear. The niftyness of Google ads is that it makes it easy to see your customers and it's very visible on how your ads appear and your advertising dollars are spent in their auction system, driving prices down and changing the way media companies work.
With the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been pumped into the banking industry to preserve 1/2 million dollar salaries; I think we're about time for the same change in the way we do financial services. Right now the mess of regulations and multi-million dollar lobbying efforts is keeping this system at the status quo. If there's enough political will to open up & simplify the banking system then we can create a platform for smaller and more competitive financial
innovations instead of mega corps that are too big to fail.
So instead of being worried about losing your top employees and paying out billions of my tax dollars; I say let them go! Start something new and then give me a good value for my money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)