JCL Blog

Motivated People Win

Thomas Friedman has a good column in today's NY Times  where he points out that our President needs to generate more jobs and he suggests a few ways to do it. I think he is right, we need more jobs, but I am not sure his suggested approach of using the highest office to create a million new ventures in a "Start-Up America" will work.

The winners in the new economy are going to be the people that are the most motivated. Motivated people try harder, find their way to education, find their way to capital, and overcome the many many hurdles any new business encounters. Right now the most motivated people are not in our country. So if we want to win as a country, we have to motivate the people that are already here, or let some new people in.

You Can't Kill Me -- I'm Rich

One of my favorite authors for casual reading is Larry McMurtry. The Texas native is best know for his western novels including Lonesome Dove. In 2002 he wrote the first of the Berrybender novels set in the 1830s about a very rich English family on an adventure up the Missouri River. Lord Berrybender and his subjects were seemingly oblivious to the danger they were exposed to; as if they felt protected by their aristocracy. Funny thing though, the people of the new American west didn't care that they were aristocrats from England.

They did make some preparations for the trip -- including towing a separate boat behind their steam driven paddle wheeler -- just to carry the wine. The Berrybenders were stunned when they found that some Native Americans would happily kill them, and those that were not interested in murder felt free to just take their wine.

We now find ourselves cast as the Berrybenders. We do not fully understand the way the rules are changing and feel entitled to continue to enjoy our status and lifestyle. I just hope we don't find ourselves frozen in the middle of the river without enough food and no idea what to do next.

Google is China: Only the stakes are higher for China.

The recent tension between China and Google has focussed our attention on the contrast between these two organizations. However, anyone capable of suspending their own perspective will find some similarities too. Here are a few I can think of:

Long Term Perspective

Both organizations take the long term perspective. China is 30 years into a plan that spans a century or more and Google is a decade into theirs without any sign of letting up. Both organizations focus intently on stability in leadership, China with a one party system and carefully crafted power transitions, and Google with a two tiered corporate governance structure that insulates the leadership from typical wall street pressures.

Driven by Engineering Minds and Data Decisions

Google is famous for collecting data on everything and using it to make better decisions. They believe there is a better way to do just about everything and the new ways will be discovered by those that are willing to try new ideas and measure everything. China is a student of their own experiences and everyone else's. They know good ideas are out there and are willing to bring them home and try them out. China measures everything too.

Growth Attracts Attention and Invites Compromises

Both organizations are experiencing very rapid growth and as a result have attracted the attention of the world. Everyone else wants to be around these growing entities and are often times willing to make significant sacrifices in order to do so. Many companies have compromised their values in order to do business in China. Many have exposed their intellectual property in order to gain access to a market that contains 25% of the world's population. Similarly, individuals and companies alike have turned large volumes of data over to Google. This data about users and their behaviors, that used to be considered private, is Google's biggest asset.

Willing to Accept Collateral Damage

China and Google both know that the growth and change they are navigating through will be painful. China jails its dissidents, and Google has disrupted industries resulting in significant employment dislocation. The leaders of both organizations are able to maintain their focus on their plans without being distracted by the human factors. It may be unfair to equate China's human rights abuses to Google's impact on the newspaper business but the point here is that neither leadership team shows any sign of diverting from their mission because a few lives are impacted.

The Stakes are Higher for China

So far China has raised the standard of living for 500 million people to above the poverty line. The largest and fastest advancement by any nation ever. The mind numbing volume and significance of the choices the leaders of China have had to make to bring about the rise of their nation is awe inspiring. Each misstep has had very real consequences -- in extreme cases measured in the loss of life due to starvation or unrest. The ascension to power and prosperity in our own country pales in comparison. On this scale the stakes at Google really don't register at all.

Motto or not, Google is stunned when it finds us worried they will do evil things with our data. The Chinese leadership is less naieve about the way the world reacts to its policies. They step in a careful and calculated way through their priorities, and work to influence our view of them. They know we view them through the lens of our perspective and so they study us to better understand how we see the world. Someday they will address the things that bother us including piracy and human rights. Until then, we should spend more time studying China so we can pursue mutual interests and compete more effectively.

And the spying and cyber attacks...what about them? I bet the Chinese have a long way to go to catch up our our level of sophistication in these areas. The CIA and the NSA are tough acts to follow.

China is Not Like Us

Two of my favorite subjects, Google and China, collided in a big way yesterday.  With the media industry all lit up over the event, I doubt I can add much new commentary except to say that this is going to be very interesting and 30 days from now it is going to look much different than today.  

I may be able to add a little value by directing traffic to the best coverage I have seen.  I will leave the New York Times and Wall Street Journal off of my list because I am sure everyone has already read those articles.

First: I have to cite Mark Anderson's newsletter posting on January 4th as not only timely but a bright light on our blindness to China's nature.  He writes a paid newsletter and I would encourage anyone interested in technology to subscribe.  You can learn more at Strategic News Service.  Here is a quote from his China piece:

In summary, China should not be treated as though it were just another fast-growing free-market nation, with inevitable road bumps making things a bit uncomfortable; it isn’t. China is a top-down, completely controlled system, running on a zero-sum economic model made to produce one winner, and many losers.

You can read this article on Mark's Blog.

We are clearly enabling the behavior we are getting from China.

Second: The Economist thinks Google may not be doing the right thing.  I think those in Europe prefer things to move a little more slowly -- so this is not that surprising.  The Brits have been active in China for a lot longer than we have -- so I am sure they have a point.

Third:  Robert Scoble has a good piece on our attraction to China and why we often compromise our standards in order to do business there.

So I hope our eyes are open and we see China as it is -- and we must resist the urge to think of China as a reflection of ourselves.  China has no interest in being like us, but they are perfectly willing to let us think they are.

Fair and Balanced

First let me say, I am a conservative minded person who voted for his first D in the last presidential election because I could not believe the R's picked Sarah Palin -- among other foibles. Even though the fundamentals of my politics are more in line with the Wall Street Journal, I like the style of the New York Times much better and always look forward to the Sunday edition. Years ago when I started reading the New York Times I thought I was doing so to better understand the other team's perspective. Now I find the R's tactics so nauseating that I can barely make it through the WSJ opinion page in one sitting.

OK. On to the point of this posting. There is a front page piece in the NY Times today by David Carr and Tim Arango on Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. There must have been at least one person in the NY Times news room that wanted to paint Ailes as the man behind the Custer Hill Club. Those of you that are not Nelson DeMille fans should know that the brains and money behind the Custer Hill Club in DeMille's 2006 novel, Wildfire, considered himself such a true patriot that he felt a plan to detonate nukes in two American cities was a small price to pay provided it caused the White House to nuke 128 Arab targets in the post 9/11 version of mutually assured destruction. The charred wreckage in the wake of Fox News is not as measurable with a Geiger counter, but it is measurable.

To the credit of the New York Times however, the article is well done, and carries no discernible bias. In fact the article points out some left leaning tendencies in the Murdoch family -- including possibly Rupert himself -- that most readers would not have known about. Well done New York Times. Maybe Fox News will reciprocate with some fair and balanced reporting of their own.