Invisible Hand

The Economics of Attention episode

Just posted the interview with Richard Lanham about his book, "The Economics of Attention". I had initially scheduled to do this show in Series 1, but timing issues got in the way. Here it is now and it was a fun show. Sadly, the interview really doesn't do justice to his chapter/play on Barbie, you just have to read it.

I posted early this week because I am headed out the door to Kansas City, which will then be my starting point for a drive to Carlsbad, CA with my mom. I've loaded a bunch of podcasts on my iPod to listen to, mainly because I rarely have the time anymore and I need to hear how other shows are doing production.

I'm almost finished with the last book for the summer shows. I hope to record the interview when I get back, but I need some time to work on the home studio. The old studio has been dismantled and the phone line moved to the new studio, but it needs some soundproofing, a project I've been avoiding somewhat, but can avoid no longer.

Questions of Character (The End of Series 1)

I just posted my interview with Joseph Badaracco about his book, Questions of Character: Illuminating the Heart of Leadership Through Literature. It was a great read and I think a fitting end to the first series. At the end of the interview, when I realize that his book really doesn't give any answers, just starts asking more questions, I thought about how that was the case in a lot of the shows I did during this series. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer: Don't download this show if you are looking for an answer. Of course, some of the shows did provide some answers, last week's show was an example.

If you get the show through iTunes, you may have noticed that I put all the shows on the feed. I decided to do this as a way of looking back on my first year as a podcaster. I'm proud of all the shows and I hope if there is one of the earlier ones that looks interesting, that you will download it and give a listen.

I've used this blog primarily as a communications tool about the show, but if you read the description, I talk about making a living in podcasting. This will be my focus, both in terms of writing and living, during the summer. As you know by now, I'm switching to a summer schedule after this show and running through Labor Day. In terms of new shows, that means I have 6 to do, 4 of which are in the can, 1 of which I'm prepping for early June. This is freeing up some time, time I need to look at the show, figure out what I did right and what I did wrong, think about shows for series 2, plan out the next year and work on some new projects. Also, the show needs to be able to at least break even in the very near future, and I have to sort out some ways of making it happen.

Anyway, have a good Memorial Day weekend and check back. I will be writing more.

Here comes the silly season

In today's paper, I get to read two different stories about the current hike in gas prices and in both of them, politicians are going to look into the matter. This gets me pretty excited, because there are few things in society more comic and tragic than watching politicians come up with proposals on how to resolve economic problems.

The stated problem is that consumers are paying too much at the pump. Or, they feel they are paying too much at the pump. Or the opposition will make a lot of hay about some people paying too much at the pump and the media will jump on the story like a goose on a junebug. So now, how can we (politicians in an election year) win the voters favor? Well, as gas prices are set by global supply and demand, I guess you either increase supply (Carve up Moose country in Alaska) or decrease demand (Conservation is virtuous, but not government policy- The Veep). No? Well, let's tax the oil companies, they have lots of money!!

Now, I am not a huge fan of the petroleum industry, but can anyone explain to me how a windfall profits tax will make the lives of the American citizen any better? It's not like we are all going to get a check from Exxon-Mobil or Shell saying sorry for the inconveniece and I sure don't see how that is going to lower prices at the pump.

Right now, the high gas prices are what we are paying to lift China and India out of third world status and for neglecting to hold the incumbent power of the oil companies back so that alternative fuels could develop (Switchgrass anyone?). Fortunately, with responsible governments in such oil producing countries as Iran and Venezeula, I really don't see any security concerns for not moving the U.S. off of oil any time soon.

Calling Norman Vincent Peale for the defense

So, I'm doing a little reading this morning and what headline jumps out at me?

"Enron Founder to Say He's Optimistic, Not Dishonest."

Apparently, Ken Lay sooooo believed in the power of positive thinking and in his ability to turn Enron around that he misled others about Enron's health, encouraging employees to buy stock, while he was dumping his own Enron stock back to Enron to pay back personal loans the company made him. Delusion, according to Mr. Lay's attorneys, is not criminal.

So was Lay negligent or fraudulent? I am going to have to go with fraudulent, and here is why: When a person is negligent, particularly when they are running a multi-billion dollar company and a lot of their wealth is supposedly tied up in its performace, it makes sense that they would suffer as much as anyone when the truth broke. Now, admittedly, the Lays had a lot more to start with than most of the Enron employees, and yes, they have had to pay quite a bit in lawyers fees et al. But Ken Lay seemed to have landed rather softly after Enron's collapse, i.e. he wasn't holding nearly the amount of stock that he had at the beginning of the affair.

I lived in Houston between 1996 and 1998 and still have kind of a soft spot in my heart for the town. I was there when Enron was flying high. Ken Lay did do a lot for the city, that cannot be denied, but he broke both the trust of his employees and shareholders and the laws of the United States. Kenny Boy and Jeff Skilling deserve some time in hoosegow.

Peter Navarro Interview on the Premier Ep of The Invisible Finger

Just posted the premier episode of the new show, The Invisible Finger. It is an interview with Peter Navarro of the University of California-Irvine about his new book, The Well-Timed Strategy.

The new show will be posted on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays and no episode will run over 7 minutes. I had to post the first one early so the aggregators could have time to review the link and show before they posted it.

Although this month I am doing author interviews, this show will hopefully branch out to journalists, managers and the occasional odd topic. Doing two shows interviewing authors would be a LOT of books to read.

Give a listen and tell me what you think.

The World's Most Dangerous Cartoon

It's funny. There are times when I feel there is nothing to write about, and then there are times when it is obvious to me what to write about, but I'm not sure why. This is my internal state during this post about the cartoon that is being published in Europe about Mohammed, one that has set off a fury in the Muslim world and in Muslim communities in Europe.

My gut feeling about this was like a lot of ones I read on the BBC website: This was a privately held newspaper published in a secular country that has no reason to follow Islamic Law. From the point of view of principles, I am a big believer in Freedom of Speech, and the newspapers have every right to publish carcicature.

But there is another side to this which interests me; is this an interesting case study in management? The economic consequences for Denmark, the country of origin, have been noticable with boycotts of their products through out the Middle East, not to mention the threats to Danish domestic safety. Threats to physical saftey are never warranted, but the economic response is certainly within the rights of Muslim citizens who feel insulted. It's one thing for westerners to shrug and say that the Muslim world needs to lighten up and join the 21st century, but with the Internet, nothing is local, certainly nothing as incindiary as a visual image of Mohammed is to the Muslim community. (And that is a huge taboo that any one with a bone basic knowledge of Islam should have)

Is this an instance in which a company is paying for doing the right thing? Does this mean that not publishing the cartoon was the wrong thing? If you were the editor of that newspaper, would you have made the same decision? Was the principle worth the price, especially if it cost members of their families and their neighbors their jobs due to a decrease in demand for their country's goods?