The Relationship Economy……

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

John Sculley, former CEO of Apple, described a new theory of change in 1993, called an “isoquantic shift.” This theory, said Sculley, “refers to a significant technological advancement that dramatically changes the way people do things and completely re-orients people’s concepts of how things are done. For example, the fractional horsepower electric motor was an isoquantic shift from the centralized steam engines that powered many factories during the 19th century.”

Jack Myers says “The introduction of real time audio and video to computer Internet access and the integration of the computer and the television set represent another isoquantic shift. The ability of individuals to interact represents a convergence of the telephone, the computer, the television and high-speed cable and telephone modems, altering the ways in which consumers perceive media.”

“A paradigm shift is merely a restructuring of the patterns that we rely on for our decision-making. Paradigm shifts require changes in traditional behavior because we are required to rethink our assumptions. They reflect a change in how people perceive and react to reality. The transition of audiences from broadcast television to cable TV has been a paradigm shift - a slow change in patternistic behavior. Cable has not radically altered the way advertisers communicate to audiences or the way viewers interact with the medium. Successful managers in the 1980s and 1990s conformed to shifting technological, sociological, and regulatory paradigms. The isoquantic shifts on the
horizon are creating even greater apprehension and anxiety. While change has been continuous, pervasive, and overwhelming, it has rarely been so dramatic that it totally alters the way people do things. The changes we are facing today in business are isoquantic shifts, not simple paradigm shifts.”

Sculley points out that “we have seen an isoquantic shift in the computer industry with the microprocessor. The microprocessor clearly changed the whole concept of what computers were, from a centralized device, to one on every desk, to one you are carrying around with you.” Sculley also envisioned the isoquantic shifts affecting the television industry: “We’re seeing a new isoquantic shift taking place in this decade that is replacing the old analog communications we have known - digital compression communications. That’s a very significant factor for all of us because of the convergence of our respective industries, whether it is computers, communications, or content. They’re all coming together.”

How Fast Are Things Coming Together?

All this social stuff has accelerated change. Change comes from learning new ways of doing old things and creating new things. The power of conversational rivers about anything and everything is accelerating change. The reason is because we are all learning from each other and the idea exchange has been fueled by social technology which has create new markets of conversations never before experienced or envisioned. The conversations are creating new knowledge which fuels innovation.

The business narrative is full of terms like “momentum”, “velocity to market”, “dynamic”, “production” - all of these are time dependent variables.

Wherever one can observe a high rate of change of knowledge among people, there is innovation happening. If the innovation corresponds to your business plan - you are in luck. If it does not, then you need to change your business plan.

The best policy is that which accommodates what people are going to do naturally. Successful companies will align themselves to what people are doing. People will not necessarily align themselves to what companies are doing. The social web is the medium for Isoquantic shifts which is changing how we the people do things and how business gets things done. The change is swift and the more things change the faster things come together.

What say you?

In the physical world infections are usually a reference to our bodies. In the virtual world the term infections usually carries a connotation of viruses infecting our machines. However there is another dimension of infection and that is in reference to our minds.

An infection of our minds is the colonization of our thoughts by the thoughts and words of others. In an infection, the infecting thoughts and words from others seek to utilize our resources to multiply. The infecting words interacts with the normal thinking of our minds and can lead to a “viral infection” when we pass on the thoughts and words onto others.

A “secondary viral infection” is an infection that occurs during or following reaction to our thoughts, ideas and words originated by our primary infection. The infection of ideas, perspectives, news and commentary spreads to “swarms and hives” of communities who mass the infection on following metcalfs law.

Which Viral Infections Have the Greatest Impact on Our Minds?
Based on some rudimentary analysis we find the following categories of viral infection:

1. Breaking News: Grabbing the readers attention about technological developments, movers and shakers etc. A Short Term Infection
2. Perspectives: Peoples ideas, opinions and perspective on the emerging virtual world and its meaning. The spread of this infection depends on the rationale and sound thinking behind the perspectives
3. Personality: An individual, groups of individuals or communities that infect others by creating attraction through personality. Much like celebrities.
4. Thought Leaders: Those individuals or firms who publish research or share insights into the future of the virtual world.
5. Market Makers: Those individuals or organizations that create new and useful functionality and features to the virtual world experience.

Now think about what and whom you follow on the web. Which category of “infection” is it that affects your mind the most? The game is to decide whether you can create an infection or are you being infected. Now imagine if we could organize our virtual world by uniting relations around the categories of infection. In essence our collective ability to infect entire markets could be profound but not until and unless we organize our efforts. That is why we’re suggesting we unite our relations so rather than being infected we, the users, can infect the markets with more influence.

If you can infect a mind you can control the body.

What say you?

Want a PDF copy of this? Go Here

Ever need a tool in your house only to find it has been misplaced and you can’t find it? I, like most typical guys, have a nice shiny toolbox in the garage with compartments, drawers and enough to make it look like I am a real mechanic.

Fact is my limits on “fixing things around the house” are limited to changing light bulbs. However, my toolbox is filled with every kind of tool you can imagine, looks impressive to say the least. Yet when I need a simply screwdriver or hammer I can’t seem to find them, sound familiar?

How Many Tools are Enough?

Whenever we run out of light bulbs I make the trip to Lowes. While the aim was to simply get a stock of light bulbs I always end up buying some new tool thinking “I could use this”, but when, how and why never enters my mind. So over time I’ve collected hundreds of tools that sit in my shining toolbox in the garage under the premise that someday they could be useful. Yet many times I can’t even find the basic tools needed to do basic things around the house . At times I’ll get on an organization kick and run around the house collecting all the scattered tools only to find that I actually have ten different screwdrivers because when I couldn’t find one I simply bought another one.

Is Our Web Experience Like Going to Lowes?

Everyday my inbox gets suggestions from friends and business associates about some new widget, gadget, network, technology development, announcement etc. all promising greater leverage, increased distribution or broader reach to audiences, markets etc. Twitter streams with short comments on the latest and greatest development. Facebook applications explode daily with friends inviting us try this or that. The blogosphere is filled with commentary on the latest trends, techniques and technology.

The social web has become the biggest “Hardware Store in the World” tempting us to grab something because it is cool and someday you may need it or find it useful. Tempted by the lure of “having and needing” we download, bookmark and engage in these offers hoping to use them for some purpose or value since my friends and contacts suggest them there must be something of value for me. Remember my post on TADD (Technological Attention Deficit Disorder)?

What is Required?

When you step back from the “tools” hype of the moment and think about the fundamentals of what you do on the web it breaks down to fundamentals aimed at a purpose. The fundamentals include:

1. Production: We produce and create profiles, content, communications, ideas, relationships and offerings
2. Distribution: We distribute communications, content, ideas throughout communities to to people using tools of the trade
3. Connection: What we produce and distribute connects with people, communities or it doesn’t
4. Learning: Feedback from our production, and that of others, distribution and connections enables us to learn and advance our thinking
5. Actions: Based on the outcomes of the previous four fundamentals we act, adjust and recycle 1-5 aimed at a purpose

With the fundamentals established we aim at our purpose. The purpose of participating within the social web is two fold; personal and business. Purpose can be defined as:

There is a fundamental human need for guiding ideals that give meaning to our actions”, states Roger Fisher. Renowned psychiatrist Victor Frankl’s premise is that ‘man’s search for meaning’ is the primary motivation of his life. He speaks of the ‘will to meaning. According to some philosophies, purpose is central to a good human life. In our personal life we use tools to achieve our purpose

The purpose of a business is primarily routed in producing value for all stakeholders: shareholders,suppliers, employees and customers

Josh Bernoff and Charlene Li of Forrester write: “We continually get asked by our corporate clients: why do people participate in social activity online? What drives them?”. In other words what is the purpose?

The purpose of participating within the social web starts with your aim and whether that aim fulfills a purpose. The ingrained hype of technological tools has individuals and businesses flocking to the web but what seems apparent is a lack to clearly define their purpose thus a lot of wasted time and attention with no purpose. How and what you define as your purpose defines your outcomes. Your perspective on the purpose influences how you invest your time, what networks you will join, what tools you use, and the value you create with your relationships.

Mike Gunderloy, of webworkerdaily writes: There’s one simple rule to keep in mind: a software tool (whether a desktop application or a web application) is only worth adding to your collection if its expected value exceeds its expected cost.

When I went to Lowes for the light bulb I spent more money buying tools I rarely use. When I came home I used the light bulb so I could see better in the dark. The value I received from the light bulb exceeded the value of the tools sitting in the toolbox. When we go to the “Virtual hardware Store on the Web” look for the light bulbs and try and remember your bookmarks already have an abundance of screwdrivers. While new tools make help us more effectively achieve the fundamentals without an aim there is no purpose. Get it? Hey, anyone seen my screwdriver?

What say you?

Every time humans invent better ways of doing things, the economy gets a little bigger. This is a simple idea, really. It started with the making of tools then agriculture, followed by the scientific revolution and the invention of the printing press.

Eli Whitney’s musket demonstration led to the industrial revolution, the manufacturing economy, the Era of Information - up to, and including, the current knowledge economy.

Since the beginning, all of the people’s little tiny innovations have piled on top of each other and merged with other innovations to make big innovations – as a result, the economy grew faster and faster until today the global economy is worth 50 trillion dollars per year!

Where did all that money come from? Hey wait, how did money even enter this conversation? Money is simply another innovation – a scorecard really. Would you be surprised to learn that money does actually grow on trees?

Today new ideas are happening so fast that we lost track of what comes first; the innovation or the money?

As a result we live in a world where we say it takes money to make money; we must wipe out competitors who take our money no matter how much money it costs to keep them from taking our money, etc. Money is piled on top of money and parsed into exotic financial instruments and zipped across the globe.

This brings us back to that tiny flaw in market economics that I mentioned earlier:

Technological change must always precede economic growth. We are going about the process of Globalization as if economic growth can happen before the technological change happens.

This tiny reversal is at the heart of much that is unsustainable today - and it can be easily corrected.

The first thing to recognize is that the pieces of paper in your wallet do not represent Gold, Silver, or Oil. Some economists say that people are dumb for trading paper that means nothing. But people are not dumb – they are trading something called productivity. An hour of my time is worth an hour of yours and we naturally assign value to things based on information that we have about them. We trade an hour of American productivity for an hour of Japanese productivity, etc. It’s really simple.

Now here is the kicker - there is only one sustainable way to make more of these pieces of paper – it’s called innovation. Innovation increases productivity. Money and innovation are deeply and profoundly related.

In Fact, we can say that money and innovation are highly dependent on each other. If you want to make more money, you first need to make more innovation. It’s a system, without one, you can’t have the other - so why do anything else?

As all this “social stuff grows” many businesses, large and small, are plotting strategies and finding resource who can help. Developing to leverage the power of “social technologies” first takes an understanding of the dynamics that make “social” a powerful conversational marketing tool for any business. Finding the appropriate resource can help you and your business save a lot of time and mistakes that could be very costly.

Where Are The Expert Resources?

It seems that everyone claims to be a social media expert. There are even aggregated community blogs claiming to have the most technically astute and most popular bloggers offering small and large businesses a “plug and play” system. We’ve even seen offerings targeting businesses with guarantees to “jump start” their entry into the social space. Beware, like everything in life there is no short route to gaining maximum return or value. Value is something that is created and provides unique propositions to a specific audience of people, whether customers, supplier or employees. A return on time and effort comes from learning; applying and providing your value proposition to the people you aim to serve.

Today there are hundreds of self appointed experts for everything and anything social. There are subject matter experts in SEO, Blog platforms, RSS, Widgets, Communities, Networks and the list goes on and on. There are even firms offering to set up a blogging platform within your existing web site and bring you bloggers to populate it. Everyday we’re seeing “social media” propositions targeted at businesses and the ill informed are being led by “the self appointed experts” who in the end do not provide lasting value. Like with any new market there is a lot of “sales pitches” aimed at sounding like an expert but designed to dazzle you with buzz words rather than educate you with meaningful knowledge.

How Can You tell if Someone is an Expert?

Wikipedia notes: An “expert” is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. . An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially rely upon the individual’s opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.

Given the above definition one could easily create a series of questions whose answers can either verify someone’s expertise or at least make one question the extent of a person’s expertise. Following the above guidelines as the definition of “expert” the questions needing to be asked include but not limited to the following.

1. How much time have you spent learning the dynamics of social media?
2. What are the top five things you have learned?
3. What are your biggest failures in using social media technologies
4. Do you share what you’ve learned with others and if so how many follow that which you share?
5. What major media publications have your opinions, writing or commentary appeared in?
6. What, if anything, have you published commercially which could be considered your landmark work?
7. What examples of social media business failures can you reference?
8. As a result of your own learning what special expertise do you have to offer?
9. Who would you consider to be an expert in social media?
10. Which do you believe is more valuable to the success of social media, the technology or the conversations and why?

Many of the social media “experts” can share with you how to build a blog, use social networks, but few understand the human dynamics of “how to create” traction and attraction to a business proposition. Many still believe that applying old marketing methods using new technology works. Here is a clue, it doesn’t!

Our last point. An expert is one who transfers their expertise so you can become your own expert. Choose your experts wisely.

What say you?

Most people take other people at their word. In business a person’s word is critical to the interactive processes required to reach a result. If a supplier or employee does not fulfill their word or stated obligation things can be delayed and delayed actions set off a chain reaction of delays, defects and disappointments internally and externally.

Is Follow Through on Our Word an Obligation?

An obligation is a requirement to take some course of action. There are obligations in normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, and possibly politics, obligations are requirements that are to be fulfilled. Generally speaking people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well, which can be due to tradition or social reasons as well as business terms and conditions. In business certain etiquettes both spoken and written as well as unspoken and unwritten are the expected rules of engagement.

Etiquette is a code that governs the expectations of social behavior, according to the contemporary conventional norm within a business society, social class, or group. Usually unwritten, it may be codified in written form. Etiquette usually reflects formulas of conduct in which business, society or tradition have invested. .

Is The Social Web Changing Obligations and Etiquette?

Deborah Schultz writes: I have been thinking a lot lately about the impact the 24/7 social web connectedness has on how we connect and behave in personal and professional settings and the impact it is having on our relationships:

“In an era of increased inputs, ambient intimacy** and weak ties, it is now difficult to remember, react and respond to everything and everyone in a timely manner. Are we rude or do we need to reset our expectations of what is proper etiquette in the era of the Social Web?”

• Is it really ok to not return phone calls? or email? Is there a window when rude sets in?
• Is it rude to not respond to a direct Twitter?
• Is everyone SO busy with outbound expression that no one is there to “catch the proverbial conversation toss?”
• If you know that people are overwhelmed - how do you know when you are being ignored proactively or when are you simply lost in the “inbox”? When do you PING LOUDER so you get attention and when are you ignoring the signs that you are indeed being purposefully ignored?

In recent conversation’s with a social technology provider I was engaged with multiple divisions and represented parties. The dialog was centric to how they could improve their organizations profile and subsequent growth. In each of the separate conversations with leaders of different divisions (silos) the parties agreed they needed to do the things we were suggesting and was interested in our assistance. Each of the separate conversations with different executives ended with: “Right now we’re pretty covered up with the acquisition of company A or we’re just finishing ABC project or we need to get this scheduled. In each case the parties said “we’ll get back to you within two weeks”.

Two, three and four weeks go by and no follow up. Emails are sent attempting to re-engage the previous conversations and in each case the response is “Thank you for the additional information and yes we need to re-engage our previous dialog“. However they don’t say when and it appears as though one of the following could be true:

1. They never intended to engage and avoidance is the politically correct thing to do
2. They are totally distracted with the urgency of the moment and disconnected from obligations made
3. Their attention spans are fragmented moment by moment and never connected to achieving improvements

In personal and business relations fulfilling obligations and following proper etiquette are the bases for developing stronger relations. The social web magnifies behavior and creates transparency to unfulfilled expectations. And companies wonder why they have customer service problems or why they can’t make the desired progress. Do they think the market of conversations won’t openly discuss their behavior

Go figure. What say you?

As we watch the debate about the systemic problems with our current economic system one wonders if it is time to “change the system”. Our economy has long been based on debits and credits, outcomes of the results of activity. The outcomes are variable while the answers to creating less variability lie within the “processes and decisions” that create the outputs. Is innovation a major driver for creating a new economy?

Dan Robles writes: The current financial system has reached the limits of it’s effectiveness. Interest on debt has exceeded the system’s ability to pay. But debt is simply a promisory note on future productivity - any caveman will tell us that the only way to increase productivity today is to innovate yesterday, not tomorrow.

In modern times, this means that the only way to sustainably create more money tomorrow is to innovate today. This is the tiny little flaw of Wall Street that Innovation Economics will correct.

There are a few simple web applications discussed here which will allow human knowledge to become tangible outside of the organizational construct of a corporation, government, or even academia. Anyone who develops these applications will generate a great deal of wealth.

These applications are as follows:

1. The knowledge Inventory
2. The Percentile Search Engine
3. The Innovation Bank

Believe it or not, human knowledge is a great tangible asset upon which to peg a currency - better than Gold, Silver, Oil, or Debt.

While this may seem like strange at first, the reality is that everything changes. Many of our most durable paradigms will be challenged:

• The resume will dissapear becomeing a “pull” system rather than a “push” system.
• Creative knowledge workers will earn royalties instead of wages.
• Knowledge workers will outsource management jobs.
• The university “degree” will be replaced by “strategic knowledge asset combinations”.
• Schools will forgo tuition for an equity position in students.
• Venture Capitalists will be replaced by publically financed innovation bonds
• Wall Street is a steward, not a master.
• Most importantly, communities will decide what gets innovated and what does not - or conversely, which markets get disrupted and which do not.

This is just the beginning - millions of new business opportunities will be created and nearly every existing business is made more efficient.

Innovation Economics is transformational. For example; In the early 1800’s Eli Whitney performed a remarkable demonstration for members of Congress. He took 10 working muskets, disassembled them, scrambled the pieces and reassembled 10 working muskets. It may seem trivial to us today but that simple feat astonished the world, led to the industrial revolution, and unlocked a vast amount of wealth creation.

Innovation Economics is the modern day equivalent, think about it.

Many people have a deep sense that something very new, something very exciting, and something hugely lucrative is coming down the road as Web 2.0 converges to Web 3.0. Our hope is that we can capture it in our communities before it passes us by and becomes “Incorporated” in the old business model.

If we work together, Innovation Economics could be the best way to capture the engine of wealth creation for ourselves and our communities. Now is the time to build the Innovation Economy. Our research is open to you.

When you step back from today’s results one can see that it is broken policies, processes and poor leadership of the system that created the results. As we look at what is happening globally as a result of the internet we can see a new medium, a new innovation which is creating brand new dynamics and the creation of new knowledge. The knowledge creation is the result of collaborative technology and massive communication never before experienced since the beginning of time.

Just maybe a new economy Is forming based on using knowledge to create innovation rather than using information to create credits and debits.

What say you?

The “social computing vendor” market grows daily. From consulting services, application developers and custom platform operators it seems that all this “social stuff” has created an industry whose offerings grow daily.

As major brands and institutions migrate toward use of social technologies the differences in vendors makes the space even more confusing and complex for organizations to sort through the hype and define what is real and relevant.

It is ironic that many of the suppliers who claim to know the “art and science” of social media have limited hands on experience in using “social stuff”. Academics and consultants publish articles, books and papers on the science of all this social stuff. CEO’s of platforms and application companies proclaim their insights as if it were the “word from the heavens above filled with wisdom and prophecy”. While there are keen insights smart people can obtain from observing the market and related dynamics the more useful insights come from actual usage of the technology and interactions with other users.

Commenting on the dynamics and disruptive nature of all this social stuff without having used it is like teaching students how to build a car but never having the experience of driving one. An expert can tell you how the car engine works, the suspension, the steering etc. but unless they have actually driven a car they cannot effectively share the experience of use.

What Is The Difference?

Today’s social media tools and related technology is built by technologist and engineers. After talking with many of the top developers and platform operators it dawned on me that they don’t actually use the very tools they build. Not having the experience with the technology you build limits one’s comprehension of its use.

I was recently in conversations with a major platform developer. The company has been successful in selling their “platform” to numerous major brands. The executive team was made up of some very smart people with Fortune 500 experience and Ivy League education. Before my conversation with the executive team I decided to check out each person’s profile and activity throughout the social web. Here is what I found:

1. They had profiles on Linkedin and Facebook but no one individual was connected to more than 50 people

2. None of the executive team members had ever created or maintained a blog

3. Most of the executive team had a Twitter” account but kept their profiles and exchanges private

4. No one on the executive team had a Friendfeed account

5. None of the executive team members had either set up or participated in any group exchanges on Linkedin or Facebook.

The list of what I found and did not find relative to the executive team’s participation within the social web is much more extensive than just the five listed above. The point is while the executive team represented very smart people whom had either built or read about social tools none of them had much experience using the tools. Yet they seem to be successful selling the technology to major brands. However, now their customers are asking for help building their intended communities.

So here we have a company that knows how to build good technology but their customers are now asking “how best to use it”. This is an example of what is know as the difference between the core and the context of a company’s offerings. The context is that which provided a company’s entry into a market. Context can quickly become a commodity. The core is that which provides a company the means to continuously grow their market position through product/service differential. In reference to the company discussed in this post the context is their original technological platform. Their core would be having the knowledge and the resources to help their customers build outstanding communities. Without actually knowing how to use their context it becomes impossible to create the core.

Without the context you cannot gain the position to create your core. Without the core you cannot insure your position and enhance your value with the market you’ve been serving. It is vital to have both context and continuously create the core. Do you use what you sell? Get it?

What say you?

The bailout plan didn’t pass congress. Now the politicians are before the media spinning their stories and pointing fingers at each other as the blame for the bill not passing.

The stock market has gone into a spin and shows signs of hitting its all time low since the crash that caused the great depression. The rest of this week will be an interesting political dance as the Presidential race continues and the American people get more and more frustrated with their leaders.

Both parties claim to be reaching out to each other but both parties are acting like spoiled kids who don’t get their way. The American public is tired of the spin, tired of Washington insider trading and power plays and it is time to reform the political system.

Who Will Create The Reform?

Reform only comes when “we the people” stand united and demand change. Like the Boston Tea Party, maybe it is time to turn the tide and unite our voices demanding unity rather than party pickering. Our politicians are operating from self centered interest for positioning. Who will serve the needs of the people? The people have been empowered with a voice. Use it!

What say you?

Everyone takes some risk. Some take more risk than others. Gambling in Las Vegas has risk. Starting a business has risk. Those that take risk hope to receive the reward of their risk. Calculating and providing protection from risk is the business of insurance companies.

AIG, one of the world’s largest insurers, took risk and did not calculate the potential impact of the risk they took. Subsequently the US Government decided to bail AIG out at the tune of $85 Billion in addition to the roughly $600 billion of other financial risk gone bad by banks and Wall Street firms.

The current U.S. Government Bailout program represents a significant shift for financial markets, and for individuals and businesses alike, in that our government has now become the largest insurer in the world. However the government insurance program is unlike any other insurance offered by the private sector. The U.S. Government Insurance Program basically says to business markets, don’t worry if you fail we’ll back you up. What a deal for big business but what about small business and individuals? If a small business or a family fails financially will the government come to our rescue as well?

The Backlash of a Bailout

If you haven’t noticed already the politicians are now claiming their decisions are not considered a “bailout” rather an “insurance program” aimed at protecting the consumer from taking on close to a trillion dollars of new debt. The reason for the change in terminology is the politicians don’t want to be associated with a “bailout” rather the term “insurance” appears to be more dignified and safe. Plus it creates great spin for the media and the average consumer will simply equate this legislation to “safety in the markets” which the politicians will take credit for and stand proud for protecting American consumers and the global financial markets abroad.

The problem with the proposed plan and the attitude from our politicians is that both are fundamentally flawed in their assumptions. The basis of risk management is founded on a set of choices about risk. Individually and institutionally there are five choices one makes relative to managing risk. These are:

1. Avoid the risk: Don’t participate in activities or endeavors that increase risk
2. Spread (share) the risk: In the insurance world this is known as reinsurance
3. Transfer the risk: Move the consequences of related risk for others to assume
4. Mitigate the risk: This is usually done contractually by stating who is responsible for assuming what risk
5. Assume the risk: This means you assume the consequences if the risk produces negative or positive results

The Wall Street firms, banks and AIG first choose to assume the risk they took which then fueled failure. By declaring bankruptcy they in essence transferred the risk for someone else to assume. The U.S. Government, and our beloved politicians, looked at the situation that their own previous legislation had created and decided the risk of a global economic meltdown needed to be mitigated by the government assuming the risk of those that had failed to manage the risk to begin with.

The problem with this thinking and the related decisions is that by assuming the risk the government is actually increasing rather than mitigating the risk. How many other banks, insurance companies and Wall Street firms will fail and expect the government to bail them out. How many “big businesses”, the auto industry has already begun, will ask the government to help them mitigate the risk of their own decisions.

The proposed “bailout” is nothing more than a band aid on a damn of rising expectations actually created and enhanced by those who think their past and current decisions can be covered up or protected from risk. The truth is their decisions are fueling the risk and related cost which will eventually fall onto the back of every consumer. The government, any government, is funded by the people and any assumption of risk falls onto “we the people”. Ultimately we the people have to provide the economics of any bailout or insurance program created by those “we the people” elect to make these decisions for us.

If we don’t like the decisions we need to unite and change those who make them. What say you?