Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Inventerama at Maker Faire

My faith in entrepreneurship and my age cohort was well improved this weekend at the Bay Area Maker Faire. I saw over 600 inventors, and groups of inventors, trying to change the world and sought to do my part.


Being a Fair Maker I decided to create some marketing, and so made over 30 videos showcasing the event and individual inventors. No one will discover your mousetrap unless you tell them.


Kinetic Bug Jars Colleen Par http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsmVehx7iYk

Yes & Yes Designs Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTlK6EllzcQ

Mission Stands Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMcysTWA-U

Gerard's Paella Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQholmPu4BY

Philosophy Bass Amps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NPa2R-d6ew

Russell the Electric Giraffe Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuq3KEWrSv4

Ng Thrive Portion Control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTa0hi3jLsg

SCA Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpfteN7Huw0

Erica Newman's Sign Wave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH08XgiJTTw

Wood Ties Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUoy5BGJqw

GE Inbody 230 Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTk_tNrzw3g

Jackie Huang Woolbuddy Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0fkaOYTMRE

Kinect Hacks Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRjP4SzEyM

Fixit.com Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GELqUJQEXA 

Music Synced Arduino LED Array at Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSGJIXBiGQ

NifNaks Plush Art Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr02WQlqvws

Spindles and Flyers Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeISJ4UMyI

TurtleBot Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83H-74Lg3BQ

Zombie Bats & Hidden Messages Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YLvfkL2I-o 

Young Sparks Water Totter 2 Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3RCsMlJ_I

Kelly Jensen Photorealistic Cloth Pouches

Trash Amps Maker Faire  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbpq1LNfdU0 

TechShop Maker Faire 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSBabOLYiFc



Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Unfair Advantage & Economic Decay


Systems of Control & Self Sufficiency
An Economic Inquest of the American South Pre/Post Civil War


The Crutch of Slavery

Slavery was common in the classical world, with both slaves that lived with you as in Athens or slaves that worked more independently, such as the Helots of Sparta. However, slavery should be termed an unfair social system as it is doubtful that masters would accept a role reversal in the same way they expected/demanded acceptance among their slave class. Exploiting unfair systems can lead to great short term success, but in the longer term it leads to an incomplete economic development by the populace. Imagine a privileged heir that never wants for money, and finds themselves cut off at 30, how prepared are they for the honest economic realities of the outside world?


This unfair system of obtaining labor gave the South a great advantage while the system was in place, but upon its removal they found themselves left with an incomplete economy, gaping holes left by slavery’s absence. Contrarily, the North, while not having the same help from slavery to build their economy, had to find economically justifiable agreements to encourage free individuals to fill unpleasant economic roles. Sometimes what resulted was similar to slavery, like the system of indentured servitude, but eventually workers would have to be dealt with as free men and a workable arrangement found. Systems like this, while more difficult to establish, will survive many more difficulties because every member involved in the organization is receiving negotiated compensation for a needed service.

Creating Equitable Systems

In 1914 Ford raised the wages of his linemen  from $2.34 a day to $5, in an effort to fight his 300% yearly turnover. While in the very short run of pay-periods this would have been a painful decision, overall it was a great success. “The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs” (Wikipedia, Ford entry).


The move would have also given rise to much greater group cohesion, as Ford saw the change as “profit sharing” which alludes that the workmen were now part of the group entitled to profit, and important members of the organization. At first, workers personal lives were investigated by private eyes, with a 6 month wait for the professional wages, but as time went on Ford grew to judge the workers on their work alone, "…paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment" (Wikipedia, Ford entry).


The real advancements seem to have come when Ford internalized the needs of his workers, broadened the ‘important group’ to include simple laborers, and sought to provide them with a salary that would allow them the ability to advance economically. For many organizations providing avenues of advancement is a risky thing, if you give an employee an opportunity to better themselves you have to be willing to compensate the more valuable employee accordingly, which means there needs to be higher positions for them to move into or they will find another employer. Only growing organizations can offer these opportunities, if there aren’t any positions to grow into, employees who improve their skills will lose morale as they see themselves compensated at the same rate as their lackluster comrades.

Back to the South

How does this relate to the South? Well, maybe being brought in from the fields to become a house slave was enough advancement opportunity for some, the number of violent slave uprisings tells another story. By not allowing advancement to the deserving, discontent and revolution is fermented among the high-achievers who, among the lot, would be the most capable of leading a slave uprising. Therefore you had a huge segment of the population who was intentionally denied advancement opportunities in an effort to maintain the going systems of control.


The North, in contrast, had outlawed slavery throughout New England by 1804; abolition was forced on the South in 1863, two generations later. Through those 59 years, economic advancement was legally open to any resident of the North, which would have created a healthier, more stratified economic system. In 1790 there were .51 slaves for every free man in the South, in 1860 the ratio was .47. (EH.net) That same ratio across such a span of time suggests that the South had found a system of control that worked and had formalized it into tradition. This sort of system where a third of the population was denied the opportunity to advance held back the whole of the society. This can be seen through the flood of carpetbaggers post-Civil War. The South didn’t have enough links in the chain of their economic system to survive, so northern entrepreneurs came to fill in those gaps.


“Many carpetbaggers were businessmen who purchased or leased plantations and became wealthy landowners, hiring freedmen to do the labor. Most were former Union soldiers eager to invest their savings in this promising new frontier, and civilians lured south by press reports of "the fabulous sums of money to be made in the South in raising cotton." Foner notes that "joined with the quest for profit, however, was a reforming spirit, a vision of themselves as agents of sectional reconciliation and the South's "economic regeneration." Accustomed to viewing Southerners—black and white—as devoid of economic initiative and self-discipline, they believed that only "Northern capital and energy" could bring "the blessings of a free labor system to the region.” (Wikipedia, carpetbagger entry)

Takeaway

In a Machiavellian system (like the one we all live in) unfair advantages such as this demand participation because it must be assumed that competitors will take advantage and competitive advantage will diminish. However, it should not be lost that the advantage has been obtained from unfair means and excess profits should be put towards the development of profitable, sustainable systems. A good example of this would be the rum running Kennedy family buying up political capital with their prohibition money, and then parlaying that goodwill into politics themselves.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Alexander the Great : Traditon of Innovation

Innovative Tradition

Back in the day, Alexander the Great was big daddy mack. His father Philip rocked Greece; and Alex high in the saddle at 16, commanding battalions from the front.  Stories of his divine origins drove his sense of authority to encompass all situations, even leading him to draw down and engaging in heated swordplay with his father. That sense of largess and the desire to command all men drove him to conquer Asia Minor. How has this kingdom expansion been possible when unified governed territories of this size had never existed before?

During his life Alexander pushed for great measure of integration, he adopted Persian dress, court rituals, took a foreign wife and instituted a eugenics program among his military. He married 2-300 of his officers and thousands (up to 10,000) of the army to women selected from his conquested people. For the weddings he took care to find match pairs according to their appropriate standing in society, in an effort to not disrupt the current society and integrate as smoothly as possible. He even went so far as to have himself deified in Greek and Egyptian cultures, referring to himself as Zeus-Ammon.

After his death the empire was thrown into 30 years of all out civil war and fiefdomship by his generals, which settled down and dissolved into stable regional collections. The desire for integration evaporated and the power collected in the Greek speaking, Macedonian/Persian elite who rarely built their capitals far from the Mediterranean sea and modeled their civil structures, (hierarchical and architectural) after classical Greek cities.  The most common writing from Ptolemaic Egypt, in the Hellenistic period following Alexanders rule, is the petition, usually a native looking for redress against unfair practices by the Greek speaking ruling class
 
Sparta as Contrast

Remember Sparta? That legendary military power spent years quelling rebelling cities, in less time Alex was conquering territories the size of India. How?

Sparta declared open war, yearly, on their slave population. Their treatment was looser, on the whole, than most of Greece’s treatment of their slave population. In Athens the slaves lived on property of their owner, in American South sort of way, but they were educated and commonly were craftsmen or held positions of management. In Sparta, their slaves-the helots, were Russian style serfs, more slaves of poverty and tied to the land like sharecroppers. So, if you were a helot, you worked in agriculture or rudimentary cottage industries of cloth, carpentry, etc.  You didn’t have someone bossing you around every day, but, you could be killed at any time by almost any Spartan with no recourse. No cultural integration and management in absence through fear. This sort of begrudging tolerances towards native peoples is something Alexander’s empire fell into after his death, but while he lived, he pushed for as great an integration as possible.     

The New Deal

Alexander's offer was simple, he was able to provide systems already being sought. Through changing what a kingdom was, and providing a more accepting framework for foreign societies to fill, Alex broadened his own culture to absorb these new peoples. With this, their governance would come from the preexisting power structures and local networks, now even stronger as backed by the resources from the rest of Alexander’s empire.

It’s similar to Saddam sorting out his region, collecting power so that finally his voice would enact action and represent control over the country. Then a country, say, Taiwan, absorbs it into the Taiwanese Empire and better trains and arms the military before leaving him in power.  Of course they would also leave high born women, for him to lay with, so to breed an ethnic and cultural mix set for rule in both countries. In a classical Hellenic sense anyway, this is how Alexander spread his empire.

Spartan life would have been difficult to export and maintain in absence, consider the unpleasant lifestyle changes people would encounter if the Amish (who ran brutal, yearly pogroms) rose to complete political and military dominance. Going from a more open society to a more restrictive one would require enforcement, which means garrisoning troops and actively policing a population, which would eat up a governing power’s resources.

The opposite, moving into a more accepting regime, would increase the total amount of economic activity in allowing the professional advancement of a greater part of the population alongside the compounding effects of broader and safer trade. This way, the ruling elite facing Alexander stood to become even wealthier by supporting his regime and having a slice from a huge cake instead of their own little cupcake. With the hearts and minds in hand, Alex would pull resources from his new province and move forward in conquest, leaving the day to day life of the citizens intact.

Limits on Everything

Internal dissent finally came from the Macedonian old guard, far past the time when each member had more wealth than they could control. The endless campaigning was put to an end, and complaints arose concerning his privileged treatment of foreign peoples, “why are you allowing the savages to kiss you on the cheek and call you brother?” Now, Alexander was someone who it was best not to question, at a banquet hall an old guard general spoke out over his lauded superiority to classical Greek heroes, like Hellas and Heracles, and Alexander ran him through with the point of his sword, killed him on the spot. The Greeks were eventually given the privilege of being ‘as his brothers’ and even excepted from his newly instituted desire of being met with full prostration, Pharaoh style, but only after negotiations.

This lack of desire for boundless political dominance developed among his vital supporters, and became the limiting factor in his expansion.  At this point, the enormous amount of resources commanded and mobilized would have been comparable to the Second Athenian Empire, with a collection of city states working relatively autonomously towards a common goal. He knew he needed their support to some degree and turned back to rule rather than suffer Thebes fate by the hands of Athens. He demonstrated his frustration by marching his army home through deserts, instead of taking his available fleet of ships. Significant figures died.
 
*tAkeAwAy*?

In ruling a people and drawing from their resources, education and civil status gets you much further than abject fear. Or, Alleys(over)Subjects