A Well-Deserved Reward

I just searched for the lyrics of a tune recorded by many artists in 1942. And I found them on line. I don't know how I would have discovered them otherwise since I didn't remember the name of the song. Remembering some of the words, I used Google^®, which is amazing. But I suspect that I would also have found what I sought using one of the other “search engines” instead.

Clearly the person who conceived of the concept, made it practicable, and found a way to display it to the rest of us, is a genius – both in computer skills and in his entrepreneurship. And he's (or she's – I didn't bother to Google^® it so I don't really know) helped us all. I assume he's been well rewarded and he deserves it. He's opened up a new world to us by providing a means of negotiating the information highway. By now he's probably in the “1%” (actually the 0.1%) and everybody hates him. Not what he did, but him. He's rich and we're not.

Not me. All I have for him is praise. He earned what he earned. And computer users (that's a lot of us) benefit directly from his work. He should be rich. He's enriched the rest of us. I'm especially happy that the service is free, even if I have to tolerate the ads.

I wonder if, whoever he is, he took “shortcuts” along the way – both in the development and in the implementation. If he did anything unethical or criminal, he should be punished appropriately, but that does not take away from his accomplishments. For those he should be rewarded. And the reward should be his, not one that is shared. He did it, and he should profit from it.

It's not a unique story. Creativity – originating something that no one thought of, or could figure out how to implement – is a rare commodity. And it's something that seems to be part of American DNA, which is why so many new ideas originate here. There are creative ideas in all fields, and we're all better for learning what they are and utilizing those that help us. There are ideas in all fields: new medicines and medical techniques have increased our life spans; new ideas in agriculture have made nutrition available to more people; and better mouse traps have made for both improves aesthetic and health situations.

But I want to focus on the ones whose primary purpose is to make a buck. Those are the ones that are most apparent to us and most likely to earn our anger. Even if the product is something we need and the originator has produced something that makes our life easier, we resent the fact that we have to shell out the money that makes him rich. He should be paying higher taxes. He should be helping the poor by supporting entitlement programs. He has taken advantage of the rest of us.

Such penalties of the creative, however, are counter productive. They are our way of convincing ourselves that there are others whose main aim is to take advantage of us. They are creating what we consider useless variations of already existing products – variations that we don't need. But we buy them anyway. We don't need them but the guy down the block has them and we don't want to be left behind. And, of course, we'll pay anything for something that makes us healthy.

We tolerate the developments that don't cost us money – like Google^®. We know that its developers are making lots of money from ads and fees – money that should be taxed and given to the needy – but we don't realize that our tax money is going into the same programs. So since the new tools that others develop are free and of value to us, we use them.

We don't realize that the use of economic penalties lessens the likelihood that creativity will continue. Creative people are like the rest of us – they want to earn (or “get” if they don't want to work) as much as they can, however they can. Thomas Edison didn't spend his 99% perspiration simply out of the goodness of his sweat glands. He expected, and received, a reward for it. And modern drug companies don't develop drugs that will lose them money. Perhaps they overcharge; perhaps they could get by with smaller profits, but we'd be less healthy as a society if we discouraged their development of new products. Suppose, for example, that drug companies, in fear of taxes, opted not to develop antibiotics. We'd all suffer.

That's not to suggest that there is no room for tax law review and change, but stifling the impulse to be creative, by taxing the rich to help the poor. is not the best idea. Let's start our search engines and look at the ways creativity has been encouraged around the world, and look as well at the policies that discouraged it. Lest we dissuade the creative from their activity, it's better to support their efforts to help us all. Society will get its cut even if taxes aren't raised.

What's To Be Done?

Mankind has a genius for solving problems. Of course there are some conditions that have to be met if a problem is to be solved – two more than any others. The first is that the problem must be recognized as one for which it is reasonable to seek a solution. The problem itself must be formulated and understood. Second is the existence of tools that can be used to so. Without them it is not reasonable to seek a problem's solution.

The tools must be of two kinds. One kind – the obvious one – relates to the physical tools that allow us to construct the solution: you can't build a better automobile unless certain instruments are available to do so. More important, however, is knowledge of a more theoretical nature – one that makes a solution imaginable and designable. Unless we believe that a solution is feasible, we'll never solve the problem. And that's probably the most important element in problem-solving – the one that most limits us. Once we accept the idea that a problem should, and can be solved, we'll find a way to solve it. And if particular tools – tools not yet available – are needed, we'll fabricate them.

I don't mean to suggest that animals can't recognize and solve problems, or even use tools (as Aesop wrote, crows, for example, will drop pebbles into a class of water until its level is high enough for them to reach and drink), but the problems are few and the solutions are limited. The human, however, is better equipped to analyze and solve more complex problems; given the challenge, and the belief that it can be done, he will build a better mousetrap. And the idea Chester Gould had (in 1946) for Dick Tracy, a wrist radio, has reached fulfillment with today's “smart phones” and “smart watches.” How did our ancestors ever live without it? And how did we, in our childhood, survive without some of the products available now?

Sometimes, however, the problems aren't real. Sometimes an ambitious entrepreneur will create a problem that never existed because he can provide a “solution” for it. And with the help of avaricious advertisers he can convince consumers that his product is worth their money. He has created a “need” which doesn't exist, but for which he can offer a solution. Existing products are inadequate to the seriousness of the situation. We're fortunate that his secret ingredient was perfectly designed to solve the problem we didn't even recognize until he told us about it.

There are many good examples of this phenomenon, but none is as good as the cosmetics industry that parades an endless line of products which, they claim, are perfect solutions to one imagined malady or another. Usually the improvement over previous panaceas is the substitution of one vegetable for another in the magic cream they market. (Veganism wins again.)

And the pharmaceutical industry and its advertisers demonstrate another variant on the theme of a superior product. That's what advertisers do: they convince us that their variation on the theme is far better than anything existing. (Advertisers make a good living by persuading us that there actually would be an advantage to purchasing what their employer is selling. Truth is irrelevant.) In the case of drugs, however, it may be necessary for you to demand that your physician prescribe their product irrespective of the price and the existence of other alternatives.

Another risk of “advancement” is that too often the “cure” is worse than the “disease.” A medication with disabling side-effects may make a fortune for the manufacturer while harming the consumer. Or, if a recall is necessary, it may harm both of them. Similarly the subjects of (often unjustified) lawsuits that bankrupt manufacturers believed by consumers and their lawyers, to have “deep pockets.”

Nonetheless, “progress is our most important product.” And there are many ideas and products that actually improve our lives. Successful entrepreneurs develop them, and help both us and themselves in the process. “American ingenuity” has been credited with contributing to our success as a world leader in many fields. Israel has gotten a reputation as a “start-up nation” for all the new ideas and industries it has originated. (It is sometimes difficult, however, to see it as a nation other than one with which others want to start up.) That's how humanity moves forward.

It takes ideas, money, and nerve to advance us in the commercial (and political) world. Fortunately, Mankind has members who possess these qualities or can determine methods of gaining them. We have a genius for solving problems – far more than simply dropping pebbles in a glass to raise the water level.




October 13, 2016

Labor Day And The One Percent

No. No. You misunderstand. But I'll get to that.

First of all, happy Labor Day. Unofficially it's the end of summer, but we know better. Lots of hot days left. And Election Day's coming, so it's “Silly Season.” (But it's always Silly Season.) It was especially so during the run-up to the Democratic Convention when Senator Sanders's supporters outnumbered those of Colonel Sanders, and his ideas were “finger lickin' good.”

But I'll get to that too.

First let me comment on the “one percent.” It's a what, not a who. According to Thomas Edison, Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. It's not the idea that counts, it's the effort that goes into turning it into a usable “product,” whether that's a concept or a physical construction, whether it's commercial or simply for personal use.

The perspiration is certainly something any worker experiences, though not all workers share equally in that experience. There are many who “play the system,” making enough to get by while working just hard enough to keep their jobs. Or at least being seen to do so. Better still, with enough effort spent in doing so, work can be avoided entirely, with support provided by various unemployment and welfare programs. It certainly isn't the life of Riley, but it's far better than the life endured by so many around the world.

And the United States isn't the only generous country. There are many that provide for the needy. Unfortunately, however, everything comes at a cost, and someone has to pay. Can you guess who? You. And me. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (Louis Blanc, 1851. Later Karl Marx.) Socialism. That's the perspective of many, as exemplified in the “Occupy ...” movements a few years ago. And even if the movements no longer exist, the idea remains.

The “one percent” of whom they speak are the rich. But they are not the lazy. In addition to the perspiration, they have the inspiration. And much of their perspiration, their ninety-nine percent, is the effort to turn their ideas into usable products. (That's not to say that all the wealthy are good people with good ideas, but at some point in the history of each fortune is the effort, imagination, and hard work that created it.)

Inspiration is not present equally in everybody. Nor are capital, knowledge, and opportunity. But, if society is to advance it should be encouraged, not punished. By and large it benefits society, not only with both its products and employment for those who participate in its manufacture, but because the inspired one percent are the source of so much of society's philanthropy (see “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks, “Why Philanthropy Matters” by Zoltan Acs, and other similar works) – and we all profit from that.

And, for better or worse, we're all selfish. We all want a peice of the pie. Of course we'd prefer not to work for it, but the greater rewards come to those who put greater effort into problem solving. If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods. (Ralph Waldo Emerson. Now usually quoted as Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.) Society rewards imagination and innovation. As it should. If we are to advance we have to encourage our citizens to come up with and develop new ideas. And the best encouragement is fiscal. That's fair.

There are many, however, who adocate sharing. Usually they want what someone else has. They would have the rich provide for the poor. No one should benefit at another's expense. From their perspective that is what's fair. The Robin Hood approach. Irrespective of its effects on motivation and progress. Among those who take this position are politicians, like Senator Sanders who was recently a candidate for President. And his voice has had its effects on the Democratic platform. But popular as such a concept may be among the majority, it may not be for the good.

The following letter appeard recently in The Wall Street Journal:

Regarding Bret Stephens’s “What's Socialism Dad?” (Global View, May 17): I had a similar discussion with my grandchildren as did Bret Stephens with his son regarding the meaning of socialism. I pointed out to them that they all work very hard to achieve the grade of “A” on their tests. However, the student next to them may not have worked as hard, or may have goofed off, or just didn’t care, and as a result received a failing grade. But under socialism, the school administration (i.e., the “government”) could reduce your hard-earned “A” to a “C” to lift the failing student’s “F” to a “C.” They all immediately responded as I hoped they would, saying: “Not fair,” and “Why would I work so hard again?” They understood immediately the disincentives and the mediocrity of socialism

Steven Shanok

Northbrook, Ill.

I hope even the politicians – especially Senator Sanders – can understand its message. But I doubt that they want to.

All Or Nothing At All

“My way or the highway.” It has to be my way or I won't accept it. I don't care how well-intentioned you may be, or the virtues of what you suggest. My way is better and I won't settle for less. No halfway measures.

The search for perfection is never-ending. Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759):

A watch . . . that falls behind above two minutes in a day, is despised by one curious in watches. He sells it perhaps for a couple of guineas, and purchases another at fifty, which will not lose above a minute in a fortnight. (Cited in Gary Wills's Inventing America.)

The attitude is not new. Partial improvements are unacceptable when you're convinced that a better solution (or, at least, your solution) is possible. It's not clear what the “curious” clock-lovers of the eighteenth century would have done had the horologists of their time not been able to provide them with the fifty-guinea watch, but it's clear they would have been very unhappy. Compromise is not an option.

It's unfortunate, but this approach long predated Smith and will probably persist as long as there are any humans remaining. Not just the imperious like me, but most people, especially men (and politicians of both sexes), are single-minded in their search for perfect solutions to the problems they identify. It's often better to tolerate a bad situation than to accept a solution that isn't perfect – or as close to it as can be imagined. No deals with the devil. “The devil we know” is better than one we don't know.

There's much to be said for such a point of view, especially that it is a good way to avoid unintended consequences. But there is much to be said against it as well. As the adage goes, Half a loaf is better than none. A trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

But, as Congress has shown, and as our President has emphasized, there is no room for compromise. It's all or nothing. (“All or Nothing At All” in the words of Jack Lawrence's 1940 song.) The whole point of controversy is not progress, but the point to be made. Argument is better than solution. Winning is the only thing. It's better not to solve a problem than to make even the slightest move in the direction of someone with other (and therefore inferior) opinions.

What brings this to mind at the moment is the news of a death in a car using the Tesla “Autopilot” – a self-driving system still in its beta phase (still being tested). It's not perfect. But what is? There will be no progress if we wait for perfection. That doesn't mean that care should not made in the creation of solutions to the problems we face. It remains critical to be certain that the “solution” will indeed address the difficulty we seek to remedy. And we have to determine what negative effects it might have; we must avoid any additional ills it may cause. The solution has to be better than the problem. But we ought not reject a solution simply because it isn't perfect, for doing so will never let us make any progress.

According to Bill Vlasic, on the front page of the New York Times (July 2, 2016)

Even some Tesla owners, many of whom can be cultishly devoted to the brand, now question whether the self-driving technology is as safe as advertised.

“It gives you a false sense of security.” [Quoting a Tesla owner.]

What the article doesn't mention is that while Tesla tells us this is the first death in one hundred sixty-seven million miles driven using “Autopilot,” the statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show a death every nine hundred ninety-two thousand miles. The system may not be perfect, but, if the numbers are correct, the rate thus far is a sixty-eight percent improvement over current statistics. It may not be perfect, but it's a big improvement over the current situation. And, according to the information in Mr. Vlasic's article, it is (at least) as safe as advertised.

In April, he [Elon Musk, founder of Tesla] told a conference in Norway, “the probability of having an accident is 50 percent lower if you have Autopilot on.”

Mr. Musk didn't claim perfection, but he made a strong case for an improvement on the status quo. And the numbers bear him out. It would be contrary to our better interests to reject improvement as we seek perfection. It would be sad if we imitated the Congress whose stalemate we all criticize. But our paranoia inspired by this accident may lead us to do so.

We damage ourselves if we keep the faulty watch when we know there is a better one available, even if it is not perfect.