Social Networking must be multi-party to really spread the work

Barack Obama's campaign has discovered what the Scion car brand is also implementing. To be truly effective in spreading the word, you have to give up control. This means that you have to be prepared for participants to say bad thinks about you as well as good.

This is the major reason why few businesses will ever be really successful at this. Their instincts, like any dictator are to completely control all the messages. This ends up hurting the company more than it helps. Companies have to learn that in order to spread the good word, they have to risk some negative comments, or the mere suppression of them will reflect poorly on the company.

Is there a continued need for the US cent coin?

I grew up in the waning days of the British farthing (it was tiny, and the old penny was huge, thus the "penny-farthing" bicycle). A quarter of a penny, it could buy little, but still existed because people rather liked it (it had a Robin red-breast, a completely different bird to the North American Robin, on its obverse). Eventually, it went, but the half-penny survived until the introduction of decimal currency. At that time, there was a half new pence, worth 1.2 old pennies, which has slowly faded out and the new penny is worth 2.4 old pennies, or 9.6 farthings. The reality is that the US nickel is worth less than one cent was before WWII, so do we need it? Until 1859 there was a US half-cent, but it was abandoned because of declining value. If we are to look at inflation since then perhaps the smallest coin should be the dime, since 10 cents now is worth what one cent may have been back then. Of course, there is no logic for retaining the dollar note. It should be a coin. While many say that notes are cheaper to produce than coins, they do not realize that notes may only last 6 months, whereas coins last for many, many years, and even then can be re-cycled.

Are Frequent Flier Miles Programs dead - $675 for a "free" flight on British Airways!

A month ago, it cost me $260 to get a "free" ticket to London with American Airlines. A couple of days ago, British Airways on its website, wanted to charge me $675 for a "free" ticket to London. When I called the airline to ask about this, I was told that this was because of taxes, charges, and fees. When I checked online for a purchased fare, the airline's website showed these as $174.40 on a fare of $880. So cashing in frequent flyer miles results in a fairly modest savings as British Airways charges such a high premium for doing so. Clearly, with shorter and shorter expiration times, less availability and hidden charges, these programs will become not loyalty generators, but creators of immense resentment.

London art sales this summer go over $1 Billion, up 19% vs. year ago

This is one of the few times when although economies in the West are troubled, unemployment is rising, as are foreclosures, yet the ultra-rich are reveling in their wealth. Over the the history of economic times, the rich have suffered along with the poor. However, this past decade, in many Western countries, the rich have prospered while the poor have lost. Whether it is the most expensive homes or the most expensive luxuries, their prices continue to soar, while the routinely expensive have dropped and the poor are losing their homes. It is unlikely in any democracy that this can continue for ever without a backlash at the ballot box.

An old constitution

While the USA likes to think of itself as a young country, it has the oldest written constitution in the world. Perhaps uniquely, its framers are seen as demi-gods, its strictures almost immutable. Even though it was merely a development in a long line of documents from the Magna Carta in 1215, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the mythology around it is that it sprung fully formed from the mind of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, while he wrote the first draft, about 25% of that was dropped and new material introduced. There is little recognition that circumstances change. A few days ago, on the radio, I heard someone say that the government could ban cars, or the Internet, without any challenge from the Constitution, whereas, it could not ban guns, even though the very nature of a gun and society had changed dramatically since it was written. Only a few centuries will tell whether this view of a Constitution, or the alternative view of one as an ever changing and evolving philosophy will be better.

Is fixing healthcare a social, business, or political problem?

In the US, the only Western country without universal health-care, there seems to be little progress. With over 46 Million without health insurance, a similar number with inadequate insurance, and 100 Million without dental care, a train wreck is inevitable. The resulting reduction in working days, it is an economic problem as well as a social one. However, no one seems to come to terms with the fact that delivering health-care requires a compromise between universal access, quality, and cost. No society can deliver all three to the maximum extent. Some area or areas have to be sub-optimal. Eventually, the bullet will have to be bitten or the consequences for the nation will be catastrophic, as the problem gets worse. It is indeed a social, business, and political issue, but those who are slowing down the resolution also come from each of these three factors. However, it does seem to be taking too much time to resolve. If government cannot resolve this, how can it be expected to resolve other major issues, such as Global Warming, Infrastructure, Energy, and Education, each of which is essential to our children's future?