Episode #369: Interview with Colin Rule, President and CEO of Mediate.com

Colin Rule

Ron and Ed first encountered Colin Rule's work when reading Richard and Daniel Susskind's book, The Future of the Professions (Episode 74) in which the online dispute resolution system used by eBay was touted as handling more cases per year than the entire US court system. In what promises to be a wide-ranging interview, Ron and Ed will explore this topic and more.

Before we get into the show notes, let’s learn a bit more about Colin rule:

Colin Rule was the first employee hired by Mediate.com when he served as Mediate.com’s first General Manager in 1999. With RIS support, Rule founded OnlineResolution.com in 2000, one of the world’s first online dispute resolution (ODR) providers. In 2003 Rule became the first Director of ODR for eBay and PayPal. In 2011 Rule co-founded Modria.com, an ODR provider he led as CEO and COO. In 2017 Tyler Technologies acquired Modria and Rule became Tyler’s first Vice President of Online Dispute Resolution. Colin is the author of Online Dispute Resolution for Business, published by Jossey-Bass in 2002, and The New Handshake: Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Consumer Protection, published by the American Bar Association in 2017. He received the first Frank Sander Award for Innovation in ADR from the American Bar Association in 2020, and the Mary Parker Follett Award from the Association for Conflict Resolution in 2013. He holds a Master's degree from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in conflict resolution and technology, a graduate certificate in dispute resolution from UMass-Boston, a B.A. from Haverford College in Peace Studies, and he served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Eritrea from 1995-1997.

Here are the show notes from Colin’s interview with Ron and Ed:

  • Colin has always been interested in dispute resolution and he “is also a nerd” - Two minutes into the show and we love him already!

  • It’s clear that we are digitizing our society from social networks, to iPhones, to wifi over the last 20 years. The next 20 will be even more disruptive. AI, the metaverse, quantum computing. We need to continually reinvent the way we deliver key functions in society.

  • eBay, PayPal, AirBNB, Uber. They have all built their own redress systems / resolution centers instead of relying on the traditional justice system.

  • Here’s a quick primer: Mediation is kind of like assisted negotiation. Any outcome is by agreement from both of the parties.

  • “The notion of decentralized justice is interesting because the outcomes can be automatically enforced.” —Colin Rule

  • Mediation is when two parties come together with a third party to help guide; Arbitration is when the third party has authority; Binding arbitration is when the result must be followed

  • “Rationality is in the eye of the beholder.” —Colin Rule

  • There are challenges in integrating artificial intelligence into the justice system. Colin has lengthy (positive) thoughts about this during the second segment of our show today.

  • Has there been an Increase in mediation with Covid? Yes, there has been a massive move online and it probably will not significantly revert back.

  • Take a moment and check out Patreon.com/TSOE where you will find both commercial free AND bonus episodes. Sponsored by @90Minds. Need a mind? Get one at 90Minds.com

  • The ICC International Court of Arbitration is part of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France. https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/icc-international-court-arbitration/

  • Younger generations are very comfortable with emotional expression via technology. This is an example of why online dispute resolution works for family matters.

  • Where could online dispute resolution fit where it is not being applied today? Video games. (With a hat tip to Anne Sawyer)

  • “The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.” —William Gibson

  • It’s really interesting to Colin when he thinks about an algorithm that can go out and advocate on your behalf. More details during the 4th segment of our show today.A big THANK YOU to Colin Rule for being such an amazing guest. Check out “The New Handshake: Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Consumer Protection” on Amazon at this link: https://www.amazon.com/New-Handshake-Resolution-Consumer-Protection/dp/B072BX9BRQ


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #368: Economic Lessons from Literature - The Verger and Harrison Bergeron

In the past year, two short stories have come to Ron and Ed's attention that provide some economic insights: Somerset Maugham's The Verger and Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. In The Verger, a church employee is fired even though he does his "work quite satisfactorily." Bergeron is a cautionary tale of the notion of equity - equality of outcome.

For those who would love to do read these short, short stories before catching up on the show, links can be found here:

Here are the show notes:

  • “The Young-Adult Appeal of Kurt Vonnegut”, Kyle Smith, National Review, November 23, 2021 - https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/the-young-adult-appeal-of-kurt-vonnegut/

  • “Kurt Vonnegut - Unstuck In Time” is a new documentary on Vonnegut. Here is the link: https://vonnegutdocumentary.com/

  • We have some seriously GREAT sponsors on The Soul of Enterprise and wanted to say thank you! So….THANK YOU to Fyle, next generation expense management software. You can find them at https://www.fylehq.com/ and @FyleHQ

  • “The damage done in pursuit of equality surpasses the damage done by inequality, by orders of magnitude.” —Ron Baker

  • “The envy of excellence leads to perdition; the love of it leads to the light.” —George Gilder

  • Our second story on today’s show was written by William Somerset Maugham. Here is a link to his background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Somerset_Maugham

  • Here is another seriously great sponsor! 90 Minds sponsors our Patreon page at Patreon.com/TSOE where you can find bonus and commercial free episodes. 90 Minds is a community for ERP consultants and resellers. If you need a mind, you can find one 90Minds.com or @90Minds

  • “Capitalism offers nothing but frustrations and rebuffs to those who wish - because of claimed superiority of intelligence, birth, credentials, or ideals - to get without giving, to take without risking, to profit without sacrifice, to be exalted without humbling themselves to understand others and meet their needs.” —George Gilder

  • “At the heart of capitalism is the unification of knowledge and power.” —George Gilder

  • “Nothing is more deadly to achievement than the belief that effort will not be rewarded, that the world is a bleak and discriminatory place in which only the predatory and the specially preferred can get ahead.” —George Gilder

  • “In every age everybody knows that up to his own time, progressive improvement has been taking place; nobody seems to reckon on any improvement in the next generation. We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who say society has reached a turning point—that we have seen our best days. But so said all who came before us and with just as much apparent reason…. On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?” —Thomas Babington Macaulay

We also answer a listener email during the show from Askel:

Ron & Ed,

Love the podcast. Possible free rider topic re: AI stealing jobs

I hear a lot of people talk about how AI will take away jobs, and you guys even broached the topic briefly on the podcast 6 years ago. I don't understand this line of thinking. When the industrial revolution happened and multiple technologies replaced human labor (think agriculture) with machines, it wasn't like the 80% of the human labor force previously devoted to agriculture just sat on their bums and never worked again.

Instead, the technological innovations freed humanity up to pursue work that was far more productive than before due to leverage. Think of construction - 50 men digging with shovels can be replaced by one man piloting an excavator while accomplishing more in a fraction of the time. One man driving a combine to harvest a field can replace hundreds of laborers. So why are so many people still saying that when AI replaces truck and taxi drivers, or personal assistants, or bookkeepers, or ______, that there will be this large swath of humanity that just has nothing to do?

I, for one, welcome our future robotic AI overlords. I don't know what the jobs will look like in 50 years, but I would bet money that they leverage machines, AI, and other advances so that one human can produce and create far more than was possible today, and seemed unfathomable 50 years ago.

Keep up the great work guys, please feel free to chop this up into something usable if you address it on the show. Would love to hear both of your thoughts on this topic as well!

Thank you,
Aksel


Episode Reprise — Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays

[Editor’s Note: Some things are just too good not to share again. While our most ardent listeners are familiar with Episode #22, Scroogenomics, many may not be familiar with this specific show. This past Friday was Black Friday in the United States which means it’s time - once again - to talk about why you shouldn’t buy presents. Bah, humbug!!!]

On Black Friday, and right before Cyber Monday—the biggest shopping days of the year—Ed and Ron thought it would be fun to discuss the interesting, funny, and thought-provoking book by Joel Waldfogel: Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays.

The author makes the case that the deadweight loss to the economy from gift giving, in 2007, totaled $12 billion, out of approximately $66.5 Billion spent (about 12%). Citizens Against Government Waste would classify Christmas as a wasteful government program.

Gift giving severs link between buying decision and item’s value to its user—the transaction actually destroys value. To add insult to injury, we are obliged to pretend to be grateful!

His complaint is not the level of spending or the consumption, but the waste.

We discussed the four ways you can spend money in the economy:

 

Former Congressman Dick Armey pointed out how difficult spending is in Category II (Gift), let alone Category IV (Government):

Every year, I worry and fret select the right birthday gift for my wife, Susan. Every year, try as I might, I manage to choose the wrong thing. If I can’t figure the needs and desires of the one person who is closest to me in the world and who I deeply love and care for, how can we expect the government to do a better job?

Three groups spend other people’s money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need parental supervision.

Hierarchy of value of gift giving

  • Aunts & uncles & grandparents = 75%

  • Parents = 97%

  • Friends =91%

  • Siblings =99%

  • Significant others = 102%

Further, we spend approximately 2.8 billion hours shopping in December. To put that number in context, the old USSR—before it imploded—spent 35 billion hours annually standing in line for everyday products and services.

Infographic from Deloitte’s 2018 annual holiday survey

Economist Ian Ayres said this about Waldfogel’s book:

Joel Waldfogel is one of the smartest and funniest economists on the planet. I think of him every time I start to unwrap a present. Buy Scroogenomics for your friends and family. It makes the perfect Christmas gift.

Episode #367: Interview with Samuel R Staley, The Beatles and Economics

The Beatles are considered the most influential popular music act of the twentieth century, widely recognized for their influence on popular culture. The inability of other bands and artists to imitate their fame has prompted questions such as: How did the Beatles become so successful? What factors contributed to their success? Why did they break up? Ron and Ed explored these questions and more in their interview with Professor Samuel R. Staley, author of The Beatles and Economics.

Before we get to the show notes…

A Bit More About Sam Staley
Sam Staley became director of the DeVoe Moore Center in January 2014 after serving as Managing Director from September 2011 to December 2013. In addition to his responsibilities providing strategic direction and supervision of center operations and programs, he teaches advanced undergraduate and professional masters courses in social entrepreneurship, economic development, land use and regulation, urban policy, and research methods. Prior to joining Florida State, Dr. Staley was the Robert W. Galvin Fellow at Reason Foundation, an internationally recognized public policy think tank based in Los Angeles where he worked on issues such as transportation system management and performance, public private partnerships, growth management, and regulatory reform. While at Reason Foundation, he managed the China Mobility Project, traveling to China more than 30 times as supervisor of academic research projects on transportation policy and finance. He has more than 25 years of experience in urban policy and is the author, co-author, or editor of five books on public policy and more than 100 professional articles and reports. His research has appeared in leading academic journals, including the Journal of the American Planning Association, Housing Policy Debate, Town Planning Review, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, and the Journal of Transportation Engineering.

Here are some Twitter links for Sam Staley’s affiliations:

@FSUDSA
@DMCFSU
@FSUCOSS
@FSUsoccer

Show Notes:

  • Not a Beatles fan? Sam brings the lens of economics to The Beatles. Even if you are not a fan, this book will keep you glued to it. https://samuelrstaley.com/beatles-%26-economics

  • In the first chapter of The Beatles and Economics, Sam asks, “Were The Beatles a black swan?” The important thing about a black swan is that it is unpredictable and has a massive impact on the economy. Sam’s answer might surprise you.

  • The Beatles figured out their specialization and division of labor during their early residencies. This is an early economic lesson in Sam’s book.

  • “In economics jargon [The Beatles] formed a firm or an organization with a dedicated mission of producing a service for public consumption, in this case rock and roll music.” —Sam Staley

  • John, Paul, George, and Ringo were very open to creative direction in their music. They would ask questions like, “Is it new?” and “Are you adding something?” (Sound familiar to anyone versed in value pricing 2.0?)

  • Brian Epstein managed the Beatles from 1962 until his passing. From Sam’s book, he was “more than a manager. He was also a venture capitalist.”

  • There is a debate about who was the 5th Beatle. Based on Sam’s research it was George Martin who was very helpful in giving them structure and had an ear for the music that was going to breakout.

  • Sam commented on the show today that “All You Need Is Ears” is a FANTASTIC book and needs to go back into print. Here is a link: https://www.amazon.com/All-You-Need-Ears-personal/dp/0312114826

  • Apple took sales from the iPod and leveraged that into the iPhone. The Beatles leveraged their wealth for commercial art (and to innovate).

  • Businesses are told to stay in their lane. When The Beatles were in the studio they clearly DID NOT stay in their lane. They were creating new sounds and continuing to innovate.

  • “Entrepreneurship is about discovery” —Sam Staley

  • It’s hard for a company to disband because they recognize the end of the road. The Beatles all knew that they were at the end and could feel it. It just took them a bit to recognize it due to factors like marketing, momentum, and even personal feelings.

  • The Beatles are 4 out of 14 inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame both as solo acts AND members of a band.

  • Had John Lennon’s life not been tragically cut short, would The Beatles have faced economic pressure to “Get back” either into the studio or onto the stage? Sam’s answer today is summarized as “most certainly” but his answer is much more nuanced on the show.

  • “Those Damn Beatles” by Ron Baker: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140406204656-38251380-those-damn-beatles/

  • A big THANK YOU to Sam Staley for joining us today to talk about his book “The Beatles and Economics”. More info is here: https://samuelrstaley.com/beatles-%26-economics


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This past week was bonus episode 367 - Those Damn Beatles — Here are a few links discussed by Ron and Ed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode 366 - Interview with Matthew Feeney - Eye To The Sky

Drones are among the most exciting and promising new technologies to emerge in the last few decades. Photographers, firefighters, filmmakers, engineers, and retailers have all used drones to improve public safety, innovate, and enhance creativity. Yet drones pose unique regulatory and privacy issues, and lawmakers at the federal and state levels are adopting policies that both ensure the safety of our national airspace and restrict the use of warrantless aerial surveillance. At a time when low-flying drones are affordable and ubiquitous, how useful are the airspace regulations and privacy laws designed for traditional airplanes and helicopters? Is there a way to build a regulatory and legal environment that ensures entrepreneurs and hobbyists can safely use drones while also protecting us from intrusive aerial surveillance?

We spoke with Matthew Feeney, director of Cato’s Project on Emerging Technologies, about this. Before we get to the show notes, let’s learn a bit more about him.

A Bit More About Matthew Feeney
Matthew Feeney is the director of Cato’s Project on Emerging Technologies, where he works on issues concerning the intersection of new technologies and civil liberties. Before coming to Cato, Matthew worked at Reason magazine as assistant editor of Reason.com. He has also worked at The American Conservative, the Liberal Democrats, and the Institute of Economic Affairs. Matthew is a dual British/?American citizen and received both his B.A and M.A in philosophy from the University of Reading in England.

Show Notes:

  • Our guest today is the editor of Eyes to the Sky. Here is a link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Sky-Privacy-Commerce-Drone/dp/1952223083

  • The history of drone laws in the United States is yet another good example of how a new technology can be “born captive”

  • Part of the problem with regulating new and emerging technology isn’t that there are many obvious applications but non-obvious applications that pose difficult questions. Like the use of drones by police forces.

  • Matthew Feeney talked about the use of aerial surveillance in Baltimore on the show today. Here is some quick background from the Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-courts-503b2eb629abf94c25edf4111baf64bd

  • The benefits to law enforcement of drone technology have to be weighted against the costs of a liberal democracy.

  • Our Patreon channel - Patreon.com/TSOE - with both bonus and commercial free episodes is sponsored by @90Minds. If you need a mind, get one at 90Minds.com!

  • The FAA is the primarily federal regulator of drone technology in the United States followed by the FCC (due to the control mechanisms between the remote and the drone).

  • Amazon first tested its delivery drone in England. An American company needed to go abroad to test a “new toy”. Matthew Feeney shared his thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of our regulatory environment in the second segment of our show today.

  • Is Matthew worried about risks to public infrastructure through drone strikes? To some degree yes. The technology is moving faster than the law can keep up with and that means, as with anything, there are risks.

  • We have hundreds of years of laws against nuisance, trespass, and related torts. Our existing common law is the best defense against drones from a property owner/privacy perspective.

  • Existing practical uses of drones include: photography, firefighting search and rescue, agriculture, building inspection, sports and entertainment — and DRONE RACING (which is incredibly cool on ESPN)

  • We’d like to give a BIG shout out to one of our Patreon members, Geraldine Carter! Check her out at SheThinksBigCoaching.com and her podcast, “Smart Strategy for CPAs”

  • Cars are a great technology but they are also really dangerous. This is why Matthew is a long term optimist on self driving technology.

  • Technology can displace jobs but it can also change (for the better) jobs. Think about long haul truckers. We will still need them in the near future but their jobs will certainly change as self driving technology on the highway system becomes more common.

  • It turns out Matthew has a deep philosophy background and had a great thought today about drones with missiles: “The decision to take a human life should be made by a human.”

  • Matthew is involved in the upcoming “Smart City Symposium” and is asking for people to submit papers. More at this link: https://www.cato.org/blog/call-papers-smart-city-symposium

  • From Matthew Feeney: “Today’s Internet speech debates are a dead end -- what’s next?” https://www.yahoo.com/now/today-internet-speech-debates-dead-100000265.html

  • “You don’t have to describe Facebook as a monopoly to express concern about them.” —Matthew Feeney

  • A big THANK YOU to Matthew Feeney for joining us today. Check out his book “Eyes to the Sky” and his upcoming “Smart City Symposium”.

Here are some additional links to Matthew’s work:


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This past week was bonus episode 366 - “Where's Gaven Newsom?” — Here are a few links discussed by Ron and Ed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode 365 - Second interview with Baruch Lev

Ron and Ed welcome back Professor Baruch Lev from NYU Stern Business School. He was last on back in July 2016 and we discussed his book, The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers. We talk more about that book and his more recent article in Accounting Today, The sad state of accounting standards.

Ron’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. I'm Ron Baker, along with my good friend and VeraSage Institute colleague, Ed Kless. On today's show, folks, we have our second interview with Professor Baruch Lev. Ed, how's it going?

Ed

Ron, it's going great. The birthdays continue to run, we were together for my birthday in Dallas here on Tuesday, and my wife's birthday is today. So we just got back from lunch and we're going to dinner, and it’s a birthday present getting to talk to Professor Lev. So I'm pretty excited about that as well.

Ron

Me too. Let me read his bio, even though he needs no introduction to our listeners. Baruch Lev is the Philip Bardes Professor of Accounting and Finance at New York University Stern School of Business. We just learned before we went live that he recently retired. Professor Lev taught courses in accounting, financial analysis, and investor relations. He's the author of five books, including The End of Accounting, which was published in 2016. We had him on right after that book came out in July 2016 [Episode #101]. Professor Lev, welcome back to The Soul of Enterprise.

Baruch

Thank you, happy to be here.

Ron

In The End of Accounting, when I read that, you dropped a bombshell statistic that still rattles my cage: Today's financial reports provide a trifling five to six percent of the information relevant to, and used by, investors. What's been the professions’ reaction to the book, The End of Accounting?

Like you say, download doesn't mean they read it. And I would add, even if they did read it, it doesn't mean they understood it. Did you have a chance to talk to the accounting regulators, did any approach you, such as the SEC, or maybe the European Union, or other regulators of accounting?

Yes, maybe when Ed comes on he'll ask you about that. Unfortunately, we're at our first break.

Ron asks Baruch during the break

Excellent, Baruch. Let me ask you this. Would society be better off without auditing?

Baruch

I'm not sure it will be much worse off. But I'm definitely for an experiment. So if I wrote the SEC, for example, I would free let's say, 5% of companies from auditing on a random basis, and I would like to see over two or three years if they really lose, significantly, investors. [Would] prices be significantly affected by this? I would introduce some natural experiment. Auditing is very expensive. And the question is, perhaps we can do without it, perhaps you can do with auditing once in three years, rather than every quarter? If you look at reputable firms, like Microsoft, Cisco, I doubt whether lots of investors will dump the stock.

Ron

Thank you, wow, that’s radical coming from an accounting professor.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Two

We are talking today with retired professor Baruch Lev from New York University's Stern School of Business. You were talking with Ron about the impact on investors, and I do want to hear what you have to say about that. But one of the things that is a constant drone from some people that I talk to is how is it that Tesla could be valued at over a trillion dollars, they don't make any money? But clearly the investors get it. Share with me what the impact of the book has been on investors?

It sounds like your paper was far more downloaded than the actual [financial] reports so that's a good leading indicator for you. Ron is an accountant, I'm not, so forgive me if this is a layman's question. Does some of this stuff that you're talking about, treating intangibles as expenses, when they should be assets, is that one of the reasons why companies like Tesla are perceived to be overvalued compared to what traditionally it would have been?

I think that's correct. They're perceived to be overvalued, but clearly I think that's a mistake. One of the things that the company that sponsors this podcast, Sage, we have some accounting programs, and one of the things that we have been working on for the last number of years is artificial intelligence that would allow for what we're calling a continuous audit. Through AI being able to find challenging transactions and things like that. Do you think that that's one of the other things that could happen that would make the audit, the annual audit, of less import?

Great stuff, we're up against our second break.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Three

Welcome back, everybody. We're here for the second time with professor Baruch Lev, accounting professor at New York University. Baruch, I want to ask you about an article you wrote that was published in Accounting Today, July 21 of this year, titled, “The sad state of accounting standards.” You conducted a study, and it's about earnings expectations. I thought it was a another bombshell finding of yours. Can you explain what you found?

Yes, you pointed out in that same article that 2.5 trillion dollars was invested, I think it was 2019, in intangibles, twice as much as physical assets for that year. I have to ask you [based on what you say about the irrelevance of financial report] that tells me that if I want inside information from a company, don't talk to the CFO, go to the HR director, see how many job posts they're listing, or something other than talking numbers. Because that's an astonishing finding, I think. And it brings up a question, I'll ask you again—I asked you during the commercial break—but I just want our listeners to hear your answer to this. If what you say is true, and I have no doubt that it is, would society be better off without auditors?

Do you think that there are other products that could take the place of an audit, such as financial statement insurance offered by insurance companies, or having the stock exchanges decide and pay for the audits of companies that they think need them for some reason?

I'm curious, Baruch, with this knowledge that you have shared, and the continuing irrelevance of auditing of these financial reports, what advice would you give to an aspiring college student that wanted to become a CPA?

Wow. Real quick, we've only got about a minute, maybe two. Why are you skeptical with respect to ESG standards? You had made a comment in the article in Accounting Today about being skeptical about it.

Right, that’s a brilliant point. Thank you so much, maybe Ed will follow up with you on that.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Four

From the article in Accounting Today, Baruch Lev writes, “Consider, for example, the current rush of investors to ESG-intensive companies. Whatever you think of the environmental, social and governmental reporting (and I have my doubts about it), a reliable information system which will report on corporate investment in ESG, and particularly on tradeoffs.” And that was just the point that you were making with Ron. I love when authors of articles have parentheticals near the end of the article, because it's clear that you have a whole other article. So keep going on ESG, and the other challenges with it.

Just what you read sounded to me like a word salad. How you could even understand what that meant, and then, by the way, be accurate about it, and complete. Oh my goodness. Well, Baruch, it's been a pleasure having you on. I don't want to ask you another question because I don't want to have you run out of time. But are you working on some other things? Is there going to  be some more from you?

I'm sorry, we're not going to have time for the example, but we look forward to the article or book that you're working on for it. It's going to be fun for us to dive into that when it comes out. Professor Baruch Lev thanks so much for being a guest on The Soul of Enterprise. Ron, what do we got coming up next week?

Ron

I don't know, Ed, you tell me.

Ed

You don't know, Ron, you're supposed to know these things. We have Matthew Feeney from the Cato Institute to talk about drones and drone policy. So we're on to another subject, further down the I-95 Corridor. We were at in Boston last week, so we're working our way down to Washington. Alright, well Ron, I'll see you in 167 hours.


Episode #364: Interview with Marco Bertini - The End's Game

What is The Ends Game? It’s a play on words, sure. But it’s more importantly the claim that thinking about where you generate revenue from should be less about the means (your costs) and more about the ends (value to the customer).

Before we get to more show notes, here is a brief background on Marco Bertini:
Marco is a professor of marketing at Esade and a visiting professor in the marketing unit at Harvard Business School. He is also a senior advisor to the marketing, sales, and pricing practice at the Boston Consulting Group. He received his doctorate from Harvard Business School, and previously served on the faculty at London Business School.

He is the co-author of the book The Ends Game: How Smart Companies Stop Selling Products and Start Delivering Value (MIT Press), which explores how modern technology stimulates accountability, challenging organizations to succeed from the quality of the outcomes they deliver rather than the offerings they bring to market.

Now let’s get to the show notes:

  • The main thrust behind The Ends Game by Marco Bertini is: How often and HOW do our customers use our solution?

  • An economist would say that you need three things to be successful with your product/service: 1) access is first, 2) consumption is second, 3) performance (upon consumption) is third. Without these three things the customer bears too much risk.

    • Let’s start with access: Financial access (I cannot afford this); Physical access (availability)

    • Then we move to consumption issues (which are easier): Do I have this product in my house and do I actually use it?

    • Lastly, we have performance which is pretty straightforward: Does it do what I want it to do?

  • The classic belief about price is “How much should we charge?” What we seldom ask is more fundamental which is, “What are we charging for?”

  • Is subscription a step in the right direction for (from left to right) access, consumption, and performance? Any time you move in a direction to the right you are getting closer to the customer. And that’s a great thing.

  • Customers should be paying for performance not promises. However, our own customer sometimes have something to do with the outcomes themselves and we have to acknowledge this.

  • If you have read the book, consider this: “The Ends Game is best played in the singular, not the plural.”

  • Why is the car industry seemingly going backwards on the subscription model? It’s all about direct to consumer vs intermediaries. Intermediaries add complications. Car companies do not have direct relationships with drivers. So how should they setup a DTC model without upsetting their dealers?

  • Services as a subscription are a fascination to our guest, Marco Bertini. Primarily because they are more intangible which makes it more difficult to measure an outcome. At the same time, it is a better industry to move to a performance based model and completely differentiate yourself from others.

  • Why does the subscription model not apply to our guest’s employer, Harvard Business School? In his own opinion, there are certain levels of schools. It’s hard for HBS to make a shift when they are doing VERY well. So there is a bit of legacy there. The greatest changes come sometimes when you have to change.

  • Can you have multiple revenue models in the same company? Yes and that completely depends on the outcome — ownership vs consumption.


Episode #363: The Ultimate Dragon Slayer, Daniel Morris

Ed and Ron were honored to welcome back Dan Morris, CPA, to the show. He's a master at the value conversation, and implemented Value Pricing back in his firm in 1996. He specializes in cryptocurrencies, wealth management, asset protection, multinational tax structures, tax optimization and much more. An excellent conversationalist, you don't want to miss this episode with one of the most innovative CPAs we know.

Before we get to the show notes, let’s learn a bit more about Daniel Morris

Dan began his professional accounting career in 1984 Ernst & Young in Silicon Valley, California. Today, he’s the Managing Director, Morris + D'Angelo, Senior Consultant with Strategic Global Advisors International Limited; Founder, VeraSage Institute. His Mission: “To be the Ultimate Dragon Slayer.” He is a sought after global expert in multi-national business structuring, tax optimization, and asset protection. As a frequent speaker at conferences, leadership development events, and seminars, and a consultant to professional knowledge firms on Ethics, Implementing Global Business Strategies, Asset Protection, Emerging Technologies, Total Quality Service, Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain, and Value Pricing, his work takes him around the world. He has been an educator with numerous professional associations since 1998 and has authored, developed, and presented fifty courses, seminars, and conferences on topics including asset protection, international tax strategies, emerging technologies, ethics, pricing, and customer economics. As the immediate past chair of the Regulatory Working Group for the Accountants Blockchain Coalition, Dan is actively engaged in all aspects of the blockchain and its associated parts. He has assisted over a dozen blockchain related enterprises including designing the global structure for DASH along with coordinating multiple ICO and/or pre-ICO engagements. Dan received his Bachelor of Science from the University of Oregon, and resides in Oregon.

Ron’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so that organizations can thrive. I'm Ron Baker, along with my good friend and VeraSage Institute colleague, Ed Kless. On today's show, folks, we have another VeraSage Institute colleague, and co-founder of the Institute, Daniel Morris. Hey, Ed, how's it going?

Ed

It's going great. I can't wait to talk to Dan again. This is number three, I believe. So he's two away from the gold jacket.

Ron

Although I couldn't find the second episode he was on because I think he did just a segment or two. But anyway, he's definitely been on at least once before. I'm not going to read his [full] biography, other than to say he did start his career at Ernst and Young in 1984, the same year I did. Today, He's Managing Director of Morris + D'Angelo, a co-founder of the VeraSage Institute. But get this, his mission is “To be the Ultimate Dragon Slayer.” How cool is that? It’s as good as your Knowledge Bad Ass. Daniel Morris, welcome back to The Soul of Enterprise.

So Dan, you have been experimenting in your firm, Morris + D'Angelo, with the subscription business model. And I only know this because I got to attend the board meeting at Pine Ridge winery. How's it been going?

That's awesome. What other challenges and opportunities—because they usually are the same thing, the same coin, just different sides—are you seeing out there for the profession, and which are you seeking? You mentioned one, cryptocurrency, obviously?

That's bright. Is that partly our fault, though, that we don't do a good enough job managing their expectations? Get their stuff in early, things like that?

You mentioned Daniel Susskind, and his book, The Future of the Professions, and we did talk to him [Episode #74]. And one of the themes in that book is artificial intelligence. Have you seen, yet, AI's impact on your operations?

Dan, I met you in 1996. So we’ve known each other for over 25 years. And when I met you, I was practicing. One of the things that has always blown me away about you is you have a very unique perspective on specialization. And I'm not talking about the generalist versus the specialist debate. We both know that's dead. But since I've known you, Dan, you've specialized in many different things. I think DISC and FISC might have been when I met you. And then you got into crypto, global business strategies, global tax structures, wealth planning, asset protection. You've specialized in at least a dozen things since I've known you, and there's probably more. What is your operational philosophy with regard to specialization?

Dan Morris 

I don't know if I'm smart enough to have an operating philosophy with specialization, I think I think I'm just curious, right, I think I probably have under diagnosed, you know, add or something, right. And after I've, I've always believed that in a professional kind of has a three year attention span a year to dig in and learn the core basics, right? And then a year to, to, to improve upon those and essentially master them. And then a year to figure out how to get somebody else to do the job for you before you get bored, right? I mean, that's a key and I and I've said that I think you see me say that on stage. I think that about S corporations or corporate tax or individual tax, but I think about it on everything else. So in my world, I try to pay attention to what's new and exciting. And it's helpful. I'm in the Silicon Valley as a general rule. And I try to listen and go well, that's interesting. What can I learn about that, and then I then I dig in, and and I go there. That's how I started this, right? I mean, I started it because I didn't candidly want to do the same thing for 40 years, because that would be meant to say to me, so that would be brain death. And I don't want to do that. So my operating philosophy is to be continuously engaged, and learn how to learn new things, and fail a lot. Sometimes hit a home run. Right? So I try to beat I tried to beat a high baseball average. I mean, look, if the Mets could barely get 275 percentage points, you know, God forbid, you know, I don't at least get 300

Ron Baker 

Be careful [mentioning the Mets with Ed here]. I love it because you're not looking at the data. You're not looking at demographic data. You may be listening to your customers and observing things, but you just seem to be intellectually curious and driven to certain topics. And I do love that philosophy of the second year you master it, but also you're monetizing it as well. And then the third year, you're looking for your successor. It's a great philosophy. Dan, we've only got two minutes. I know you do a lot of work in crypto, and I've got further questions for you on crypto with regard to regulation, but I'm going to ask you a bizarre question. Let's stress test Bitcoin for just a minute, a thought experiment. Let's say it becomes worthless. What's the impact on the global economy?

Fair enough. All right, well, we're up against our first break.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Two

On The Soul of Enterprise today with the ultimate dragon slayer, Dan Morris. Dan, what the hell does that mean? What is the ultimate dragon slayer?

So the question I have for you then is it's not a Don Quixote situation? It's not about being anti-reality. Do you take on people who say, “You know, Dan, I just need a tax return, it’s all I need”?

And the folks in your firm don't want to do that either, I assume.

And on that, you have gotten, I think, really good at drawing the box. And by that I mean the Tim Williams strategy box that says: you're more defined by who you say no to. And one of the things that you've done for years, and I know you're in the middle of updating this right now, is you've used an intake form that you've asked your customers, or even prospects to fill out before they come on board. Talk a little bit about how that process has affected your firm?

I just love that you've put up barriers to even getting to you. So few professional firms that I encounter are willing to put up some hurdles, it doesn't have to be big ones, but even little hurdles to say, “Hey, listen, before I talk to you, you've got to fill this little form out. It doesn't have to be 17 pages, but these seven questions before we even have the conversation.” So I think that's extraordinarily courageous. I wanted to pick up on something that you were talking about with Ron. I assume that after the intake form is done the next thing is the value conversation, and I refer to you in social media as the “savant of the value conversation.” I think you just have a natural affinity to do it. You mentioned that the value conversation has taken on a different meaning, or a different form, in the world of subscription pricing. Talk a little bit about that.

I've heard you say that you don't necessarily want your customers to [think of you or your firm] as the only ones they call, but you want to be the first one they call.

Well, Dan, we're against our next break.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Three

Welcome back, everybody. We're here with Dan Morris, the Ultimate Dragon Slayer, and he is a genius at the value conversation. That is so true. I've watched him in action. I've heard him in action. And I've role-played with him in various forums. You’ve got an unbelievable knack for getting the right questions come to the top of the mind. I have always admired that about you. Dan, you work in cryptocurrency a lot. We've been following it on the show for years, and it seems like there's a regulatory battle over it. The SEC thinks it's a security, the IRS wants it to be a commodity. You probably saw Gary Gensler, the new SEC Chairman, he said, “these tokens weren't means of exchange, but highly speculative stores of value.” And yet, Bitcoin and Ether don't fit that definition. I think of it simplistically. If I can put it in a Coke machine and get a Coke, then it’s currency. I can do that with a Bitcoin, metaphorically. I can't do that with a stock certificate. So I guess my question is, what are these things?

Right, our vocabulary is lacking. Anytime there's a new technology we struggle with the language. I think when television came out, it was called picture radio, because we just always relate it to the last technology. How do you navigate that minefield with your clients? Because you work internationally and I’ve got to believe there's different crypto regulations in various countries. How do you navigate that?

And the States get involved with it as well. Do you think we'll ever sort out this regulatory infighting?

Since I've known you, and because you're in Silicon Valley, you deal with a lot of startups, obviously. You've been willing to take options, or other forms of creative payment besides cash. Do you still do that?

You take a portfolio approach, and that's one of the ways I learned that concept, by having a few of those in your portfolio, if one strikes it pays off big. That's where you get those windfall profits.

China has a digital currency. My favorite new acronym is CBDC, central bank digital currency. Dan, should the United States of America have a digital currency run by the central bank?

Interesting. Janet Yellen, president Biden, and the OECD want a global corporate minimum tax of at least 15%, if not higher, Biden and Yellen want it hire. Should they get it? [Dan: No]. Why not?

Dan

…And the OECD. I've sat in the OECD building. Oh my god, Marx was to the right of these people.

Ron

Okay, that's the line of the show right there. Greg, I hope you tweet the heck out of that. That's beautiful. I couldn't agree more. In fact, we're watching Colorado, it might become a zero income tax state, which I find fascinating given the current governor there. Unfortunately, Dan, we're up against our break. I'm going let Ed take you home. I just want to say thank you so much for reappearing on The Soul of Enterprise. We'll definitely have you back, if you're willing.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Four

Wow, so many places to go, Dan, that you've teed me up for here, so I'm not quite sure where to go. The first one, I want to pick up on something you said. You said with regard to cryptocurrency and setting the tokens up, “I want to make sure that I'm outside the United States.” What does that even mean?

The servers in the United States? The people, like Ed we've got to get you out of the United States before we set this up? This is what I'm struggling with.

Okay, where is the corporation set up is what you were talking about there? It's that leadership, all of that. Alright, I think I understand because I just recall this is about five years ago now that some Senator wanted to pass a law that said on your custom’s declaration form you were supposed to declare the amount of Bitcoin that you're bringing into the United States, and I'm like, what the hell are you talking about?

Now I understand what you mean by that; I was just confused because of that. Alright, back to something with regard to subscription. Because I know you're doing this, you mentioned that you've been putting subscription in place and one of the things that Ron and I have talked about, and I know we've had conversations with the VeraSage Fellows on this, is that you understand that subscription is not taking your annual price and dividing it by 12. That is not what the subscription model is. What Ron and I talk about plussing, you've got to plus you're offering. Dan, I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you would plus your offering with all of the stuff that you've done in the past. What are you doing to plus what you have to offer? You've already plussed everything I thought?

Now I'm going to go to sort of where Ron was going on some of this stuff and that is to ask you about some of the current proposals that are before Congress and what's potentially going to happen. Is it a good idea that we should lower the $10,000 federal threshold down to $600? Would that be a good idea for us?

I'm going to take a page out of Charles Murray and say that if they do lower this to $600 what we should do is all set up recurring transactions that happen every 10 minutes. I'll put $600 into your bank account and then five seconds later you send it back to me and we just keep doing that all day long creating millions of transactions, and with all of this noise they wouldn't be able to trace anything because we just filter it all. It would create so much noise that there would be no signal for anyone to see. That's my theory.

We’ve only got one minute left and this is a question not answerable in one minute so you will have to stay over on our bonus episode and talk about it there—this is the tease for those of you not on Patreon. Should we hire more IRS agents, Dan, because for every dollar we invest in IRS agents we're going to get back $3, $10, I don't know, $50, back?

Well, Dan, as always, fascinating conversation. We're happy to have you with us. And thanks for appearing on The Soul of Enterprise. We'll stay over and we'll talk a little bit more. Ron, what do we have coming up next week?

Ron

Next week, Ed, we have Marco Bertini, the co-author of The Ends Game, which is going to be a fascinating discussion.

Ed

Well I look forward, I'll see you in 167 hours


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #362: One Thing!

one thing

One Thing!

Inspired by A. J. Jacobs when he appeared on Russ Robert's great podcast EconTalk, Ron and Ed have each been keeping a "One Thing" journal for the last few years. In this episode, they shared some of the best "One Things."

  • Russ Roberts had A.J. Jacobs on his podcast some time ago. Jacobs mentioned he keeps a “one thing” journal. That is the root of today’s show. Here is the background: https://www.econtalk.org/a-j-jacobs-on-thanks-a-thousand/

  • Here is Ed’s first one thing from October, 2018 - “Give up your illusion of control.” —The Stoics

  • What is Ron’s first ‘one thing’. It comes from Rabbi Lappin and one of his earlier radio shows: “What separates a religion from a tennis club? Three questions: Where did we come from? Where are we going? What are we supposed to be doing?”

  • Another first thing from Ron also courtesy of Rabbi Lappin: “It’s hard to succeed at something we think is morally reprehensible.”

  • Another one thing from Ed is from the Andy Duke book, “Thinking and Bets”. In it, she suggests if you have some stated belief then ask yourself what % do you believe your belief is true. If you can’t say “not zero” or “100” you will be able to stop thinking in absolutes.

  • Did you know you can get commercial free episodes PLUS bonus episodes on our Patreon page? Check it out at Patreon.com/TSOE

  • We’d like to give a shout out to our Patreon member Blake Oliver of EarmarkCPE.com. Did you know you can earn CPE for listening to podcasts? Check it out.

  • Another ‘one thing’ from Ron hails from Thomas Sowell: Economists don’t ask, “What do you want?” but rather, “What do you want more?”

  • Another ‘one thing’ from Ron also stems from Rabbi Lapin: The use of energy is a major difference between man and animals because it enables us to gain time. Let’s not forget language, clothing, and ice in our drinks.

  • Here’s a ‘one thing’ from Ed courtesy of Peter Thiel: There is Marxian theory that Marxism will come when interest rates reach zero.

  • Consider this ‘one thing’ from Ed - short but powerful: Use “I think” instead of “I feel”.

  • ‘One thing’ from Ron: There are two types of government - bricks and stones

  • Another ‘one thing’ from Ron: If my pet chimp can understand what I’m doing then that’s physical. If they don’t understand what I’m doing then that’s spiritual.

  • Here is a ‘one thing’ from Ed. From our episode with Peter block (#183): “A clear process is only an invitation for someone to say that you are doing it wrong.”

  • Another ‘one thing’ from Ed which stems from Jordan Peterson: There is no correlation between virtue and intelligence.

  • A ‘one thing’ from Ron: Would a child rather have more material things (as an only child) or a sibling? That’s a rather profound thought, no? It probably depends on when you ask them.

  • Our Patreon offering at Patreon.com/TSOE is commercial free AND includes bonus episodes. It is sponsored by 90Minds.com. Need a mind? Contact @90Minds!

  • Here is a ‘one thing’ from Ed dated July 31, 2020: If you are reading a letter from the late 1700s and assumed the words mean the same thing then that they do today, you would be laughed at. But somehow folks reading the Constitution think that today.

  • A ‘one thing’ from Ron: Arthur Brooks is the former president of AEI and said, “How do you get down the road to serfdom? One policy at a time.”

  • Also from Ron and take from Rabbi Lapin: “Only acts of faith, not facts, are the most rewarding.”

  • A ‘one thing’ from Ed and dated February, 2021: “If you resist your destiny it drags behind you. But if you follow your destiny it guides you.”

  • Also from Ed (and sourced from the TSOE show #329 featuring Donald Hoffman): “Science is not dogmatic but scientists are.”

  • Here’s a great ‘one thing’ from Ron - “Anything random can’t happen just once.”

  • Here is a ‘one thing’ from Ron that comes from a Chinese saying: “The future is certain we just can’t agree on the past.” Capitalism is probably the opposite of that.

  • Ron’s “favorite” acronyms: DRIP - data rich, insight poor; (related to project management and workflow) FISH - first in, still here.



Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This pas week was bonus episode 362 - The Three Percent. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #361: Free-Rider Friday Returns

free rider friday

We miss Free-Rider Friday's, so we brought it back, but just this once. We used to do this on the last Friday of every month. Most of our shows are “topic” driven, where we dive deep into one subject. Free-Rider Fridays were designed to be “event” driven, whatever issues are in the news that we (or you) find worthy of commentary. In economics, free riding means reaping the benefits from the actions of others and consequently refusing to bear the full costs of those actions. This means Ed and Ron will free ride off of the news, and each other, with no advanced knowledge of the events either will bring up. It's also a chance to clear out our stacks of stuff!

“… Come on and take a free ride
Free ride
Come on and take it by my side
Come on and take a free ride!”

-Edgar Winter



Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This pas week was bonus episode 361: FRF Continued. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #360: Interview with Kimberlee Josephson

kimberlee josephson

In an email, Dr. Kimberlee Josephson wrote to Ron and Ed saying, "I just began listening to your podcast and I’m glad to have stumbled upon it! I wanted to reach out about your Woke Capitalism/ESG segment since this is an area I am trying to voice concern over." It was a great conversation and we have included the full show notes and additional resources below.

But first, a bit more about Kimberlee Josephson…

Dr. Kimberlee Josephson is an Associate Professor of Business, Associate Dean for the Breen Center for Graduate Success at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania, and Adjunct Research Fellow with the Consumer Choice Center. Her academic background is in international studies and strategic management and she teaches courses covering topics on global sustainability, international marketing, and workplace diversity. Prior to serving in academia, her professional career spanned from working in sales in Manhattan, as a producer for a web marketing firm, freelancing for on-air promotions at QVC, and as a research assistant for an international NGO. Her op-eds have appeared at University Business, Quartz at Work, and PA Capital Star. She holds a doctorate in Global Studies and Commerce from La Trobe University in Australia, a master’s degree in Political Science from Temple University in Philadelphia, another master’s degree in International Policy from La Trobe University, and a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with a minor in Political Science from Bloomsburg University.

Ed’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. I'm Ed Kless, with my friend and cohost, Ron Baker. And folks, on today's show we have our interview with Kimberly Josephson. Hey, Ron, how's it going?

Ron

Very good. How are you?

Ed

I'm doing great, great week. It will be fun to interview Kimberly, I’ve been looking forward to this all week. And without further ado, let me get the bio read and get her get her back on the program here. Dr. Kimberly Josephson is an Associate Professor of Business, Associate Dean for the Breen Center for Graduate Success at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania, and Adjunct Research Fellow with the Consumer Choice Center. Her academic background is in international studies and strategic management where she teaches courses covering topics on global sustainability, international marketing, and workplace diversity. Prior to serving in academia, her professional career spanned from working in sales in Manhattan, as a producer for a web marketing firm, freelancing for on-air promotions at QVC, and as a research assistant for an international NGO. Her op-eds have appeared at University Business, Quartz at Work, and PA Capital Star. Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise, Kimberly Josephson.

How does someone who goes from an on-air promotion analyst at QVC to teaching economics at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania?

You sent us an email, having listened to one of our shows, and we have actually been paying attention to your work, Ron and I do a bonus episode after this on our Patreon channel, and FEE is one of our go-to sources. So we are we were somewhat familiar with your work already, so we're happy to have you on. And you've been writing a lot about corporate social responsibility, woke capitalism. So let's start, it’s attributed to Socrates, but he didn't really say it, that all wisdom begins with the definition of terms. Let's try to define some of these things, shall we? Let's define corporate social responsibility, if it can be, maybe It can't be.

This is great, it's great background to talk a little bit about this. In fact, you anticipated some of my additional questions about stakeholder capitalism and woke capitalism, or as I like to call it, marketing.

As you were talking, I was reminded, didn't we settle this with David Ricardo and the division of labor, why don't we focus on the things that we're really good at and not try to produce cheese, and wine, and do corporate social responsibility? Because all that really is is just another division of labor? I think, if I'm not mistaken here, the not-for-profit sector is the third largest sector in the US economy. If we just as employees were able to keep more of our own money, well, then how about we'll donate because that's what Americans do anyway.

Ron and I talked about this last week, that there's a standard now in Europe to try to get everybody to use USB-C ports instead of Apple’s, so Apple would have to shift, and of course then you're locked in and there can be no new better creation of a plug-in, so very confusing. Well, we're up against our first break.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Two

Welcome back, everybody. We're here with our interview with Kimberly Josephson, and Kimberly, great discussion with Ed. I'm going to pull back and go to a macro question. I think you cited a Richard Branson paper, or quote, or speech that he gave at the World Economic Forum. And they claim that our economic model is broken. And you point out, how can you say that when in the last 20 years we've dropped poverty into single digits, bone crushing, dollar-a-day poverty. So we've created all this wealth and brought all these people out of poverty. You were talking about Bono and his Red movement. Somebody asked him at a TED talk, “Can you name one country that's developed because of foreign aid or NGO aid? Name one, there's not one out there. It's just amazing, and I love how you point this out—we’ve done this all without ESG!

We've had Professor Deirdre McCloskey on the show twice [Episode #6 and Episode #293], and her trilogy on bourgeois virtues and equality. Her whole premise is the Great Enrichment started because we gave entrepreneurs and innovators dignity. It was a cultural, language, and rhetoric change. It wasn't about oil, or scientific invention, or any of these materialist explanations. It was because people can now have a go and make other people's lives better. And I just find that so compelling, even though it's very hard to prove.

I just listened to something that was talking about an article about accountants are going to save the environment, because they're going to be able to attest to these new ESG standards that are coming out, and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, which I think is BlackRock’s or someone’s. And I'm thinking, geez, we've got the Big Four now offering this as an attest service. I worry that this is a wet blanket on innovation and dynamism because creativity is supposed to take us by surprise, otherwise it could be planned. And you can't, like you say, have standards on something new. And that's one of my biggest concerns about ESG. It's just a wet blanket on dynamism.

And it's entrenching big businesses. Bloomberg estimates ESG funds could hit $53 trillion by 2025. And like you say, they're controlling the standard setters and the jargon, and they're the ones that are doing the assessment or teaching companies how to make the grade, or whatever. I'm just going to ask this, is this a Trojan horse? Is this a way for unskilled people without any merit, or skills in business, or wealth creation, to get into the boardroom?

You just put your finger on it with the term tradeoffs. Thomas Sowell [Episode #25] says there's no such thing as solutions, there's only tradeoffs. The thing that scares me, Kimberly, as a recovering CPA from a Big Eight, is we have a knowledge problem here. How can the Big Four come in and attest to something they know nothing about?

Well, this is flying by, as we knew it would.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Three

We are back with Dr. Kimberly Josephson. I want to ask you about something I came across last week. Jonah Goldberg, in his newsletters, talked about the James Beard awards. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, but these are basically the Oscars of the food world. The organization itself uses that as its unofficial motto. But they have just recently announced that their prestigious annual awards are going to be retooled based on the decisions that candidates have shown and demonstrated a commitment to racial and gender equality, community and environmental sustainability, and a culture where all of that can thrive. Not on who makes the best hamburger. I'm all for all of those things, those are all wonderful things that we all should strive for. But does it really matter when it comes to making a chicken Kiev?

It's really, I think, also partially responsible for some of the things that we're seeing with regard to the vaccine and COVID because we've just politicized everything. Gone are the days when LeBron James can say Republicans buy sneakers as well. Now we have to have red sneakers and blue sneakers, I guess. This actually happened in the software industry before the election last year. There was a company that came flat out saying we are against Donald Trump. Are we really going to have red apps and blue apps? I mean, is this what we're going to do?

I think this this goes back to a misunderstanding that John Mackey, from Whole Foods, in his book, Conscious Capitalism, makes this great point, he says: look, the purpose of business is not to make a profit—profit is the result. And that is the big problem. Everybody thinks you go into business to make a profit. No, that's the result. You go into business to do something for someone else. It's actually other- directed, it's altruistic. And people don't get that part of it, that it's about serving the customer.

Kimberlee Josephson  51:49

for I mean, Adam Smith saying, right, the butcher and the baker right, they don't do it for themselves, like they have a talent they have a skill and they're leveraging that skill and they should get a return for that and if people are willing to pay a good amount for it and it's all voluntary, everybody wins you have that specialization and people pursue what it is within their means and and what it is that they desire so that's really important my I mean with with the stakeholder model, the concern is with money that's objective right? That's just that we can use that as the tool of measurement right? If my profit margins are good, if people are purchasing if my price if the elasticity of demand right if it that changes if I lower my price or raise my that signals to me the perception of value and what people are willing to pay it's very useful. So focusing on profits not a bad thing because that that tells you if you're doing something wrong or right so that's smart to focus on it I don't want students to lose sight of that profit is not evil. It's a functional faith and you need it to scale and to reinvest and you know, grow the business or whatever you want to do with it. But with the stakeholder model, a lot of that's subjective right? I actually to help my students remember the stakeholders we focused on the core stakeholders I call it the spice model because we think in terms of society partners partners in the industry, investors, customers and employees but you have so many other secret the government media right we could go on forever there are so many stakeholders and sometimes I do a little exercise with them like okay now prioritize them and they can't right some people owe you the employees employees are the most important because if you don't have employees, you know, how are you going to provide Okay, well if you don't have customers, there's no point of the business okay? If you don't have the investors, right, that's how are you even going to get the business but so it's just it's so contestable. And and it varies and how you prioritize to is going to vary according to the industry, what the needs are, what the expectations are,

And sometimes they just outright conflict with one another.

I’ve got about one minute left in my segment here and I don't want to finish on a downer. So I'm going to take you back to an article that you wrote in January of this year, entitled “Four Netflix Hits That Agenda-Driven Corporate America Could Take a Cue From in 2021.” And I'm just going to pick one of them, feel free if you want to go to a different one, but I want to know what can we learn from Beth Harmon in Queens Gambit on Netflix?

Well this is this is great, it is flying by, and Kimberlee I'm going to pass it over to Ron, he's going to take you the rest of the way home, but from me thanks for being on the show today.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Four

Welcome back, everybody. We're here with Dr. Kimberlee Josephson, and Kimberlee, I wanted to ask you about the 2019 Business Roundtable statement that basically threw out shareholder maximization theory [and replaced it with stakeholder theory]. It did move the Overton window, it seems pretty rapidly. You probably read this, The Wall Street Journal wrote a two year anniversary in 2021 of this statement. And they looked at these 181 members who signed the statement and said, You know what, nothing has changed with any of you. You haven't really done anything with this. Is this just virtue- signaling?

The stakeholder theory sounds so beautiful, because we have to watch out for our customers, and we have to watch out for the community, and pay our taxes, and all of that. But all of these things have conflicts. And for the C-suite, or the employees of the corporation, if they're accountable to more than the shareholders—in other words—now they're accountable to everyone, then they're accountable to no one. And a slave with two masters is a free man. And I worry about that, because how do they deal with these tradeoffs: As a customer, I want a lower price, as an employee I want a higher wage, as the government, we want more taxes. The price system deals with this beautifully without any conflict whatsoever, but now you lay over the ESG and the stakeholder theory, and it brings up all these conflicts that are unresolvable without a price system.

We made everything a Veblen good, all the way down. No luxury, just everything now is a Veblen good. Kimberly, this is great. I’ve got 15 seconds with you, but are you optimistic that we can push back on all this?

I'm glad to hear that. Well, Kimberly, this has been an honor. Thank you so much for appearing on The Soul of Enterprise. Ed, what do we have next week?

Ed

Next week, Ron, we are interviewing Marco Bertini, the author of The Ends Game.

Ron

I'm looking forward to it. I'll see you in 167 hours.
 

Other Resources


Episode 359 - Third interview with Joe Woodard

joe woodard

Ron’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by sage, transforming the way people think and work so that organizations can thrive. I'm Ron Baker, along with my good friend and VeraSage Institute colleague Ed Kless. On today's show, folks, we have for the third time, Joe Woodard. Hey, Ed, how's it going?

Ed

If I were any better, it would be illegal.

Ron

Okay, good. Well, I'm looking forward to this conversation. Let me read Joe in here, as if people don't know him, but just real quick. Joe Woodard is an author, consultant, business coach, and national speaker. He's trained over 100,000 accounting and business professionals. He's been on the Accounting Today’s Top 100 Influential people in the profession for many years, and he is the CEO of Woodard events, which includes education, coaching resources, and a community for small business advisors and small business owners within the accounting industry. I love his vision: “To transform small businesses through small business advisors.” Joe Woodard, welcome back to The Soul of Enterprise.

You were here in December 2016 [Episode #119], and in September 2019 [Episode #258]. We had a little thing in the interim since we last met Joe, called COVID. What lessons did we learn?

I think it drove home the point for me that this, at the end of the day, is a relationship business. And you know, the tech stacks we talk about, and the transition to advisory, and all of that, at the end of the day, it is about belly button to belly button. And we're just like healthcare workers, we're on the front lines.

Something we have talked about with other guests on the show, if you spun back to 2010, or 2000, with COVID, I don't think many businesses would have been able to handle it very well without all the amenities we have today with the internet and everything. So what innovations have you seen from firms? I mean, we talked about the switch to the cloud and firms said, “Oh, this could never happen.” Obviously, remote work became a thing. And we're very interested here in the Results Only Work Environment [ROWE]. Have you seen other innovations come from firms during the past year-and-a half or so?

Have you seen more and more firms adopt a value pricing model out of this COVID pandemic?

That's wonderful, because that gives them capacity. And we've always argued that you should put capacity before revenue. Unfortunately, we find most firms do the opposite. They won't hire somebody until they're busting at the seams.

I love it. Last time we had you on, Joe, you said you changed your mind, I think it was before we went live, on two topics. And one of them was on timesheets. I'm just curious, in the training of these 1,000 firms or so in value pricing, what do you tell them about the timesheet and their measurements?

I love it because the timesheet has no granular information like that. And you're only able to get those insights because you were looking at how work flowed through the organization. Anyway, Joe, this is great, it’s flying by.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Two

We are talking today on The Soul of Enterprise with Joe Woodard. Joe, you and Ron having that love fest to the accounting profession. Now, I want to ask you, so what did they miss during COVID? What did they get wrong? What should they have done in addition to all that?

Well, one thing I think they did miss—and we're starting to see reverberations of this right now as we begin to come out of COVID, and last reports that I've read, there's some really good signs that we're starting to see that this last jump is starting to go back down, so maybe we're really coming around where we were maybe late June, early July—was the Great Resignation. I talked to one firm leader who had 17 people during COVID, and in the last two months 10 of them have left, 10 out of 17. Now, he's probably an outlier. But we're hearing stories, especially among some of the mid-size firms, that this is really a big problem. And I have my ideas as to what might be causing it, but I'd be curious as to your thoughts on it, and what you're seeing too, maybe in the smaller firms that you work with it's not so much of an issue?

You just don't want them to move to California so they have Nexus in California, that would probably be a bad idea, Joe.

See, I'm trying to get Baker to move to Texas for years now. But picking up on that, you said two things that reminded me of some previous guests. One is Jody Thompson, her great line is that work is a thing you do, not a place you go. And I think that’s critically important. I would agree with you that the purpose was part of it, because I think that part of the whole Great Resignation across the board was really pent-up demand. In other words, people didn't leave their job and then all of a sudden, boom, now we have the opportunity to do so. The attrition that would have happened normally over time, but I agree the reason why Disney didn't fall prey to that, and probably Southwest Airlines and The Container Store and all of these other places, is because they are purpose driven. That was a great story. Our saying on that is we want you to be efficient with things but effective with people. And what that woman was clearly being effective with that child to make sure that he understood. So, Joe, there's a lot of things going on right now with regard to the accounting profession where more and more companies are virtually abandoning their entire accounting department, and businesses that are in growth stages going through the transition of small to medium are not hiring people in accounting but instead going to CAS services right, client advisory services, as well as just outsourced bookkeeping. We've got only like about a minute or two left before our break, but I think this is a huge trend. I can truly see that five to ten years from now there are going to be very few companies that have anyone in their accounting department at all. Thoughts on that?

I couldn't agree more, and certainly this guy Jeff Bezos putting $400 million into a company called Pilot, so now the bookkeeping profession is also competing with, I don't know, Amazon, effectively. Maybe this will get someone's attention, but alright Joe, this is flying by, as Ron says.
 

Ron’s Questions: Segment Three

Welcome back, everybody. We're here for the third time with one of our most popular guests, Joe Woodard. Joe, I have to ask you, I saw I think you did a webinar, maybe it was this week, on the backseat driver client. I just have to ask you, what is that?

I was going to bring up that Starbucks story, so thanks for telling that story. I love that story. Have accountants gotten better with that?

Let me ask you this, Joe. We've been talking a lot for the last two-and-a-half years about the subscription economy. Ed and I are big believers that the customers of accounting firms should subscribe to the firm. We spent the whole first segment talking about the relationship. But let's face it, when you look at the business model, we don't monetize the relationship, we monetize the transactions. And I think that's a deep flaw. I want to move the accounting profession over to what concierge medicine, or Direct Primary Care medicine, where you subscribe to a general physician, and they handle anything you need, that they're capable of doing. And that's a big caveat—if you need a specialist, they'll get you that—but you’re covered for whatever they're capable of doing within their four walls, and it's inclusive in one price. Now, you could still have options and all of that. But what's your reaction to that?

I love that because that's really leveraging the social capital that all firms have. But it's the least leveraged of the three types of intellectual capital that we talk about. I've got to ask you, Joe, you did a reality TV show [called Tech Makeover], tell us about it.

Wow, that sounds awesome. I'm going to have to check that out. We will definitely link to that in the show notes. Real quick, what books have you read since we last spoke that have really impacted you?

Joe Woodard

Well, I was a little late to the party on it, but I finally got around to Measure What Matters to Customers [Ron’s book] finally, can you believe it? But it impacted me so significantly that it's revolutionized the way we run our business here, with the objectives and key results. We were big on KPIs, and we had really good predictive analytics, we were really good on financial measurements, but we weren't connecting, what we found is between purpose, which is the daily what you do, and vision, which is the magnetic north Compass Point. In between those two things, measurement must take place that is aligned with purpose and aligned with vision. And the key results are more connected to the purpose, the daily grind, the objective is more connected to the vision. And it was the missing bridge between our purpose and our vision. The second book, and I know that we're tight here for the next break, but the second one that really made a difference for me was The Advantage, by Patrick Lencioni. Particularly, his section in that book on company values, and the distinction between core and operational and aspirational values made a huge difference in our business.

Ron

That's awesome. Well, Joe, thank you so much. I'm going to let Ed take you all the way home but I just want to say thanks again for appearing on The Soul Enterprise for the third time.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Four

Finishing up our conversation, our third conversation, with Joe Woodard, Joe, I want to take a macro approach here to this last segment, and just get your thoughts on something that's concerning to me. I see a lot of the new regulations that are coming down from governments all over the place, statewide and also federal. And I think it's potentially starting to have an impact on the creation of new businesses and entrepreneurs really being able to create without permission in some ways. I know you do a lot of reading, are erudite on a lot of a lot of different subjects. Is this something that you're concerned with or have been thinking about as well?

I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot of companies that are 99 and fewer emerge out of what's going on with COVID regulation. At the same time, though, the challenge that I see is that states like California are making it harder and harder to really be classified as gig workers. And they're insisting that Uber and Lyft and all this pay their people as employees when they're really not.

Well, we've got about three or four minutes left. What are you working on?

Amen. We'll just give that an Amen, and we'll wrap it up from there. Joe Woodard, thanks so much for being on The Soul of Enterprise, we really appreciate it. Ron, what do we have coming up next week.

Ron

Next week, we have Kimberlee Josephson. She is the Associate Professor of Business Administration at Lebanon Valley College. I'm sure we'll talk to her about ESG and things that you were asking Joe about with these regulations, she writes for FEE [Foundation for Economic Education] so looking forward to that.

Ed

All right, outstanding, I'll see you in 167 hours.


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This pas week was bonus episode 359 - ABCs - Apple, Bees, and China. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #358: Subscription Economy Update

subscription economy update

We’ve got a special update for you as a part of our show notes for episode 358 on the subscription economy. For our Patreon members, we always provide a short list of notes that follow along with the episode. We call these “Greg’s notes” — sort of like CliffsNotes but specifically for The Soul of Enterprise. For all readers this week, we are presenting these notes below. They follow the structure and timing of the show so they are great to have at your side while listening.

Here are our CliffsNotes (aka Greg’s notes) for the week on the subscription economy:


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This pas week was bonus episode 358 - Trillions and taxes. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #357: Behavioral Biases

357 behaviorial bias 300px.jpg

TSOE listener Geir, from Norway, sent us: Influences and Irrationalities of the Human Mind, Ogilvy Behavioural Sciences Practice.

The book lists 29 of most subtle and powerful nudges, “combining gravitas of academic understanding with application of real world communications.”

As Charlie Munger, Warren Buffet’s bridge and business partner said: “If economics isn’t behavioral, I don’t know what the hell is…”

Some of Our Biases

  • Anchoring: Those whose last two digits of their Social Security number was above 80 were willing to spend $20 more on a bottle wine than those last two digits was below 20.

  • Chunking: Ryanair, low seat price, add-ons, already attached to the idea of a holiday, more likely to purchase

  • Over-Confidence: 93% are above average drivers. Lake Wobegon Effect

  • Priming: French music played, French wine outsold German wines 5:1; German music, German wines outsold French wine 2:1

  • Paradox of Choice: Often paralyzed by choice. Prius offered one choice, since the real choice was hybrid or not. If Toyota had offer several, customers might have postponed to buy the best one (Starbucks refutes this Paradox of Choice).

  • Status Quo Bias: Nine out of ten people favor organ donation: Germany donation rate is 12%; Austria is 99%, because in Austria you are opted-in unless you opt-out.

  • Loss Aversion: It’s two times as painful to lose something as a similar gain. “Lose $X if you don’t insulate your attic vs. you will save $x each year if you do.

But then The Economist, August 20, 2021, published this article, A study on dishonesty was based on fraudulent data,” which questions the data and facts in one of the studies in Dan Ariely’s book, The Honest Truth About Dishonesty.

Jason Hreha, one of Ariely’s collaborators wroteThe Death of Behavioral Economics,” Undated, 2021, wherein he claims: “Behavioral economics is dead.” For two reasons:

1.     Failing to replicate a lot of the studies

2.     Interventions are surprisingly weak in practice

Even Loss Aversion, the field’s most important idea, has failed to replicate. Other have found losses and benefits equally effective in driving conversion because many see loss-focused messaging as gimmicky and spammy. Loss aversion does exist, but only for large losses.

Weak Effect

UC Berkeley researches looked at 126 Random Controlled Trials by two nudge units in the USA. According to papers, the average effect was 8.7%. The researchers found the actual effect to be 1.4%.

Hreha argues that behavioral economics offers up cookie-cutter solutions to complicated problems. Yet specific problems require specific solutions.

He also wrote, “Applied behavioral science is where creativity goes to die.”

Deirdre McCloskey [Episode #6 and Episode #293], in her book Bettering Humanomics, wrote:

Other recent neobehaviorist fashions, such as neuroeconomics and behavioral finance and happiness studies, are dubious—or, they treat creative adults like a flock of little children.

We need, they say, merely to “observe their behavior,” omitting for some reason linguistic behavior.

Ludwig von Mises further developed the idea of praxeology, the science preoccupied with psychology and understanding human decision making. He believed economics is the study of human praxeology under conditions of scarcity.

Humans engage in purposeful behavior, said Mises. Animals behave. Humans act. We have a goal in mind, and we learn. Human action vs. Human behavior:

1.     Each of us acts purposefully, with a goal in mind. It can be fixed, or changed frequently.

2.     Each of us learns

He also wrote: “Error, inefficiency, and failure must not be confused with irrationality. He who shoots wants, as a rule, to hit the mark. If he misses it, he is not irrational’ he is a poor marksman.”

Economist John Kay wrote Obliquity, where he said, “If people are predictably irrational, perhaps they are not irrational at all: Perhaps the fault lies not with the world but with our concept of rationality.

One of Ron’s Top Five book of 2019 [Episode #275] was Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities, by Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro. They begin by noting the difference between humanities and economics: stories.

“Great novelists understand people better than any social scientist who has ever lived.”

“Surely no one in his right mind ever thought people are rational to begin with? Why, the whole heritage of Western literature has described people as irrational, and the social sciences point to many factors other than reason that shape behavior.

“Why would philosophers since Socrates have been urging people to act rationally, if they always did so anyway?

Behavioral Economics purports to adding the human dimension to economic models, but it does nothing of the kind. The human beings it imagines behave just as mechanically, only less efficiently. They are still abstract monads shaped by no particular culture.

“There’s no way to grasp most of what people do by deductive logic—we need stories. Novels are a distinct way of knowing. Ethics requires judgment, it cannot be reduced to theories, models, or sets of rules alone.

“Economics can’t deal with culture since culture can’t be mathematized. Same with wisdom.”

There is also no place for surprise in either classical or behavioral economics, and yet humans constantly surprise.

Dostoevsky wrote: [If someone would] “some day…truly discover a formula for all our desires and caprices,” there would be no caprices at all. “There will be no more incidents and adventures in the world.”

Another book highly critical of nudges and libertarian paternalism is The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism, by Mark D. White.


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #356: Interview with David C. Baker

David C Baker

Let’s learn just a bit more about David C. Baker before we get into the show notes…

David C Baker grew up with a tribe of Mayan Indians in a remote village in the highlands of Guatemala. He's an author, speaker and advisor to entrepreneurial experts. Also a helicopter and airplane pilot, an avid photographer and has taught high performance motorcycle racing. He owned a marketing communications firm for 6 years, then started a management consulting firm focused on helping entrepreneurial experts make better business decisions through his writing, speaking, and advising. He has written five well received books, the third one, Managing Right for the First Time, recently being named by Inc. Magazine as one of the Top Ten Books on Management that Entrepreneurs Should Read.

Ed’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. I'm Ed Kless with my friend and co-host, Ron Baker, and folks on today's show, we are pleased to have our interview with David C. Baker. How's it going, Ron?

Ron

It's going good. This has been a weird week, but I'm really looking forward to our conversation with David.

Ed

Absolutely. It has been a weird week. We'll perhaps get into that on our bonus episode later. But let's get to our guest right away. David C. Baker was born in Michigan, but lived in Guatemala with a tribe of Mayans until he was 18 years old. He spent six years in graduate school earning advanced degrees in ancient languages in theology, but wishes he had a degree in anthropology. He's an author, speaker and advisor to entrepreneurial experts. And he owned a marketing communications firm for six years and then started a management consulting firm focused on helping entrepreneurial experts make their business decisions through his writing, speaking and advising. He's the author of three rock bench titles, Managing (Right) for the First Time, Financial Management of a Marketing Firm, and The Business of Expertise: How Entrepreneurial Experts Convert Insight to Impact + Wealth. Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise, David C. Baker.

Well, we're happy to have you. So my first question is Mayans, fascinating. Talk to me.

Which, of course, probably led to your then getting advanced degrees in ancient languages and theology as part of the tie-in. I could see that would give you a push in that direction. But then you do say, in one of the bios that I read, and I worked it into the bio, that you preferred you would have had a degree in anthropology. And I think you probably know Rory Sutherland has called marketing the modern equivalent of anthropology in the current day, marketers are anthropologists on the current set of human beings that are around. So why did you want anthropology after all that?

Which leads me to this next question. I'm really curious as to your thoughts on this. And this is kind of a running theme, or question, that Ron and I have bounced back and forth on for quite some time. The word fair, and we often use in the business context of a “fair price.” Fair is an Anglo Saxon word, it only exists in Anglo Saxon type languages. Because if you translate fair to Spanish or French, it gets translated as “just” and then if you translate that word back to English, you would never translate it back to fair, you would translate it as “just,” that would be the word that you would use. And it's amazing to me how the concept of fair, which the opposite by the way in the original word is foul, and we would never say, “Well, that was a foul price.” And so in your in your experience with understanding languages, it's amazing to me how languages have concepts like that, that the concept doesn't even translate one to the other.

And that's what I wanted to lead to and ask you about this, because I think there's an analogy to business in that these different areas of expertise, and of course in your book, have different languages in a sense that are used, and some of them don't translate well, one to the other. So I think there is a language of marketing, a language of sales, a language of finance. And oftentimes, I think we're talking past each other linguistically, even though we're talking the same English, it's different concepts come into our mind when we talk about things like price, cost, value, they sometimes mean different things to different people when you say them, right?

I think it was Plato, all wisdom begins with the definition of words. We can't build wisdom unless we agree on what some term means. And I think oftentimes, a lot of people are talking past one another when we do say things like price, value, specifically those words in business. So curious as to when you hear value-based pricing, what does that mean to you? Why is that a struggle for you?

That's why I think Peter Drucker was great at, asking some of those very basic questions that you would think okay, what's the purpose of your business, sell what your customers buy. Well, duh, no kidding, but it's amazing how many people don't actually sell what their customers buy. It's really quite incredible. I've got of just a few minutes with you, so to pick on this value conversation, I agree with you that oftentimes people who have espoused some of the concepts that Ron and I talk about have done it and come about it more from a manipulative standpoint, I will not deny that stamp at all, which is why I always go back to the work of Mohan Khalsa and his book—and to me wrote the definitive book on the value conversation—which is Let's Get Real, or Let's Not Play. The whole concept is exactly what you said, we're going to have a real, authentic conversation, and I am going on a value quest with you in this conversation to try to find out if there's enough there there, as you know, the politicians once said, to see if it's worth us doing business at all, and I'll be the first one to say, I don't think we should do anything with you.

Interesting, well that's unfortunate, because I think one of the things that I found is that when people are really good at the value conversation, you do have that experience of being well-listened to. That's one of the things that people will say, and I will agree. I think Margaret Wheatley, a previous guest on this show [Episode #308], in one of her books, which is on great questions, about asking great questions. She does ask that exact question. When was the last time you experienced good listening? And that's a very challenging,

Yeah, it really is. And it changes the way we go about doing our business on a regular basis. Well look at this, we're up against our first break already.
 

Ron’s Questions: Segment Two

Welcome back, everybody, we're here with David Baker, and he's the author of The Business of Expertise: How Entrepreneurial Experts Convert Insight to Impact + Wealth, published in 2017. David, this was a great book, I really got a lot out of it. I love how you talk about positioning, but on the wealth + making an impact in your subtitle, I just want to ask you about this from a knowledge worker perspective. When you look at doctors, or lawyers, or even advertising folks. They joined the profession or the industry for some reason, they wanted to help people, they wanted to make an impact, whatever. And then they get in there, and they spend half their time doing paperwork, like how doctors feel they're overwhelmed with too many patients, and they don't burn out—they rust out. What's your reaction to that? 

We have a saying around here: growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell not of a profitable, sustainable business. I love how you say it's not about revenue, or growth, it's about impact. You also wrote this, and I really want you to explain this: “Expertise (or insight) is based on focus, which is based on positioning. Now, I'm going to ask you later about vertical and horizontal positioning. But just unpack that why “expertise, or insight, is based on focus, which is based on positioning”?

And I love that because on the positioning end of it, it also gives you the ability to say no easier and I love when you say “Your only real control is to withhold your expertise.” I mean, he who says no has the power.

There's nothing more liberating than being able, and willing, to say no. But we learn that so late, or a lot of us do. I wish I would have known that in my 20s.

By the way, David, my favorite way to say no, is tell somebody, “I'd love to, but I don't want to.” And you'll get a really weird look, and they'll have to process that for a minute. But it's a very nice way to say no. Great conversation you were having with Ed about pricing. And you say pricing to you is a leading indicator, as a consultant you like to go in, take a look at their pricing, it gives you a sense of their confidence level, do they offer free consultations, you have all of these different things that you look at. Why do you think so many firms have a problem with pricing?

I'd rather have no business than bad business, or where I have to compromise my principles. I love the way you say—and I am a big fan of Dr. House—and the second law of medicine, which is prescription without diagnosis is malpractice. And you say, and I love this—and I am stealing this by the way—if you don't diagnose, or even prescribe, you're just the pharmacy. I love that. And it kind of leads to, if you kind of blow that up and go even higher, we have a saying that, and you say don't confuse expertise with implementation. I have a saying, good ideas are more valuable than the mere execution of them. In other words, to prescribe with the wrong diagnosis, there's no good way to implement a bad idea. I don't think good ideas are everywhere. I think they're rare. Otherwise, we wouldn't get the remake of The Dukes of Hazzard and Bewitched, and all this crap, all these sequels. But just wanted your reaction to that.

I love how you have the strategy room and the implementation room, and how the strategy room should slowly encroach, and grow bigger over execution. I learned this from economists, I know it's a very counterintuitive idea, but countries that come up with better ideas, and more ideas, have a higher standard of living than those countries that merely execute on those ideas. So I rather live in the country that comes up with the concept of the iPhone, rather than the country that assembles it. The other thing, and I love this, and I've only got about a minute, but maybe Ed can get into this, you say there's a temptation to match capacity to opportunity, which is kind of that whole growth for the sake of growth. You say the right size capacity is slightly smaller than the amount of opportunity within reach. That's brilliant, by the way, I love that.

And if you never have spare capacity, not only can’t you get better opportunities, or drive more opportunities for existing customers, but you're going to rust out your people if you put them on this treadmill, especially knowledge workers.

Awesome. Well, David, this has been great.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Three

And we are back with the author of The Business of Expertise: How Entrepreneurial Experts Convert Insight to Impact + Wealth, David C. Baker. And David, would you walk us through a typical day for you? And if you don't get the reference there, that is the opening line of the two Bobs in the classic scene in the movie Office Space. So I want to I want you to talk to me a little bit about the Two Bob's podcast, which I assume is based on that great scene in that movie.

Probably the only more famous scene than that is the PC load letter, when they take the baseball bat to the printer. [The movie was] shot in North Texas, by the way. A lot of those interiors were shot in North Texas. But David, back to the book. So I'm going to quote for from the book here. And this, I think, alludes to the conversation that you were having earlier with Ron. You said, “If I could reach inside my unconfident clients and raise their confidence level, we would move on and solve the next challenge for them. Truth be told, I often thought more highly of their abilities than they did themselves.” Why do so many professional organizations actually suffer from, as crazy as this seems, self-esteem issues?

As one of our colleagues of VeraSage colleagues [Dan Morris] said when he was shifting his last customer over from billing by the hour to a fixed price agreement, he said to him, “I'm too old and too talented to continue to charge you by the hour. And I think that's part of it. But I also do think that it relates back to the conversation we were having earlier, which is the professional tends to focus on “It only took me 15 minutes.” The reality is no, it took you your whole lifetime to get to that 15 minutes. And then you're not selling expertise. And I was so much in agreement with what you were saying about them not being service workers. That's one thing I wish I could beat out of them, that you are not in a service firm, but in a knowledge firm, what we like to call access to, or transfer of, knowledge. That's what you're really selling.

Alan Weiss tells a story about this whole confidence thing. When he was a junior implementer for a larger consulting firm, and after the guy gave the price out to this bank manager, he would put a cigar in his mouth. And one day Alan Weiss screwed up the courage and asked him, “So Bernie, what's with the cigar?” He said, “I need the cigar, because if I don't put the cigar in my mouth I start to giggle.” We've only got about four minutes left, and you started this conversation with Ron, and I thought it was really interesting. You talk about the six different things about positioning, five are in one chapter and then you dedicated an entire chapter, chapter 10, to how positioning is built on your expertise and not your implementation. You started to talk a little bit about that with Ron. Unpack that with the last four minutes or so that we have left to talk here.

That's so great. Our friend, Tim Williams, who I know you know, talks about the difference between logic work and magic work. I think they are very similar to what you're talking about. Charge a lot for the magic work, and you can even “give away” the logic work, the stuff that's got to be done no matter what, say that's free. I mean, it's not, because the value is really on that magic work.

That’s right. None of us wants to be charged $150 an hour to resize a banner ad. We do not want that at all. Well, David, this has been great. Ron's going to take you home in the fourth segment, but I just want to thank you for appearing on the show today. We hope you'll come back and maybe talk to us some more. But right now, we want a word from our sponsors, and my employer, Sage.
 

Ron’s Questions: Segment Four

Welcome back, everybody. We're here with David Baker, the author of The Business of Expertise: How Entrepreneurial Experts Convert Insight to Impact + Wealth. And David, we've only got about nine minutes, and you could probably use the whole thing [on this one topic]. And I just want to tell people, please, please, please read David's book, because your discussion on vertical versus horizontal positioning is brilliant. And there's a lot in there, and firms need to go through every portion of it. But you also say, “Most well positioned experts have vertical positioning.” So give me your explanation. How do you explain vertical versus horizontal positioning?

And you say that this needs to be reevaluated at least every five years or so, maybe 10 ideally. Explain that?

I know it's in your contract with Blair to give him a shout out. And I hope we've fulfilled that. Well, one more shout out to Blair. He says, “Positioning is an exercise in irrelevance.” Explain that?

And I love this, too. You have a really good way to explain how, when you're in a vertical positioning framework, it's so much easier to find prospects, because essentially, you can buy a list. And the other thing you said is, when people change jobs, they usually take you along with them, which is a fantastic point.

Yes, that's a fantastic acid test, can you buy a list. Then you say this, and I love this too, and I know this goes back to our conversation about growth for the sake of growth, but you say, “Drop the irrational fear that to keep a customer you have to meet all of their needs.”

I also love this, you said, “Quit protecting what you learned in the past and learn new things now.” I have this philosophy that I should give away my intellectual capital. That way, I have to replenish it to keep at the cutting edge. To me, it's a lagging indicator that your ideas are stale when you start copywriting your own jargon.

Excellent. Well, David, thank you so much for appearing on The Soul of Enterprise. We’ve got to bring you back and talk about some of your other books. And Ed, what’s coming up for next week?

Ed

Next week, Ron, we are going to talk about a little book that we found called on behavioral economics: Influences and Irrationalities of the Human Mind, by none other than our friend Rory Sutherland.

Ron

I’m looking forward to that, see you in 167 hours.


Episode #355: Who Protects the Consumer More—Regulation or Reputation?

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

But what about fraud, shoddy, unsafe products and services? Or asymmetric information—is your doctor a Quack, or how do I know the used car I’m buying isn’t a lemon?

The criticisms of the invisible hand are valid. The question is: whether the government regulation cure is worse than the disease?

Listen to Episode #294 with Adam Thierer for our discussion on Evasive Entrepreneurs and Permissionless Innovation vs. the Precautionary Principle, an important concept in discussions around regulation.

The original meaning of regulation was to make regular; to standardize; to develop a standard under which nothing should fall. The industry being regulated loves regulation.

The law bubbles up from the bottom, a natural law—the norms to which all of us agree. But legislation is an imposition from the top down, it’s arbitrary (why 55MPH speed limit and not 60MPH?).

It’s similar with our topic today. Reputation is bottom-up, and regulation is top-down.

 

HISTORY OF REGULATION

This section draws from Milton and Rose Friedman’s classic book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.

A lot of regulation has been prompted by some event, such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, Senator Estes Kefauver’s investigation into the drug industry, and Ralph Nader’s attack on the General Motor’s Corvair as “unsafe at any speed.”

Regulation quickened after the New Deal—half of the 32 agencies in in 1966 created after FDR’s election in 1932. Twenty-one new agencies were established from 1966 into the next decade.

Instead of being concerned with specific industries, these new agencies covered the waterfront: the environment, the production and distribution of energy, product safety, occupational safety, etc., with the goal of not only protecting the consumer from sellers but also from himself.

The Code of Federal Regulations in 1938 was 18,193 pages. In 2017, 186,374 pages. Edward Teller, “It took us eighteen months to build the first nuclear power generator; it now takes twelve years; that’s progress.”

The Interstate Commerce Commission was established Feb 4, 1887 to regulate railroads, because of fears of monopolization. The artificial high prices enabled the trucking industry to grow and The Motor Carrier Act  of 1935 gave the ICC jurisdiction over trucking to protect railroads, not consumers.

Truckers needed “Certificates of public convenience,” 89,000 applications were filed while only 27,000 were approved. The collective value of these Certificates in 1972 was $2-3 Billion, which also represents the economic loss to society

The ICC then went on to nationalize passenger traffic with Amtrak.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed in 1990. Listen to Episode #164.

The Food and Drug Administration was established in 1906, as a reaction to Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, which documented unsanitary conditions in Chicago slaughtering and meat-packing houses. Sinclair said, “I aimed at the public’s heart and by accident hit it in the stomach.”

Even before The Jungle, Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the National Temperance Society formed the National Pure Food and Drug Congress (1898) campaign for legislation to eliminate medical nostrums—heavily laced with alcohol.

The 1906 act was limited to the inspection of foods and labeling of patent medicines. More by accident than design, it also subjected prescription drugs to control, a power which was not used until much later. The FDA was placed in the Department of Agriculture.

Concerned by restrictions on importation of U.S. meats imposed by European countries, due to the allegation that the meat was diseased. Meat sellers eagerly seized on government certifying meat was disease-free.

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, extended the government’s control over advertising and labeling and required all new drugs to be approved for safety by the FDA. The approval had to be granted or withheld within 180 days.

Then the Thalidomide episode of 1961–62 swept into law in 1962 the Kefauver amendments, which dealt more with quality than price . These amendments added proof-of-efficacy requirement to the proof-of-safety requirement of the 1938 law, and removed the time constraint on the FDA’s disposition of a New Drug Application.

Subsequently, the number of “new chemical entities” introduced each year fell more than 50 percent since 1962. Ten years after the 1962 amendments, no drug was approved for hypertension, whereas several were approved in Britain. In fact, in the entire cardiovascular area, only one drug was approved in the five year period from ’67 to ’72.

Economist Sam Peltzman’s research into the costs and benefits of the FDA was unambiguous: “The harm done has greatly outweighed the good.”

Fame and acclaim was awarded to the woman who held up approval of Thalidomide, Dr. Frances O. Kelsey, was given a gold medal for Distinguished Government Service by John F. Kennedy. Any doubt which mistake you will be more anxious to avoid?

In a Newsweek column from January 8, 1973, Milton Friedman laid out that for these reasons the FDA should be abolished,

A letter writer challenged him: “I do not believe that the FDA should be abolished but I do believe that its power should be” changed in such and such a way.

In a subsequent column, entitled “Barking Cats,” February 19, 1973, Friedman replied:

  • What would you think of someone who said, “I would like to have a cat provided it barked”? You favor an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent.

  • As a natural scientist, you recognize that you cannot assign characteristics at will to chemical and biological entities, cannot demand that cats bark or water burn.

  • Why do you suppose the situation is different in the social sciences?

Here is “Barking Cats” by Milton Friedman and his response to a previous column in which he more or less argued for the FDA to be abolished.  

Also related to today’s show, check out Episode #192 with Mary Ruwart in which we discuss her book, “Death by Regulation.”

Interested in learning more about the futility of the US FDA and the bureaucratic delays we have seen with the vaccine for COVID-19? Here is yet ANOTHER great show featuring Mary Ruwart, Episode #321.

Economist Steven Landsburg suggest that we should pay the FDA Director should be paid in Pharma stock.

The Civil Aeronautics Board was established in 1938, with control over 19 domestic carriers. Intrastate fares were not regulated while interstate fares were. The intrastate flight in California from San Francisco to Los Angeles was cheaper than similar length interstate flights.

Ralph Nader filed a complaint in 1971 about this discrepancy. So the CAB increased the intrastate fares to match the permitted interstate CAB fares. How does this protect the consumer?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established December 31, 1970. It’s research into the infamous Corvair found, “The 1960–63 Corvair compared favorably with the other contemporary vehicles used in the tests.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was established October 24, 1972. This has to be the most Namby-pamby, eat your vegetables agencies ever founded. It’s main concern is not price or cost, but safety.

What is an “Unreasonable risk?” It is hardly a scientific term capable of objective specification. What decibel level of noise from a cap gun is an “unreasonable risk” to a child’s (or adult’s) hearing?

The example of Tris is illustrative of government failure. CPSC had responsibility for administering the “Flammable Fabrics Act,” dating back to 1953. CPSC issued regulations for children’s sleepwear and the cheapest way meet this standard was impregnating the cloth with a flame-retardant chemical—Tris. Soon, 99 percent children’s sleepwear produced and sold was covered in Tris. Later it was discovered that Tris was a potent carcinogen.

In a free market, Tris would have been introduced gradually. As Milton Friedman writes, “Often simply substituted government failure for market failure.”

The Environmental Protection Agency was Established December 2, 1970. While pollution is usually blamed on “business,” as Milton Friedman points out, “In fact, the people responsible are consumers, not producers, since they create a demand for pollution.”

He was in favor of imposing effluent charges, a tax of a specified amount per unit of effluent discharged. Then there would be objective evidence of the costs of reducing pollution.

Even if a high tax left much discharge, it would provide substantial sums to compensate the losers or undo the damage.

Price Controls are another form of regulation. President Carter argued for a massive program to produce synthetic fuels or else the nation would run out of energy by 1990.

Yet enterprises have to be confident that future prices will not be controlled, otherwise, the heads-you-win, tails-I-lose gamble will not be worthwhile. When price rises, controls and “windfall taxes” loom; but when price falls, they hold the bag.

To those who argue that the risks are too great and the capital costs too heavy for the market to absorb, they are wrong. Risk taking is the essence of private enterprise. Risks are not eliminated by imposing them on taxpayer. The Alaska pipeline, driverless cars, AI, satellites, and billionaires in space all demonstrate that private markets can raise massive sums for promising projects.

 

Economist George Stigler’s Thought Experiment

University of Chicago economists George Stigler was the originator of the Regulatory Capture Theory. Here’s his thought experiment:

“Suppose you want to figure out why a particular regulation passes and the way that it’s written.

“Imagine the legislature putting that regulation up for auction and people could bid on the terms of the regulation and the outcome went to the highest bidder.

“Under those rules it would be clear whose interest is served by a government restriction on freedom of exchange.”

Economist Ronald Coase asked why we don’t regulate ideas to the same extent we regulate products and services, since ideas have killed more people than products and services. After all, Marx’s and Hitler’s ideas have killed more than shoddy products.

 

REPUTATION: HOW THE MARKET REGULATES BEHAVIOR AND PROTECTS THE CONSUMER

This section draws from Howard Baetjer, Jr.’s wonderful book, Free Our Markets: A Citizens’ Guide to Essential Economics.

Thomas Sowell once said, “I don’t have faith in free markets; I have evidence.”

The elements of regulation by market forces are:

  • Freedom among providers to enter the market and compete for buyers

  • Freedom of buyers to take their business where they will

  • Reputation of sellers, and customer experience spread by word-of-mouth/mouse

  • Middleman, the Department Store

  • Brand name—the value of which exceeds most assets of modern companies

  • Tort liability, a legal means by which people can recover damages if they are harmed

  • Requirements imposed by insurance companies as conditions of insurance

  • Trial and error feedback loop

  • Private testing organizations—Consumer Research 1928, Consumers Union 1935 publishes Consumer Reports (small size indicates minority of consumers are willing to pay, which shows they are satisfied with most sellers)

  • Third-party certification of product quality and service competence (mechanics can be ASE certified—Automotive Service Excellence—or manufactured certified)

California growers formed Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement which pays for their own inspection system. The growers found the FDA regulation to be ineffective and insufficient. Participation was voluntary in California, yet 95%+ of the leafy greens industry signed up after major processors like Dole and Fresh Express agreed to participate.

Insurance companies have a strong incentive to regulate and insure the safety of products. So much so that it was insurance companies who created perhaps the largest third-party certifier, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) (“Underwriter” means “insurer” in this context).

This international organization “evaluates more than 19,000 types of products, components, materials and systems annually with 20 billion UL Marks appearing on 72,000 manufacturers’ products each year.”

If the law permits only one certifier to operate society loses the dynamic process through which better standards and methods can be discovered and used.

Every approach will have flaws. Our goal should be the more modest one of achieving the least-flawed institutional setting. The least-flawed, best available approach to regulation is one that:

  • generates an on-going discovery of new and better knowledge and invention of new and better processes, and

  • gives those involved a strong incentive to create value for other people in order to benefit themselves.

Parents can’t take time research different grocery store chains, shoes they might buy, or the different churches they might attend. Yet they have only pretty good grocery stores, shoes, and church options to choose from.

Why? Because in a free and competitive system enough other people do such research and do make such informed choices. If only half of all parents made careful school selections in a free system, no poor schools could survive.

No lobbyist for a newspaper chain or a religion goes to Washington to insist that any new newspaper or religion must first get a license assuring the quality of their news or doctrine.

Milton Friedman writes: “Ask yourself what products are currently least satisfactory and shown least improvement: Postal service, elementary and secondary schooling, railroad passenger transport. Which have shown the most satisfactory and improved the most: Household appliances, television and radio sets, computers, supermarkets shopping.”

“The imperfect market may, after all, do as well or better than the imperfect government. The difference is that a private firm that makes a serious blunder may go out of business. A government agency is likely to get a bigger budget. The most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world.”


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This past week was Bonus Episode 355 - “Mask mania and more”. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #354: Interview with James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan is the co-author of Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics, along with Antony Davies (interviewed in episode #351). We were thrilled when James agreed to join us on this episode of The Soul of Enterprise. Below are full show notes including the questions prepared by Ron and Ed and links to James’ work.

James R Harrigan

But first a bit more about James Harrigan…
James R. Harrigan is the F.A. Hayek Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also co-host of the Words & Numbers podcast. Dr. Harrigan was previously Dean of the American University of Iraq-Sulaimani, and later served as Director of Academic Programs at the Institute for Humane Studies and Strata, where he was also Senior Research Fellow. He was also Managing Director of the Center for Philosophy of Freedom at the University of Arizona. He has written extensively for the popular press, with articles appearing in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, U.S. News and World Report, and a host of other outlets. His current work focuses on the intersections between political economy, public policy, and political philosophy.

Ed’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. I'm Ed Kless with my friend and co-host, Ron Baker, and on today's show we are pleased to have our interview with James R. Harrigan. Hey, Ron, how's it going?

Ron

I'm great, Ed. I'm looking forward to this. You know, when Antony Davies was on a few weeks ago [Episode #351], we did not read his book in anticipation of that show, which I felt really guilty about. The book is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics, but I have read it now. So this will be great, because James tells us, of the two, he's the smarter one.

James Harrigan

That is correct. And let's not call it his book anymore.

Ed

Well, by way of quick introduction, James R. Harrigan is the F.A. Hayek Distinguished Fellow—that’s Friedrich, not Selma, by the way—at the Foundation for Economic Education and the senior editor for the American Institute of Economics Research. He's the co-host of the Words and Numbers podcast [with Antony Davies]. He was previously Dean of the American University of Iraq-Sulaimani, and later served as Director of Academic Programs at the Institute for Humane Studies and Strata, where he was also Senior Research Fellow. He’s written extensively for the popular press, with articles in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, among others. His current work focuses on the intersections between political economy, public policy, and political philosophy, and his book today, which we're going to talk about, is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise, James R. Harrigan

I'm a pretty quick reader because I'm from New York originally, so we get it in pretty quickly. So I had to make the Selma Hayek joke, I can't resist it.

Well, fill in some blanks. Where did you grow up, what led you both into and then out of academia?

Well we certainly found your book interesting as well. The book, again, is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. And Anthony, I'm sorry, James. Sorry, really big problem there! I have to ask you about this. It's chapter four of the book, but I'm going to jump into it because it's the lead in the news this week. Quoting from the book, “We have also brought our troops planes and drones to many nations. And the killing we have done in those places, some warranted, some not, will doubtlessly result in the kind of hatred for the United States that have led to the attacks that fired up this merry-go-round in the first place. Let's talk a little bit about that.

Yeah, by my calculation, that I heard on a podcast, on the low side we have spent $150 million a day, each day, for 20 years. Now, you probably recall a couple of weeks ago when people freaked out over billionaires spending their own money to go to space. And yet $150 million a day, each day, for 20 years. I can't reconcile that in my brain.

And that's one of the thoughts. Is there really an Afghani perspective? Is there really an Iraqi perspective? These are not nations like Japan and Germany were that we were able to rebuild in the sense that they had joined the quote, “community of nations” already. These are constructs. Afghanistan is a construct. It's not a real nation. Ouch.

One of the lines I've said to people is look, the folks in Afghanistan have been throwing rocks at each other for millennia. The mistake that we and the Soviets made was giving them anything more than rocks.

Yeah, unfortunately, I agree. Hopefully in my next segment with you it'll be a little bit more joyful but we're up against our first break.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Two

Welcome back, everybody, we're here with James R. Harrigan. He's the author of Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. James, you say there's only two ways humans can work together: They can either cooperate, or they can coerce one another. The first is voluntary, and the second is involuntary. Explain that.

And James, one of the reasons this matters, and it matters, I know, for a lot of reasons, liberty, freedom, all of that. But one of the things you point out is that when you look at poor countries that rely more on cooperation than coercion, they have less poverty and less inequality. And I thought that was some really interesting empirical evidence, and it's kind of overwhelming, isn't it?

Yeah, I'm in awe of things like that. When you really, like you say, step back and think about it. I mean, the fact that I can go to another country whose language I don't speak, hand somebody a plastic card with my name on it, and they give me car—a car! That just kind of astonishing when you think about it.

I have to ask, who was the concert?

James

Oh, it's the greatest band in the world. I'm happy you asked. It's an English neo-progressive band called Marillion. If you could imagine Pink Floyd and Radiohead ground up into a fine paste, this is what it would sound like. I refer to it as the sound of Gods laughter. It's just that good.

Ron

Wow. It must be if you're willing to fly to Poland.

James, this is kind of unfair, I think we've only got about a minute-and-a-half, maybe two, left. But you talk about the knowledge problem. And I love it because you quote the guy from The Toaster Project, the guy who tried to make his own toaster and then the guy who made his own chicken sandwich. Those, like I, Pencil, are great stories. Why haven't we learned this lesson? Why do we keep asking government to do things and solve problems when nobody knows how to make a pencil?

We get the government we deserve. Well, James, this is just flying by and this is wonderful.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Three

And we are back with James R. Harrigan. The book is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. James, I wanted to ask you about something related to the book, but also in current events as well. And that is this notion of mask mandates. I know from listening to your show that, like Ron and myself, you're neither a maskafile nor a maskaphobe. So we're who are somewhere in the middle. But a federal mandate wouldn't make much sense because of the principles of federalism, and we wouldn't want to push that down. But here in the state of Texas, the governor has issued an edict that state agencies cannot, and local governments cannot, issue their own mandates. Does that violate the principle of subsidiarity, which would say the local government would be the best place to make that decision? Talk about the interplay between those two things.

The principle of subsidiarity is down to my household, because we are in a school district in Texas that is not requiring masks. I have my son who does not wear a mask and my daughter, who's four years younger, feels very comfortable and prefers wearing a mask. So guess what, we're letting them make the decision that works for them. As parents, that's what we're doing. So because, as you said, I don't even know what's right for me most of the time. So I'm going to jump subjects on you, I apologize. But this is one of my favorite historical asterisks, and that is the original First Amendment, or the First Article which was put forward, which is known as The Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which if enacted would increase the size of Congress from 435 to roughly 6000 Members today.

Interesting. My fantasy is that somehow more states ratified this original First Amendment, and we have to somehow deal with it. Just throw utter chaos into the situation. But I think you're right, I think that the better play for us all is more federalism. But as soon as you start to bring that up you get basically accused of being pro-slavery, and I’m like, wait, wait.

And interestingly enough, my understanding is this is one of the few times that George Washington actually broke his silence, and was very much in favor of this apportionment amendment, something that he actually believed in?

I heard this first on Jonah Goldberg’s podcast [The Remnant]. He was quoting somebody else, and I can't remember who he says said it, but what we should do is just change the pronunciation of the word “president” to “president.” That'll be a reminder that that is all they're supposed to do is preside.

Well, we are up against our last break. This has been great. So fun to have you on James. Ron's going to take you home in the last segment, but I just wanted to say thanks.  

Ron’s Questions: Segment Four

Welcome back, everybody, we're here with James R. Harrigan, and the book is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. James, I'm going to tap into your political philosophy and political science brain. I'm going to give you a series of rapid questions somewhat, because we've only got about seven or eight minutes. In the book, you talk about our propensity for having a war on nouns—drugs, poverty, terrorism. And I just want to ask you about poverty. It seems like on the war on poverty, poverty has won. Why do you think the people don't understand that the only antidote to poverty is wealth creation?

James, what's your position on the universal basic income? [See Episode #95].

Do you worry about Congress's impotence? I mean specifically, their willingness to give power to the president and bureaucracy, and just not make any major decisions?

George Will wrote a book in 1992 called Restoration: Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy. And it was one of the best arguments I've ever read for term limits at the federal level. Where do you stand on term limits?

Would you see any benefits to term limits if they did do it?

We’ve got about one minute, James, last question. What about a state constitutional convention?

Well, James Harrigan, thank you so much for appearing on The Soul of Enterprise, your book Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics is fantastic, a great read. We're going to link up everything that you guys have done up on the show notes. And Ed, what do we have coming up next week?

Ed

Next week, Ron, we are going to talk about a subject that is near and dear to both our hearts. We are going to talk about regulation versus reputation, which is the more important?

Ron

Excellent, I'll see 167 hours.


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This past week was Bonus Episode 354 - “Suggested changes for Congresscritters”. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #353: Left to Right: Why the Traditional Political Spectrum is Wrong

In government and political science courses, students are taught the traditional “political/economic spectrum.” It looks like this:

spectrum 1.jpg

Yet this spectrum is not only misleading, it is false. Why should socialists and fascists be depicted as virtual opposites when they share so much in common?

The real spectrum should look more like this:

spectrum 2.jpg

Objections to the Above Spectrum

1.     Communism and fascism can’t be close together because communists and fascists fought each other bitterly. Hitler attacked Stalin.

Al Capone and Bugs Moran hated and fought each other so they can’t both be considered gangsters?

Both systems had low regard for human life. Why expect either to be nice to the other, especially since they were rivals for territory or influence on world stage?

2.     Under communism, as Karl Marx defined it, government “withers away.” So it cannot be aligned closely with socialism because socialism involves lots of government.

Marx’s conception of the government “withering away” not only was purely hypothetical, it’s lunacy. There’s no example of a  despot of the all-powerful “proletarian dictatorship” walking away from power. 

3.     Communism and Fascism are radically different because in focus, one is internationalist and the other is nationalist (as in Hitler’s “national socialism”).

As Lawrence Reed answers: “Big deal. Chocolate and vanilla are two different flavors of ice cream, but they’re both ice cream. Was it any consolation to the French or the Norwegians or the Poles that Hitler was a national socialist instead of an international socialist?”

Communism and Fascism belong firmly on the socialist Left. Political and economic systems should be analyzed by who they empower—the State or the individual.

 

Resources Mentioned During the Show 

Lawrence W. Reed, “What the Nazis Had in Common With Every Other Collectivist Regime in the 20th Century,” FEE, July 29, 2021

Lawrence W. Reed, “The Only Spectrum That Makes Sense,” April 22, 2021, El American

This is one of Ed’s all-time favorite books. It was featured during one of our best book shows: The Vampire Economy

Also check out this YouTube video: “Hitler’s Vampire Economy” 

Ed is a fan of this 10 question quiz. It quickly covers your position on both personal and economic issues: The World’s Smallest Political Quiz 

Ron mentioned the Freedom Index when talking about Hungary. Check out the full index here.

And speaking of Fascism, here is the Wikipedia source on its Manifesto

As Ron and Ed study the antecedents of some of the political ideas discussed today, Ron recommends the #1 bestseller from Jonah Goldberg: Liberal Fascism


Episode #352: Reginald Lee on Cost Accounting and The Subscription Model

Reginald Lee.jpeg

Ron and Ed were joined by VeraSage Senior Fellow, and recidivist guest, Dr. Reginald Lee for this show. They engaged in a round-table discussion about value, pricing, cost accounting, project management, and capacity; and how they all change, and don’t change, in the subscription business model. This is an adaptation of a Bonus Episode from July 14th that ran for approximately 80 minutes, available to our Cost-Plus Subscribers on our Patreon channel (https://www.patreon.com/TSOE).

About Dr. Reginald Lee
Reginald Tomas Lee, PhD, is an author, international and TEDx speaker, corporate advisor and trainer in the areas of cash flow profit/ROI and capacity management. He is the author of three books, including Lies, Damned Lies, and Cost Accounting; Strategic Cost Transformation; and Project Profitability. He has written over 40 articles and white papers, and was a feature writer for the Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance. Reginald has advised many major companies, including as Bristol Myers Squibb, Dell, Disney, DuPont, Home Depot, Lockheed-Martin, Toyota, and UnitedHealth Group. Professionally, Reginald has worked for GM, IBM, EY, has been a professor of both engineering and business, and currently teaches operations and supply chain at Miami University’s Farmer School of Business. Reginald has a PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of Dayton.


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode 351: Interview with Professor Antony Davies

Dr Antony Davies

You will learn more about inflation in the first five minutes of this conversation than you thought you could. The interview with Professor Antony Davies only gets better from there!

[Editor’s note: Professor Davies current book can be found at this link.]

Ed’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. I’m Ed Kless with my good friend and co-host, Ron Baker, and folks on today's show, we are pleased to have Professor Antony Davies. Ron, how's it going?

Ron

Very good, Ed, I'm so looking forward to this.

Ed

Yes, it's going be a wide ranging conversation. Antony, as he has told us to call him, is very erudite and will often opines on anything and  everything. So we're looking forward to that. We will not have, as we like to call it, the Tyler Cowen problem with Antony. So let me read his bio and bring him on so we can start the conversation. Dr. Antony Davies is the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, and the co-host of the podcast Words and Numbers with James Harrigan. He authors monthly columns on economics for public policy for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Pittsburgh Tribune review. And he has written books on understanding statistics published by the Cato Institute. I'd love to ask him about that because I can't find it on the Cato Institute's website, and co-authored hundreds of op-eds, in, among others, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise, Antony Davies.

Well, first, a couple of quick connections. First, you should know that both of my in-laws are Duquesne grads, although they graduated in the late 60s. But I am very familiar with Pittsburgh having a family of origin that started there, love the area. I think it's one of the most underrated places in the United States, actually, in my view, so I'm not sure your feelings on that. But the other connection I wanted to make is in your bio I saw you went to the all-male Catholic bishop [St. John] Neumann High School in Williamsport, PA, and I too am a graduate of an all-male Catholic institution, Chaminade high school in Mineola, NY. So, I think that that changes us somehow, I think there's something in there. What I wanted to ask you right out of the gate is I wanted to talk about inflation. You most recently did a great interview, I guess it was a video piece, for the Foundation for Economic Education refuting a Vox piece that really mis-defined inflation. So I'll ask the questions in succession, and we can unpack them. What do most people think inflation is? What is it really? And why is that important?

Sorry. What is it really? Why is that distinction important, too?

And I've might have heard this, but it seems to be that the money supply has increased recently. I don't know where I heard that?

Yeah, I remember when the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup was a quarter. But why haven't we seen inflation as a problem? If it's been going up since the 70s, the money supply [going up] since the 70s? Why haven't we seen it reflected? Has growth been equal to it, at least to some degree?

The one other aspect of inflation that I wanted to ask you about, because I've seen you talk about it quite eloquently, is that we also don't see in my iPhone, for example, does in 1976 $200,000 worth of stuff, or perhaps even more, and that's not reflected in the price either, because I only paid say $1,000 for this, correct?

Yes, tremendous. But then there's also the timing problem too, right? When the government pushed all of this money out, especially to the markets, and now even to us, it's six months late. We're already in recovery, so to speak, unless everything begins to reverse, which we saw a little bit at the end of this week, but let's not think about that. That's a timing problem, too?

Well, this is great conversation, flying by as usual, but we're up against our first break.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Two

Welcome back, everybody, we're here with Professor Antony Davies. And Antony, I'm probably going to bounce around on you a little bit more. But just to keep with what you were explaining about inflation, you wrote a great article in FEE, “Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Economics.” And you talked about the sleight of hand because it focuses on debt and dollars, rather than resources and products. And I just thought the way you explained it was fantastic. Can you kind of explain it and tell us why it's a sleight of hand?

Do you think this Modern Monetary Theory idea has permeated the halls of Congress and other politicians in Washington? It seems to have happened pretty fast. I mean, like faster than Keynes?

Well, I hope the economists can push back on it. The other thing, Antony, in just reading some of your stuff, you're not just an economist. I know you're a Chicago School economist, right? Very empirical, modeling, data, all of that. But you're a serial entrepreneur, as well. That's kind of a rare trait for an economist.

You just gave, very eloquently, why our show is titled The Soul of Enterprise; that is exactly what we try to convey. The thing that fascinates me about it, were you frustrated when you got to Chicago and realized that the economics profession doesn't have much to say about the entrepreneur, outside of maybe the Austrians, and I know you came to the Austrian School a little bit later, after your academic career. Outside of Schumpeter and maybe some amateurs like George Gilder, who write very passionately about the role of the entrepreneur, [they’re ignored by mainstream economics]. I mean, they're the lifeblood of a dynamic economy, without entrepreneurism an economy is just dead.

That’s very true. You did a podcast back on June 14 of 2017, “What You Should Know About Poverty in America.” And that made me think back to Nicholas Eberstadt, who wrote a paper once and he said, if we measured poverty by looking at consumption, rather than income, it would be like two or three percent. And it kind of set the world on fire, was [and still is] very controversial. And I think about the war on poverty and it seems poverty has won. What are the flaws in how we measure poverty?

I rather be poor today then rich anywhere 100 years ago. It's astonishing to me that we're still having this argument. Do you think Universal Basic Income (UBI), and I know there's all sorts of problems with, but as Charles Murray proposed it in his book, In Our Hands, where we have a Constitutional amendment that wipes out all the other programs, in his book even Social Security and Medicare, replaced it with a UBI, do you think that would be a better alternative?

Philosophically, Antony, if we did UBI the right way, I still worry about it from a moral level. Like, I'm here and the world owes me a living. There's something that rubs me wrong about that, the world was here first, it owes you nothing.

Sure, it's compassion and charity. It's just that those can't be coerced.

I love how you say that we've conflated poverty and inequality. My favorite proverb is a German one. And it says, “If you want equality visit a cemetery.” But Antony this is great, unfortunately, we're up against our next break.  

 

Ed’s Questions: Segment Three

And we are back on The Soul of Enterprise with Professor Antony Davies. He is the author, with James Harrigan, of Cooperation and Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies, and What that Means for Economics and Politics. And, Antony, let me ask you the question that all authors dream of when on a book tour: Tell me about your book.  

So is using coercion in the first place that started the problem that you have to use coercion to correct?

Interesting. And so I want to ask you about that. And this is the notion of government getting involved in the price system. In most cases that's coercive, right? And I think this is why we see the high prices of healthcare and college education, all this stuff. It's government action begetting government action, correct?

Two quick points on that. Ron and I have interviewed Dr. Paul Thomas out of Detroit, he is one of the primary movers in the direct primary care movement, which I don't know if you're aware of that, but it is a great entrepreneurial solution to this problem, so again, this is a good example of cooperation out-doing coercion. But, the thing is, I think I've recently heard you talk tell this story on a podcast, and it has to get out there again. The absurdity of what you just painted with regard to wage and price controls, leading to all of this stuff, only to be outdone by Wickard v Filburn case, in the early 30s [1942 actually]. On how now the government controls absolutely everything, in the guise of interstate commerce. Tell the story of Wickard v Filburn.

By the standard of Wickard v Filburn, Winston Churchill is also a carrot. It's not interstate, it's not commerce, but it's interstate commerce. Okay.

And Winston Churchill is a carrot, again. Well, we're up against our last break, and I want to remind everybody that you can contact Ron or me by sending that email to asktsoe@verasage.com. We'd like to thank Professor Davies, he's going to finish up with Ron in the last segment, author of Cooperation and Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies, and What that Means for Economics and Politics, go out and buy it at Amazon or a bookstore near you. But right now a word from our sponsor, and my employer, Sage.

 

Ron’s Questions: Segment Four

Welcome back, everybody. We're here with Professor Antony Davies. And Antony, Jimmy Carter once said that “Our income tax system is a disgrace to the human race.” What would you replace it with, if you were King for the day?

That's really popular because people figure it’s going to get the drug dealer who goes and buys the Lexus, at least.

I am seeing more and more talk about, and a push for, industrial policy. You know, people are pointing to DARPA and moonshots, and especially Operation Warp Speed, and only the government can do this. Why is this a bad idea?

I know the idea that trial and error is done by the government better than the market is baffling to me. Operation Warp Speed, Pfizer didn't take any OWS money. And of course, the people that advocate for industrial policy, they don't have a good answer to that.

Which is kind of what the market does writ large, by itself, right?

A couple of weeks ago, we did a show on woke capitalism [Episode #349]. And I'm kind of concerned about the CEOs getting into these political fights and all of that. But more specifically, do you worry about the ESG regulations that are starting to come out of the SEC and the Federal Reserve? Because I think some of these things are just a wet blanket on the economy and innovation? 

Yes, you've talked about the Cobra problems, right, the unintended consequences. I’d love your opinion on this. Do we need intellectual property laws?

The only thing that gave me pause, in my younger self, was what about drugs? You know, these need to be protected, because it takes so much money. But of course, a lot of that is government driven, too.

We've probably got time for only one more, but since it's close to our shores, what do you think will happen in Cuba? Do you think we'll see reform?

Well, professor, this has been quite an honor. Thank you so much for appearing on The Soul of Enterprise. And stay with us as we go through a live close. Ed, what do we have coming up next week?

Ed

Next week, Ron, we're going to have excerpts from our conversation with Dr. Reginald Lee and his theories on how costing and project management and subscription all work together.

Ron

Excellent. I look forward to it. I'll see you in 167 hours.

Ed

This has been The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. Join us next week on Friday at 3pm Eastern, that's Noon Pacific. In the meantime, please feel free to visit us on our Patreon site, https://www.patreon.com/TSOE. Or just https://www.thesoulofenterprise.com.

Other Resources

Here is Ron’s favorite line from an AMA on Reddit that Professor Davies did: “I’m not a fan of macroeconomics at all. To my mind, macroeconomics is simply microeconomics done poorly.” https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5ff92j/im_antony_davies_associate_professor_of_economics/


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits.