MAKING MONEY WITH EDUCATION
It’s the American way, isn’t it. Fiat money is the
fundamental measure of economic success, although not necessarily cultural or
aesthetic fulfillment.
Capitalism works that way. Self-interest encourages work that benefits
others when rewarded by fiat money, a simple greatest (or maybe least) common
denominator of exchange. Society can
organize around this and solve common problems and satisfy any historian.
And “making money” becomes the
simplest motive. Within the world of
legitimate and legal activity, there is an enormous amount of symbolic activity
“paper pushing” and leveraging of financial structures distinctly related to
real wealth—land, labor, animals, even information. There is, for example,
something as counterintuitive as selling short (not to include shorting against
the box).
So much economic activity, however,
is driven by short-term financial success—stock prices vary enormously with
established companies on whether they make earnings. For startups, however,
there have sometimes been no earnings expectations at all—until investors or
venture capitalists find out that a dot-com is just a gimmick with no business
model and a superficial, silly idea.
The most visible evidence of
corporate economic success in the minds of most investors is simple: earnings,
and net profits (especially after-tax). Companies experience a tension between
competing pressures: diversity, on the one hand, so that not all eggs are in one
basket (“conglomeration”) and sometimes so that cross-selling is possible; and
consolidation, professionalism, proper auditability
or conflict avoidance, and elimination of redundancy of function, with greater
operational economies of scale, are possible when the business model is tightly
cohesive around a core business. During recession—where people simply do not buy enough of what is
being produced--, companies feel pressure from shareholders to reduce costs
(often through layoffs) to maximize profit for a given index customer base and
product or service mix. Since
capital investments can be depreciated, why don’t companies make more capital
investments to position themselves competitively for recovery? Perhaps our
markets need some reform (more favored treatment for long term holdings than at
present) so that they will. When challenged by falling stock prices, executives
tend to feel pressured to justify their business plans with operational results, and to expand only after achieving enough
operational efficiency and expense reduction to provide a real cushion. The
trouble is, when everybody does it, the economy spirals down—until prices and
inventories are low enough that executives feel that they can justify new
investments. But the same concept can be
applied, with complications, in the way individuals manage their own finances,
job marketability, and long-term career plans.
In the individualistic world of
entrepreneurs, most really original intellectual ideas come from individuals or
small companies.
How can a media outlet make money
with more “serious” broadcasting or particularly film-making or publishing? After all, ultimately it takes profits to
have the ability to do good. My concept has been to present a canvas
showing how different issues correlate into a historical and
social trends, with the idea of getting people more involved in
understanding how others think. Ultimately, I am asking how you can make
education profitable, admittedly difficult in the short run.
But one idea that is particularly
intriguing is developing “point-counterpoint” tables that demonstrate the
various positions that can be taken about a problem, matches them to
counter-arguments, and provides easy-to-use sources. Then, at various entries in the tables,
options could be provided to allow customers to view or order tables or reports
showing quantitative analysis of some aspect of a problem.
The endpoint of all of this is to
change the public’s perception about learning when it comes to delving into
political and social issues. Today, politicians assemble into interest groups,
each presenting a predigested message to the public with no encouragement for
the public to really understand the details or origins of the problems.
Conventional political bureaucracy assumes that most people are interested only
in what they can “get” from the system to satisfy short-term self-interest.
Imagine a database engine and content that, say, displays all of the relevant
arguments and counter-arguments, each backed up by facts and references, on the
Israeli-Palestinian crisis, in a way that the reader can group the information
and is encouraged to delve further. The whole function of organizational
politics could eventually come into question.
The underlying concept for
presenting such material will be “topicality.”
History moves in clunks, where in each decade or few years there are
core issues that seem to capture the public and the politicians. Each of these issues is like a “context” in
object-oriented system design. Over
time, one begins to see how these issues are ultimately interrelated.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to name a number of issues (example – “gays in
the military”, or “Internet censorship”) and for each one, build a factory of
the major arguments that have been made about the issue. Arguments would be
cross-referenced to opposing or related views. Each argument then would drill
down to a library of supporting sources.
I have started this effort myself at the link http://www.doaskdotell.com/hpinfo/.
Eventually I plan to convert this to a database (like MSQL) format.
It’s also possible to consider
repackaging all of this material in book format. One section is to present the
basic threats to collective security and stability (with the sudden War on
Terrorism now driving this concern).
Then one presents in another section all of the underlying civil
liberties that must be defended even in time of war. These might be organized around the idea of
enumerated “fundamental rights,” and for each such right a database-like
structure is present showing all of the major questions that come up and
sources to support the positions held on these questions.
I would want to connect the
systematic examination of security, social responsibility and fundamental
rights with an effort to bring more educational movies back into theaters
(rather than depending on cable networks).
A film like a Schindler’s List
or a Saving Private Ryan – or a Sunshine-- is so much moving and
effective when shared in a public space like a theater. So is an opera like Brttten’s Billy Budd.
But we need to be able to get more of history – the movement between the
decades of the later 20th Century when the modern practice of
individualism was developing, something that journalist Randy Shilts, for example, mastered in his monumental books –
into something like a three hour span.
Return
to hppub home
page
©Copyright
2001 by