Can Mankind change in time?

 Most people would agree we live in a crazy world.  Many are worried that we are going in the wrong direction.  We haven't really handled the pandemic while climate change is accelerating.  A possible nuclear war has not been eliminated.  We are squabbling over all these issues.

Carl Sagan, searching for an extra terrestrial civilization with no result.  Many would think that meant we are the only ones in the universe, but another interpretation is that civilizations self destruct before they are able to communicate across the universe.  Carl was egotistical, but humbled.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/10/carl-sagan-and-our-future.html

What is intelligence?  If a being can differentiate between darkness and light or if a being can seek nutrition, is that the base for intelligence?  We know evolution moves with mutations that gradually take over from previous life forms.  Life started in its simplist form, but somehow over a long period of time elevated to Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.  Recorded history is only a slice of earth history and infinitesimal against solar history.  Eternity is incomprehensible to humans

Individualism is growing and most of us prize the freedom that allowed it.  A good example might be with homosexuals.  Only a few decades ago in western countries it was a life and death matter.  It is still a life and death matter in much of the world, but homosexuals have emerged perhaps first in the arts, but also in politics and really in all fields of life.  We have always admired those individuals who successfully bucked the establishment.  There are many more voices that we need to pay attention to.  There is resistance to authoritarianism while elites have found ways to mobilize large crowds.  Other small groups see the dangers outlined below and although their voices are being heard they are not yet being heeded enough.

Evolution has been depicted as survival of the fittest and we have taken that to mean the strongest and the fastest.  More recently we have come to realize that group dynamics played a role.  Many hunts depended on a group.  Wars for that matter depended upon co-operation and trust among allies.  Finding better ways to survive requires the effort of many.  Consider:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

There has been such a thing as tyranny of the majority that held back progress and human rights.  Another reality is that small wealthy elites have been able to manipulate the rest of us for their increasing greed.

The Covid 19 pandemic is really a health crisis.  While we have been complaining about the high cost of drugs and medical services, the pandemic is recognized as truly universal and there is no cost for vaccinations.  Some might argue that the drug companies are benefiting from the panic and are probably helping to fan it.  At the same time the rest of us are at the mercy of those who are resisting.  The resisters are often just afraid or lazy, but for others it is a political decision.

Climate change is no longer a theory, but is hurting millions around the globe.  Climate refugees are mingling with genuine political refugees.  What some might consider economic migrants are at least partially motivated by loss of opportunities due to climate change.  Economically, storms, floods and droughts have resulted in a loss of productivity.  Some very wealthy people are still trying squeeze as much profits as possible.  Other people fear for their jobs and economic security.

What has stopped nuclear war has been fear of MAD i.e. mutual assured destruction.  But many nations have the bombs and others are seeking them.  There are some who believe they can survive a nuclear war, others who believe if they bomb first they will win and there are others who don't care.  Should a mad man get control we are all in danger.  One must recall that Donald Trump had access to the bomb. 

Underlying all these crises is inequality.  It is possible inequality will be exacerbated, but it is also possible there will be a resetting of the status quo.  Check how inequality has been leveled in the past:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/01/the-great-leveler-violence-and.html

The crisis is human made including pollution, drugs, wars and pandemics.  The problems cannot be solved by any individual, but by a collective understanding and action.

Solutions??  

We are dealing with human nature which is ego centric.  We have separated ourselves through languages, racism, sexism, homophobia and countless other criteria.  Despite those limitations mankind could only have survived to this point as there was a part of everyone that cares for others. and we learned co-operation is necessary.

To me the greatest need is for education with some attention to critical thinking.  An earlier blog still explains the scope:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/11/education-and-our-future.html Education has been politicized and a budget bargaining item.  There are so many perspectives on it, but my hope is that more people will realize its critical importance for our group survival that barriers will fall and purse strings will loosen.  The more "rational" education the better we will all be.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/11/what-teachers-make-by-taylor-mali.html

I have only a crude understanding of Game Theory, but believe there may be some lessons to be learned.  The best results are when an individual chooses what is best for themselves and the group.  It depends on rationality.  Making the first move encourages others to take a risk.

Rationality boils down to enlightened self interest.  We can pull ourselves over top of others, but the best long term benefits come when everyone benefits.  As a salesman one mantra was the "win-win" solution.

Trust is sadly lacking in the world mainly because some people have put their interests above that of others.  However it is vital, so that without it we will let suspicions lead to fear which cuts off rational discussion.  Earlier blogs have tackled this issue.  One with lots of useful links is:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/05/trust-crucial-foundation-for-democrarcy.html

If no one makes the first move, nothing will get done.  Fortunately a few have made that first move.  Now it is your turn.

TRUST: THE CRUCIAL FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY

David Johnston was the Governor-General of Canada for seven years.  His basic contention is that the rule of law strives toward justice, but it depends on trust between citizens with the institutions that stand for and serve them.  As I write this we are all being tested with the greatest global shutdown in my lifetime.  We will need to trust one another and our institutions if we are ever to move forward and to be honest there is doubt.  His book "Trust:  Twenty Ways To Build A Better Country" does point us, as individuals and members of larger communities in the right direction.

Each of the ways to build a better country has individual examples and are illustrated with examples from his experience as a securities researcher, university administrator, Governor-General and international diplomat.  This post can only skim over his deeply thought out prescriptions.

Reinhold Niebuhr, a lecturer he heard at Harvard; "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

Financial markets that depend on other people's money need to be as open as possible to guard against manipulation.  Listen to all stakeholders; otherwise your proposals may not be acceptable by all those affected.

Be consistent.  Trust takes awhile to be earned.  Unfortunately it can be lost in a flash.

John Helliwel, a Canadian economist and editor of the Happiness Report is credited with the concept that happiness should be the measure by which we gauge the performance of governments and of the progress of countries and people.

Johnston had a long productive discussion with Angela Merkel concerning how the EU (now under stresses) stayed together and she asked about Canada.  Johnston gave out a book that impressed him, "Why Nations Fail"  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/11/why-nations-fail.html 

He went back to James Michener's book on Spain that helped explain the fall of Spain.  In 1492, the same year Spain had sent Christopher Columbus to America they also started ridding their world renown University of Salamanca of Muslims, then Jews and then scientists that opposed the Church.  
Spain had been an international beacon for education.  When they tossed aside their diversity and instead pursued gold it started their decline.  As Johnston points out diversity is a strength and that inclusion leads to trust.

Teachers are critical to building trust.  While including teachers that may have inspired us Johnston expands to those who have set good examples of how to behave.  He believes we must honour (using his Canadian spelling) and cherish them.  As Governor-General he refined the Canadian system of honouring citizens who have made worthy contributions.

A quote from the author; "The diplomacy of Knowledge is my name for the willingness and ability to work across disciplinary boundaries, cultural barriers and international borders to uncover, share and refine knowledge."  In international surveys Canada is at the top for trustworthiness.

It has been difficult to do justice to this book in a short post.  It requires some profound thinking, but I believe the thoughts expressed are crucial for humanity's future.  Hopefully this slim overview will point my readers in the right direction.

An earlier blog focused on the role of trust with selling which is not just the transfer of goods, but how we sell ourselves to others. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/10/smart-trust.html

The Ordinary Virtues

Canada lost a superior statesman when it rejected Michael Ignatifieff. Conservative tactics to demean Ignatieff were despicable.  I am pleased to know his intellect is not being wasted

Michael was in a discussion with Joel Rosenthal regarding celebrating the centennial of the Church Peace Union, a group that had been founded by Andrew Carnegie.  From their discussion came the idea for the Carnegie Centennial Project which essentially is a global study of ethics in action.  This book is the culmination of that effort.

The world has changed drastically.  Diversity is showing up in more and more global cities.  Each group feels an affinity for its own kind, but are forced to work, study etc with others.  There is a lot of self segregation. 

This book is focused on human rights and the ongoing struggle to boost them.  There is a battle on one side of which are poor institutions and human vices.  Opposing that are ordinary virtues.

So what are "ordinary virtues'?  Ignatieff designates tolerance, forgiveness, trust and resilience.  May be ordinary, but necessary if we are to survive as a planet.  In many places different people live side by side, but the ideal would be to live together.

Corruption, a most serious problem--police corruption--many accept corruption if they feel they get something in return.  An earlier blog  explores a little more deeply:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/thieves-of-state.html

Michael and other members of the project travel to cities of interest around the world.  As they travel to different cities with their unique perspective Ignatieff ties their concerns to the ordinary virtues.

Jackson Heights in Queens, New York is one of the most diversified areas in the world- and close to the Carnegie Foundation.  side by side vs together  --policing is absolutely necessary for a moral economy of a global city--one concern is that NY police have infiltrated local mosques--on the other hand New York considers itself a sanctuary city along with Los Angeles and Portland that offers a municipal ID allowing all citizens to open bank accounts and make loans

Immigrants are often conned, but they need to learn to trust strangers.  The internet, tv and cell phones enable most newcomers to maintain ties with the old country.  Politicians court them but this often entails them becoming interwined with old world politics.

Los Angeles  was the scene of the Rodney King riot.  It uncovered tensions between whites and blacks,  but also Koreans felt discriminated against. They are slowly developing stronger ties between the races also including Mexicans and Central Americans.

Brazil was visited before the Olympics.  They spent time in the infamous favelas where poverty and corruption go hand in hand.  There were efforts to form consent based community police that were able to deal with drug dealers. Unfortunately Brazil seems enmeshed in corruption, but there are groups fighting the corruption.

Bosnia was part of the former Yugoslavia.  When the Iron Curtain broke down it opened a lot of hatreds.  Bosnians were mostly Muslim and surrounded by Serbians and Croatians.  neighbors turned on each other in ethnic conflict.  After peace declared and borders established there is a serious lack of trust.

Myanmar has been in the news regarding the Rohinga expulsion.  Igntieff spoke with some extremist Buddhists who wanted a pure country.  Aung Sun Suu Kyi, once admired around the world is now vilified for her lack of protest.  Ignatieff goes below the surface to point out that good ideas cannot be implemented with out institutional and individual support. She is inside a political situation that is unwilling to compromise.

Fundamentalists offer uncompromising answers to the existential question of national identify.  when democracy comes majority rule is integral and that often goes against the human rights of minority groups.

Fukushino had an unimaginable disaster, three catastrophic events compounding one another.--earthquake, nuclear plant meltdown and tsunami.  It tests people's trust  in institutions that failed to predict this possibility.  Ignatieff is encouraged by the resilience of the Japanese

South Africa-most blacks notice little change--blame white privilege and would like to see a redistribution of land--real problem is there are not enough jobs to go around.  Mandela knew Africa needed the whites to stay and help South Africa to grow and to gain their co-operation in a new South African constitution he needed to include their concerns.  The different black and Asian groups feel they have suffered enough.  In the news as I write this is a movement to redistribute land owned by whites to blacks.

There are many competing global perspectives, but Ignatieff feels we need to recognize those who want to dialogue.  We need to tolerate those who see things differently.  Judge people one at a time instead of as part of another group.

Ignatieff feels the ordinary virtues can thrive with support from institutions.  People have to be alert to the ever present danger of corruptions.  My feeling is he is advocating that a mutual support system is needed.  We, at all levels need to encourage the ordinary virtues which in turn will help maintain legitimate institutions that work for the benefit of everyone.  Ultimately for humans to survive we have to work together, not just side by side.

Jared Diamond wrote "The World Until Yesterday" that illustrates perspectives of primitive people that I believe demonstrate humans have always had similar problems.  You will find my take on it on the  bottom half of  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/06/jared-diamond-expanding-our.html

He is a man with a truly global view that needs to be shared.  An earlier blog about Michael Ignatieff:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/04/fire-and-ashes-by-michael-ignatieff.html 

Predictabilty

Donald Trump likes to project himself as unpredictable supposedly making him a better negotiator.  There might be some logic to that, but in truth it is more complicated.

In the world of sports we root for our team, but would soon lose interest if the outcome was totally predictable.  As a youngster I enjoyed watching my home town lacrosse Oshawa Green Gaels win pretty well every game I saw by a large margin.  I still appreciated the skills involved, but it became increasingly boring to watch.  Taping live events and watching later has the danger of spoilers.  Concern over the outcome is part of the excitement.

Movies and television shows are determined before we decide to let them entertain us.  We all have preferences, but over time these preferences can be modified.  Sometimes the ending can be fulfilling, other times you feel cheated and other times mystified.  Surprises can do all those things.  Do you like happy endings?  Do we predict a mood from how it is resolved.   IMDB values its readers enough to insist upon spoiler alerts.  Awhile back I did a post of movies from both a producer and consumer perspective. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/09/predictability-and-enjoyment-of-movies.html

The stock market doesn't like surprises and will often react very quickly on a rumour, but sometimes can be reassured.  Smart investors are those who buy low and sell high.  A panic can put prices down very quickly.  Euphoria can put prices up unrealistically high.

Our lives are consumed mostly by habits and routine.  You get up, go to work or school for so many hours eventually getting off to enjoy some familiar activities.  Family and friends for the most part are supportive and reliable.  Disrupt that routine and we can become anxious or even depressed.  Long term we anticipate many of life's milestones with many being looked forward to and a few maybe dreaded.

It is true that being unpredictable can throw off your opponents.   Sometimes pleasant unexpected events can boost our spirits and make us more agreeable.  You do better if you can accurately predict the reaction of those you interact with.  Some people avoid confrontation and although one might think they have been defeated, the collateral damage can be unpredictable.  Good will has to be earned.

Who do you trust?  Someone who surprises you, not always in a positive way.  Someone who offers very few surprises?  Would you say trust is a big part of negotiating?  When the unpredicted happens who do you trust?

The photo comes from a performance by Circus Orange.  I predict they will put on a good show, but they manage to find a way to do something unpredictable every time I am lucky enough to see them.

EMIGRATION AND REFUGEES

Immigration frightens a lot of natives forcing us to adapt our life style.  Thousands of people are risking their lives and those of their loved ones.  We hear every week it seems of another boat sinking in the Mediterranean.  Not so long ago we heard about young children being sent up through Central America to the American border.  We know there are millions seeking refuge in western countries.

What would make most people leave the comforts of their home and contact with familiar family, friends and neighbours?   Some no doubt are seeking fortune and could be labeled greedy, but many others are motivated by fear.  Sitting in our comfortable western homes we both wonder why people would risk their lives and fear how they might change our lifestyle.

Trends that are easy to overlook or ignore are continuing to gather steam and it is time for mankind to ask what options we still have.  It is a global problem with causes and effects in every corner.

Mexico, central America and parts of South America are caught up in drug gang wars.  In poor countries it is common for desperate people to do desperate things.  Some have chosen to get involved with the drug trade.  Why is that so profitable?  It isn't because of domestic demand as most locals really can't afford it.  The truth is the demand comes from western countries.  We have more money, but we also have our own kind of despair.  In some cases it boils down to looking for bigger "kicks" and in other cases life seems meaningless.  Others can analyze the causes, but no one can deny the demand for illegal drugs emanates from the wealthier western countries.

In poorer countries those at the bottom have an opportunity to do the spade work (growing, packaging, transporting, selling locally) while others fight for the top where there is often huge profits.  Inevitably the power goes to the most ruthless.  This creates all sorts of other problems.  Drugs amongst the locals hurts health, productivity and feelings of self-worth.  Fighting causes fear.  It is not strange that so many parents in Central America want their children into a safer environment.

Fighting with different motivations is happening in the middle East, including northern Africa.  Literally millions of Syrians have fled their homes and for the most part have ended in refuge camps in nearby counties.  Western countries are reluctant and fearful to accommodate Muslims that they associate with terrorism. Others are willing to take advantage and charge for re-settling.

For decades western corporations with political support have been propping up dictators who were able to keep a lid on tensions.  There have always been what we might label "fanatics", but they were largely ignored or suppressed.  Now many gain attention and support as one way of fighting oppression.  Money that could have been spent on education and alleviation of poverty was spent on military weapons and security measures.  Oil was incredibly cheap and fuelled our lifestyle.  The fanatics are blaming misery on their dictators with their western support.  Just as some fanatics blame our disasters on our sinfulness, the Islamists are seizing the opportunity to blame their enemies and their religious lapses.  Religion is a powerful force that has been abused by many, but admittedly giving many others comfort.

I was surprised to learn in my family tree research that at least two branches of my family fled Europe for religious freedom.  One branch was literally on the boat, after the Mayflower with religious dissenters looking for freedom to worship.  One group actually ganged up together to flee through Indian territory to establish their own church.  Another branch were Mennonites who as anabaptists were persecuted in Europe.  Once established in America another generation felt they had to leave for Canada to avoid conscription.  Like many I have become detached from these earlier forces in my history.

There are many vested interests belittling concerns about Climate Change and they have found allies in fundamentalists, other religious factions and those invested with the status quo.  Scientists have been warning us for years with irrefutable evidence that there are going to be drastic changes.  Drought is having an impact in different parts of the world, now including California, but also Africa, the Middle East, Australia and elsewhere. We forget that agriculture is the base industry of the world--without food everything slows down.  It is only natural that people look for alternatives to make a living and to feed themselves.  In addition to droughts there are also floods and rising sea levels.  Storms are becoming more powerful and having more than just temporary inconveniences.  Bangladesh has developed a reputation for cheap labour which comes from desperation which in part comes from Climate change.

Economics is tied up in everything mentioned so far, but another strong trend is global inequality.  It is true that cheap labour is still in demand and that many poor countries are able to take advantage of rich corporations looking to lower their costs.  A bigger trend is that machines (including computers) are making production less and less dependent on human labour.  It is getting common to talk about the 1% in America, but at one level it seems so unreal.  How can a very few people have so much wealth and power?  Part of it is when they get enough traction they help set the rules and the rules are meant to protect their interests.  Another part is modern technology allows them to seek the lowest production costs which basically means at the expense of others.

Many people feel like they are on a sinking boat and are looking for a way off.  Literally that is what we are seeing in the Mediterranean.

All of this could be an opportunity.  Just as slavery relieved burdens and created wealth for some of our ancestors, machines could do the same more humanely for the benefit of everyone.  Clean energy, cleaning up the mess, education, could help re-balance our enviromen.  Obviously it would take a global effort to re balance some counter productive historical global efforts.  If everyone waits for someone else to make the first move the problems will increase.  Fortunately efforts are being made from different quarters, but at this stage they look like they are not gaining enough traction.

Knowledge could lead to greater awareness of our mutual interests, but that will not be enough.  We also have to develop trust.  Any efforts that boost education and awareness of the true reality will help, but it really boils down to political will.

A phrase credited to Scottish town planner Patrick Geddes,  "think globally act locally" seems appropriate for most of us.  Understanding the issues helps guide voting decisions--but more basically, questioning.  Individuals can only do so much, but understanding the issues and prioritizing choices is something that needs to be brought into the political arena.

At the moment political decisions seem very closely tied to vested interests.   Most of the vested interests seem very narrow so a goal would be to expand the viewpoint of those interests.  One result of increased wealth is greater security concerns in such forms as alarm systems and gated communities.  Does a wealthy person want to live like that or are they too fearful.  Fear is just as big an enemy as greed, especially when they are so short sighted.  Trust is an important element of a solution as we all need to transition to the future.

The wealthy industrialized nations of the west fear that unless the developing nations are willing to forgo their own fossil fuel energy expansion, action on their part is meaningless.  The United Nations seems the most logical place to deal with these problems,  Bi-lateral is most practical for specific issues, but some issues are bigger.  Encouraged to hear that Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and California are tying some of their efforts together.  If these sorts of efforts can expand they can also develop some momentum.  Perhaps we will then expand beyond climate issues to deal with some of the other underlying causes of modern problems.

Photo is of the famous Statue of Liberty during a trip with my office at New York.  also visited Ellis  Island where my wife's Grandmother came from Italy during World War I.

"The End of Power"

At a Toastmaster's meeting one speaker suggested you don't actually need to read a book to be able to talk about it in a social setting.  He felt that reading the reviews in the New York Times Book Review allows the reader to project a knowledgeable sophisticated image to those he wanted to impress.  We all want to leave good impressions, but sometimes a real deep understanding can only come through serious study.

"The End of Power," originally brought to my attention by Fareed Zakaria is such a book that helps explain why the world is different in so many critical ways than a few generations ago.  The explanation deals with a lot of simple beliefs, but goes deeper.

Power is defined as the ability to direct or prevent the current or future actions of others groups and individuals.  It can manifest itself as force or the threat of force, a moral code, persuasiveness, or rewards.  All of these means are weakening.

Moises believes there are three revolutions in progress that have liberated people and removed barriers to power.  One he calls the More Revolution which stems from there being more of everything, especially people, making them harder to control.  The Mobile Revolution adds to the dynamic with people and money and ideas flowing much easier offering more options for people not satisfied with their lot in life.  The Mentality Revolution refers to expectations and education being higher than ever so that those with power find it more difficult to satisfy.  He concedes that social media plays a role, but the three revolutions are more critical.

What we see is the emergence of micro powers.  They were always there, but with so many barriers that mostly they have not had much impact.  American politicians are more apt to have to go through a primary to reach power and many factions have a say.  Businesses now have access to other sources of financing.  One interesting example occurred when the Soviet Union collapsed Russia had a television vacuum that would be filled with movies and programs from other countries including novellas from Columbia.  Huge armies still have an impact but most military action is more like guerilla.

A few weeks ago I reviewed "Selected" about how leaders are selected.  In pre historic times leaders were literally selected and to a significant degree also controlled by followers.  Then the Agricultural Revolution and later the Industrial Revolution allowed for a system where leaders were not chosen by the masses, but by elites.  Now, as Moises explains times are changing in a different direction.  Check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

There have always been barriers to power and those who have power have been able to take advantage of the barriers to create more barriers. The three revolutions are all contributing to breaking down the barriers and most of us would agree that there are a lot of benefits.  There are still many powerful people and groups that seem well entrenched, but cracks are showing everywhere.

There are dangers when power is diffused. "Terrible simplifiers," becoming more common offering simple solutions that in the end only worsen the problems.  Moises offers little in the way of concrete suggestions, but points out that while NGO's (i.e. non government organizations) have increased in popularity and trust, political parties are trusted less and less.  He gave Obama's campaigns in 2008 as an exception and hoped that other political movements could capture the enthusiasm of large numbers of people who might otherwise become single issue people.  The world needs to solve problems.  Balance between totalitarianism and anarchy is difficult, but intelligent people with power should be able to work towards one.

Moises is confident that as in almost all other fields our political processes will be subjected to innovations that will assure both individual freedom and intelligent collective decisions.   In some ways this review is a platform for my beliefs, and can be a small springboard for solutions.

My feeling is that this will have to involve education and giving people real voting choices.   By education it is necessary that our youngest citizens need to be aware of how the political process works (along with alternatives), history, science, logic and the arts.  Too many politicians are able to twist logic to attract voters.

Politicians have also been able to strategize around splitting opposition or able to drown out logical alternatives with massive spending.  We are often bribed with our own money and have our natural selfish interests used against us.  To me proportional voting helps alleviate some of this abuse.   The American practice of gerrymandering (with similar practices elsewhere) should be minimized.

There is a lot of food for thought at his website, http://moisesnaim.com/books/the-end-of-power/

Update:  I watched Moises being interviewed by Steve Paikin and learned a few things.  I had forgotten that Moises speaks from experience--a cabinet minister in Venezuela he was upset at the lack of real power he had.  Steve asked what should be done.  Moises pointed out that our lives have been changing with the internet and he anticipates there will be political innovations within a few years because the people will have the power and will demand change.  June 2, 2015

WE ARE ALL THE MIDDLE MAN EVERYONE WANTS TO ELIMINATE?

Have you ever heard the phrase we have lower prices because we eliminated the middle man?  Sales people are all too familiar with efforts to cut out the middle man or at least his commissions.  What is the middle man and why does he (or she) exists in the first place?  Can you survive as a middle man (or woman)?

What is the role of a middle person?  The term implies a connector.  The middle person is one person bringing resources from one party to a second party who can use the resources.  At one time people did everything themselves, but not too many recall those days.

The first selling efforts were directly from one seller to one buyer.  Somebody had something someone else wanted and they bartered.  Might have involved goods (like meat, tools, weapons) or services (like protection, hunting or sex).  Previously one of them might have beaten up the other, but that is not "civilized."  We progressed to higher levels of specialization and at some point developed an idea of a currency so that the seller could use the proceeds to buy something else entirely.

The emergence of a middle person occurred when retailing evolved with one smart person selling goods they accumulated from different sources and could sustain a living and even wealth.  Really all he was doing was bringing buyers and sellers together in a more convenient manner (early one stop shopping).  It would have started on a local scale with perhaps one person agreeing to sell a variety of produce from one farmer or from a group of farmers and hunters.  As society prospered the concept of luxury and beauty became more prominent.  A merchant would seek luxuries and beautiful things from further afield to re-sell to those who could afford more expensive items.  Manufacturing could start to thrive perhaps in the field of textiles (clothing, bedsheets, etc) or furniture or utensils and tools.  Sometimes it might be on consignment or other times the merchant would take the risk of buying.  This would let the farmer or manufacturer concentrate on putting out the goods

The merchant has taken a risk.  As time went on innovations became more common.  Someone found a better tool.  Prosperous people wanted to surround themselves with beautiful (and prestigious) objects.  The middle person can help bring new and aesthetic goods into our world meaning they ave to be concerned about fashion tastes and competition.

Gradually many manufacturers became bigger, but most did not have the network or the expertise to actually sell all their goods.  Wholesalers took some of the risk by buying inventory ahead of time. Now you have three levels--the producer of goods, someone storing the goods until someone else can relieve the risk and finally the retailer who puts the goods up for sale.  It eventually got more complicated with consumers buying at one level and tradespeople buying the same or similar goods as part of their services at another level.  Eventually there would be more than one level of wholesaler.

On one hand it is risky to take on or create inventory that might not sell enough for a profit.   Then there is the human tendency to get comfortable with previous choices that worked out acceptably. There has always been another way of doing things and often they were better than our comfortable habits.  The manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers all were involved with selling to the next level and developed employees or agents that concentrated on the selling part of the business.

The middleman can be found at different levels.  Someone was employed to get manufactured goods to the wholesaler.  Someone else was employed to get the goods from the wholesaler to the retailer. And the retailer is really a middle man as well between the wholesaler and end user.  They are each taking a cut of the profit and each performing a service in a competitive market.  If after all the effort the end user decides it is not an acceptable value then everyone in the chain will lose repeat and referral business.  It might also be useful to remember that each cut of the profit allows the middle man to be an end user for someone else.

The problem today has evolved.  With computers and communications it is far easier for the actual producer of products and the people who want to use them to find each other.  This eliminates the need for many middlemen.  We can easily bypass not only a single middleman, but a variety and of course the price is lowered. There is of course a few complications with perhaps the biggest being the competitive intertwined market place.  There are so many products from a variety of sources that offer  a very wide range of problems that it is often very difficult to determine what is the best fit.

I remember a sociology professor saying a bigger population allows more complexity.  I also remember a sales tape that talked about how everything is getting more complex.

As a consumer I enjoy this new power, but am behind many of my more sophisticated colleagues. Recently I made a purchase of an e book.  Several middle people were cut out.  The author and publisher still got a cut and someone had to provide the mechanism for transmitting the words to my Kobo reader and someone to let me transfer the money from my possession to the seller's possession. But we cut out the printer, the person who sold the ink and another person who sold paper to the printer, the person who would have sold the book to a wholesaler and of course the staff who stacked the shelves, advised interested readers and took my money or credit card at the cash register.  From my view point pretty good deal--I saved money and inconvenience.

Why did I buy that particular ebook.  Well there was a marketing effort for sure to get my attention and I had already been persuaded that computers would help me in various ways and that reading ebooks makes a lot of sense.  I looked over various options for reading and made my decision based on what I knew and felt.  I realize I cannot read every book and did not necessarily choose the most ideal choice for my tastes, but I was able to consider a much wider range than I could have with the resources available to me even five years ago.

Efficiency has done away with many middle men (and women).  Is there any room left for the middle person?

One way of looking at it is that a middle man is between a resource and a need/want.  You can make a living producing goods and services if you can somehow find a way get your goods and services to the market.  A prospective consumer has a problem and is looking for a solution.  Often the deciding on what is the best solution can be very complicated and they only have so much time and energy.

How can you provide a service that facilitates exchange of goods and justifies a cut for you.  The first thing is knowledge.  Knowledge is a very big deal including not only what products/services are available, but what the consumer actually wants or needs or can be made aware of.  Nobody knows everything they need to get through the day and maximize their enjoyment of life.

One special source of knowledge is what might be called applications.  I used to sell a cleaner and as time went by I learned it would do a lot more things than I was originally told and many of them unexpected.  How did I find out?  My own personal experience was important, but even more important was the experience of my customers.  They found the product would do the things I had said and when they encountered another problem they tried it and often found that it worked.  When they told me I suggested it to other people.  All I was really doing was spreading knowledge that made life more pleasant for some people.  A lot of products do more than they are marketed for (and all products have limitations).  A good middle person can help point them out.  To find out more about applications.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/03/applications-in-selling.html

Travel agents used to be a lot more common, but many have been cut out by online purchases.  Most of us are focussed on the bottom line, but in fairness we also have access to opinions.   Opinions of individual users can be dangerous.  Someone who has accumulated a wide variety of opinions is in a better position to advise.

The ideal salesperson is pro active.  The other kind is reactive, in other words waiting for someone else to make the first move.  There are a lot of order takers and sometimes they are so busy processing orders they don't have much spare time.  They are taught to add questions like "with fries?"  Salesmen have always realized they make more sales for items that people want more than what they need, however in today's confusing market it makes sense to make people aware of what they really need to simplify their life.

Another factor is trust.  Indeed there are many opinions, but who do you trust?  Ideally someone who knows both the product or service we are considering, but also who knows just what the potential buyer really wants.  In the past a sales person learned as much as possible about what they were asked to sell and tried to fit it into the needs of prospects.  The more choices available the more confusing the decision process.

In truth the position of the middle person has shifted.  Instead of being between the manufacturer and the retailer they might be working for a manufacturer who deals directly with the consumer.  Usually they are restricted in what they can offer the consumer, but often they do have access to a wide range of products and services to match the consumer's needs.  They could also be a complaint centre representing a manufacturer who realizes it is more effective to deal with difficult situations rather than have a retailer intermediary.

All this is general thinking and you have to sort out what is unique in your experience and where there might be a need not being met.  If there doesn't seem to be a very good fit between your resources and future consumer needs you need to develop one.  In one sense we are all middlemen. But you have to protect your position--using knowledge, being pro-active and earning trust.

Smart Trust

Earlier I had read a book by Stephen R M Covey, "The Speed of Trust".  I have read a lot of books on selling and many of them talk about developing rapport.  What they really mean is trust.  People trust you for a variety of reasons, but before you even get to demonstrate that you do what you say, the better people feel they know you the more they will trust you.  Milton Friedman who I always thought of as a tough minded conservative identified trust as the key ingredient for business growth.  Check out the earlier book:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/06/are-you-trustworthy.html

Stephen M RCovey and co-author Greg Link agree that trust can come in a wide range and some of it is not so smart.  You can be blindly trusting or continually suspicious with both extremes doing harm.  They have developed a grid to illustrate four general categories.

We all fear misplacing our trust, but too often we do not think of the consequences of not trusting.  Or the benefits of extending trust.  The bottom line is there is risk in trusting or not trusting.

Not trusting employees cuts off engagement.  Not trusting friends or relatives builds resentment.  Does everyone deserve full  trust--of course not.  One illustration can be found in the supermarket category where in the United States there is a 47% staff turnover, but in one very trusting company, Wegman's, (a company mentioned in my Demand blog post) turnover is only 3%.  They trust their employees to make a lot of critical decisions with their customers and it pays off in customer satisfaction as well.  Check out the Wegman's reference in:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/demand-book-review.html

Some fortunes have been made by realizing that most people will not abuse trust, although a certain percentage will.  Self serve is an example saving money, but it wouldn't be offered if fear of abuse was too great.  Many momentous deals have been sealed with a handshake.

First you have to believe in trust.  That is frightening to some of us who can recall instances of trust being violated.  But believing is essential.  Trust yourself.  Most people are good.

It is good for employers to extend trust. If it is abused it can be cut off, but if not abused it can be built upon.  Give people a chance to earn your trust.  Innovation flourishes in high trust environments.  True smart trust means giving responsibility and authority.

One long quote struck me and here it is.  "A company is granted a licence to operate from society and therefore owes society a duty of care.  Pursuit of short term performance is not enough.  That performance needs to be allied to a purpose; otherwise, the performance disappears too...companies can do well, long term, only if the societies in which they operate also do well."  Comes from Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi Company and writer of the introduction for this book.

I remember when my son Michael was about ten and often on family trips he would be the last one out of the house.  I used to go back to check to see if the door was locked.  One time he blasted me for not trusting him and I stopped checking to see if he had locked the door.  He has proved to be trustworthy.

It might seem like a simple concept, trust, but the two authors will help you understand it better and give a lot of practical advice.

ARE YOU TRUSTWORTHY?

There is nothing that persuades so much as trust. We all get caught up in the idea of networking and talking to as many suitable prospects as possible, but trust can be a short cut.  People will talk about you and it can be beneficial or harmful.  In a sense we are all selling something maybe in exchange for money or maybe to persuade another person to believe what we are saying.

Quite awhile back I read The Speed of Trust and it got me to thinking.  I was also conscious of Milton Friedman, a hard nosed economist who once said that the thing that would most boost business is more trust.

What is trust?  It boils down to this: do people believe you will do what you say and are you telling the truth?  Do you respect their interests and viewpoint?  Will you do the right thing?  If trust is low there will be reluctance to buy from you or even to accept your word even if your offer is as good as you claim.

Obviously trust is not instantaneous and takes time to develop.  When we are seriously thinking of buying something a process of evaluating goes on.  Can we really afford it?  What will we have to give up to enjoy this new thing?  At bottom is the question, is this really as good as it seems?  Does the sales person have short term motives for what they are saying?

As a sales person on your first contact with a prospect it is difficult to develop real trust, but the process can start right away.  If you can say something such as "I will only take two minutes of your time;" and stick to it that is a start.   If at the end of your talk you say something like I will call you back in one week or I will call you back with the answer and actually do it you are a little further down the road.  Doing what you said you would do still surprises many people.  Experience has taught people to be very suspicious of your motives and your integrity.

To respect someone's viewpoint you have to understand it better.   Making assumptions is dangerous.  As someone makes a wrong assumption about you, it is natural to question if they really have your interests at heart.  If you really care what concerns other people you will naturally listen.  If you don't really care, but only want what you can get out of them it will be hard to hide.  Do yourself justice and actually listen to the concerns of those you hope to either do business with or relate to socially.  You will better understand what you need to understand before going forward.

You are on display all the time.  You might think nobody is watching, or at least nobody who counts is watching.  First you should never dismiss the value of anyone.  Second you need to be consistent. Third you are always there.  If you do not live what you believe, there is an imbalance that others can detect.  One way to judge someone's character is to see how they treat people that can neither help nor hurt them.

The concept of networking is very popular.  All too many times it is assumed that exchanging business cards and letting others know what you sell is the basis of building business.  The basis really is, are you trustworthy.  One really key element is do you really care about the other person.  What they are interested in may seem off beat to you, but you can learn something and sooner or later you will learn that your interests do intersect at some point.  One of the values of networking is not that the person you are talking will do business with you right away, but that at some point down the road they may remember you when a friend of theirs asks for advice.

A good way of looking at it might be who do you trust.  When a stranger phones you and tells you about a tremendous bargain with no risk, do you engage right away or maybe investigate or maybe hang up the phone?  When your neighbor of ten years tells you about a new restaurant do you perk up or do you forget about it?  When your closest friend since elementary grades tells you something unknown about anything of interest do you believe them?

As with most salespeople I cannot make a living just because I make one sale.  Repeats and referrals are the backbone of selling.  Of course there are people who make enough on one sale and move on quickly that they can make a living, but they constantly need to outrun their reputation.  Your trustworthy reputation will spread, perhaps more gradually than your quick deal competitor's.  Eventually your trustworthy reputation will precede you and develop some momentum as long as you work to maintain it.

 

Over twenty years after the original blog was posted I feel guilty for emphasizing the salesperson's role, but in reality we all try to sell people on our ideas and preferences.  The rules are essentially the same.

HITCH-HIKING MEMORIES

Hopefully my kids think this is another boring blog.

To give some perspective just before this past Christmas my company, OKD Marketing asked each of their employees to provide a secret to be used for a Christmas party. I chose to say that I had hitch-hiked 15,000 miles. Talking to one of the young organizers I had to clarify why I had used miles instead of kilometers. The government had started a conversion program when I was indulging in my hitch-hiking career and when I started making my calculations it was far easier to use miles. That dates me and to some extent dates hitch-hiking.

I can’t remember when I started hitch-hiking. I do recall friends (including Bob Stone) encouraging me and I could not have been older than 16 (I think a little younger). In the beginning most of it was going around and near my home town of Oshawa.

I became conscious of danger, but at the time it seemed distant and very unlikely. I have ridden in cars and trucks with hundreds of strangers and feel they all had benevolent intentions. What encouraged me to overlook the danger was FREEDOM.  No car, little money and a keen interest of what was on the other side of the fence seemed a lot more important.

My parents just before I was to enter grade 12 decided to move from the urban city of Oshawa to the rural area of Haliburton, about a two hour drive away. I decided to see my old friends. I also realized that my new friends lived a lengthy school bus ride away. Then I went to the University of Guelph and found new horizons.

Always alert to information I discovered one helpful tool was using a sign with my destination on it.

Going from Guelph to Oshawa or Haliburton meant going around Toronto. On one occasion I was stopped by the police and given a fine that certainly hurt.  I learned you are not allowed to hitch-hike on a controlled access highway.  I was able to use some of the ramp areas, but they greatly reduced the pool of possible drivers.

On a long weekend, I started out from the University and did fairly good until I got to Toronto where there was a traffic jam. Nobody wanted to stop, but finally I got a ride that at first unnerved me. It was a fellow I knew as a bully in Haliburton. He had gotten a job in Toronto and was going home for the weekend. It was an awkward time for me. There weren’t that many university students from my high school class and he was a high school drop out. However people change.

The scariest ride was with my younger brother Marshall when we both decided to visit friends in Oshawa from our home in Haliburton. We got picked up by a group of young men with the driver hitting over 100 miles per hour on many stretches.  Just naming the places doesn’t really give you a picture of how scary it really was. The rural roads for the first half of the trip are very curvy and hilly. Later I learned they were visiting a lawyer in Oshawa regarding a very serious auto accident.

In Haliburton the students and teachers come from a very wide area. One of the teachers offered me a summer job doing handy work. I ended up hitch-hiking most of the time in both directions, sometimes smelling of grass, splattered with paint or a few times with insulation fibres in my skin, but it was easy.

Hitching a ride in Haliburton I got picked up by a fellow from Hamilton who told me I lived in “God’s country.” He described a scene that sounded horrific and looking back I realize he was describing the inside of a steel mill and not the city itself.   Nonetheless it turned me off the idea of ever working or living (or even visiting) the city that I now live in and love. He was right though, Haliburton is “God’s country.”

A trip from Guelph to Haliburton again took me around Toronto.  Rides seemed to be short with long waits between. An unusual vehicle driving by was a truck pulling a house, obviously going very slow. It passed me several times before the driver stopped to offer a ride. He said he would have given me a ride earlier, but he felt I would get there faster with other drivers.

For a few trips I traveled from Guelph to North Bay and back.  For a few legs of the trips I used a train pass, paid for a bus ride and got a ride from a friend of a friend. He lived in St. Catharines and thought that Guelph Line was on the way to Guelph (only in a very indirect manner). I had no idea, but headed north. The irony being that not too many years later I drove the same exit to visit a girl friend (now my wife) and also more recently for my job. I was very lucky as one driver spotted my sign and realized I was way off course. He was driving about half the distance to go home, but decided he would visit his sister in Guelph. Lucky for me as otherwise I would have been totally lost.

An unusual trip for me was from North Bay to Haliburton. At Hunstville there is a cross over to a road going to Haliburton. It was very late and I thought for the first time I had better find a place to stay overnight. However I had very little money and no connections. I decided I would hitch-hike all night and if necessary sleep in a ditch. I got picked up by a fellow and got talking.  I had been a very big fan of the Oshawa Green Gaels (who won several national lacrosse titles) and talked about a lot of different players, some of whom I remembered had come from Huntsville.  It turned out one of the players I talked about was the driver. He asked me how much money I had and then took me to a boarding house and talked the landlady into letting me stay overnight (she actually kicked her husband out of a bed). I think my lacrosse playing driver may have sweetened the offer, because I only paid $3.00 for my overnite stay in Dwight.

The next morning was another memorable one for me. A fellow and his wife were up from Windsor as he had heard the fall colours were very spectacular. They certainly were on that day and he stopped beside the road and asked me if I minded if it he took a photo of his wife with my sign against some of the trees and fallen leaves. He said he was “high on fall colours.” I had barely noticed fall colours before but with his enthusiasm I have since appreciated them a lot more, especially since I don’t get to see them as often in such a spectacular fashion.

Out of university looking for a job. On one of my trips someone suggested a particular line of work that I had never thought of before.  Based on the enthusiastic suggestion I applied to agencies all over Ontario. I got a response from one in Belleville who was interested to interview me. An almost totally new route for me that took me a couple of hours to do. I didn’t get that job, but it did help me understand better what was expected and I got hired for a similar job a few weeks later.

You meet a wide variety of people hitch-hiking and hear a lot of different stories. One I remember was one fellow who had discovered Greek music (he wasn’t Greek) and had me listen to a lot of it. It didn’t bore me at all and in fact was just another example of opening a door.

My first visit to Kitchener was done by hitch-hiking. On a Saturday with a friend we hitch-hiked for no particular reason except looking for something different.  I was impressed enough that later I sought out a job in Kitchener.

I hitch-hiked in all kinds of weather. Sometimes hot and sweaty, sometimes rainy. The worst I remember was winter weather, cold and snowy. I have spent hours in that kind of weather. To keep myself going I would keep saying my ride had just left and would be by within a short time. Eventually I did get a ride and sometimes some people felt it was a merciful thing to do in such weather. I learned later on that bad weather is not always a bad thing.  

While at university I saw a movie that involved young people hitch-hiking across Europe and had the line that if I ever get a car I will never pass a hitch-hiker. I kept my word for a few years, but eventually fear became a factor. A job, a wife and kids all made me look at the matter a little differently. Also "In Cold Blood" left a strong impression.

I regret that today it is not always advisable to trust people to do the right thing. There is nothing wrong with hitch-hiking. I am happy to help out others and am very grateful that so many people helped me and gave a lot of interesting experiences and truly enriched my life.

A SALEMAN'S INTROSPECTION AS A BUYER

A lot of money is applied to understanding the buyer. At some point many sales people despair of ever understanding the crazy, stupid and even sometimes seemingly vicious behavior of buyers. The prospects just don't understand the life changing opportunity they are being offered.

A good place to start, is with your self.  You have chosen selling as hopefully a good way to get enough money to help you be a buyer.  Most of us love to spend money and are trying to figure out how to get more so we can spend more. A few of us are security conscious and can't get a big enough pile to protect us against that rainy day when we will need money to buy the necessities.

Many of us are dipping into our credit and have planned expenditures for money we assume will come our way.  Modern society has so many "new" things and some of us feel we have to keep on top of whatever is new.

What is the problem? As some Wall Street analysts have figured out there are two main motives that fuel investors (and I would include consumers) which are Greed and Fear. They are both easy to identify with if you are really honest.

Greed, is that insatiable desire to have more and better things (including experiences). We don't all want the same things for the same reasons, but we all want more. So why isn't that prospect like everybody else and buy the excellent value we are offering at some inconvenience to ourselves?

Counterbalancing Greed is Fear. At some point everyone fears losing something. Often it is concrete goods, or something semi-concrete like money.   For most of us a big fear is losing the good will or respect of people we love or fear.  We know if we spend too much money on unimportant things we may not have enough for the really important things.  If we share our goals with others we fear they might be upset with our mistakes.

Young people are accused of spending their money on superficial things and not saving for the rainy day. But at some point they realize there is a limit to what they can spend. For some it goes beyond their cash and bank account to include credit in one form or another.

To actually buy something we all go through stages. I will use an example I wrestle with. I am going about my business trying to make a living when I realize I am slightly hungry and I crave the taste of a chocolate bar and there are some just a few steps away.  Mind you, I only have so much change in my pocket and I have struggled about my need for a big financial plan so I can get a newer car or go on vacation. Do they have my favorite?  If they don't I might be able to resist a little bit. Did the weigh scale scare me a little?  It is only this once. If the lineup is not too long and my time is relatively free. Sooner or later I give in and gobble it down before I have time to regret my decision. Then I reflect on it--tasted good, feel a bit fuller and more energetic. Probably gained some weight and don't have any money for a newspaper or parking meter. Better to be more discriminatory and focused on finances. So there are some positives and negatives as other priorities are weighed.

We are all hit with the messages. As a salesman I hit people with messages and I hope my superiors are spending money on advertising with the latest technology and psychology to deliver reinforcing messages. We all, and I mean you as well are very resistant to most of the messages. We have to be--we couldn't give in to all the pleas or we would be in debt well over our heads. We know if we are to get more of what we really want we have to hold onto as much money or credit as we can.

On top of fear is the limits of time. You don't have time to even listen to all the buying opportunities. Be honest you want more time to do what you want to do and that doesn't allow a lot of time to listen to even more sales propositions.

Do you trust sales people? Do you suspect hidden motives? Do you blame a sales person for a bad buying decision, but personally take credit for good decisions? Has a sales person ever let you down?  How did you feel? Has a sales person ever exceeded your expectations? How did that feel?

Before you try to analyze the motives of your prospects take a good look at your motives. They aren't all that different..