DISQUS

Excellent post, Tall Dude.
As you explained, our options are:
1) give the money to the same guys who've lost the money.
2) give absolute power to the Sec'y of the Treasury with no oversight from any legislative or legal body (Congress or the Courts)
3) Or...think for a minute and ask ourselves where do our jobs come from? Well, let's see: Large corporations are laying people off. And small, startups, are creating jobs and hiring people. And those jobs and their incomes drive our economy and make it possible for people to afford their mortgages, which keep these banks afloat. It's the trickle-UP theory of economic development.
Imagine, each state had $14billion to spend to support these startups. Ok, so let's throw a little at health care for children, $1billion per state. And let's throw some at the aging infrastructure, ok, $2 billion per state. And $1 bln per state for K-12 schools and $1 billion for higher ed. Then we add $1bln for renewable energy. We're creating jobs and a sustainable future. Then that leaves us $8 billion. Per state.
And we know where we spent it. We can measure the results. We can learn. We can change. And we'll still have an endowment of $8 billion + the jobs and future we created.
And the money stays out of wall street and washington's hands.
One last thought, just imagine if our social security contributions had been in the hands of these same guys on wall street....
Great post. Thanks.

Well-done. Weaving JFK, LEGOs and a clear message that experience creating a problem isn't the experience you want solving it.

Look forward to our conversation next week.

That's it?

As always, an excellent post.

One suggestion: quantify it. For each point, quantify its impact. Show that boss the cost savings or increase in revenues each way will produce.

Cash is king. Cash makes kings. Quantify how each of these ways will add cash and you'll be the king.

Does that make him or the administration an appeaser? It used to. At least at one time it did according to the same WH now engaging in talks with Iran...

WOM, word-of-mouth, it's growing. It's growing because all else fails, all else is non-sustainable, and because the desires to help, to connect, are universal and more deliciously refreshing when found in a business these days.

And there's lots of upside for its expression, too.

PS: Becky McCray at www.smallbizsurvival.com...she told me about your post here. There it is. Word-of-mouth...in action...right here in River City...

It's a great post. Every business should read this before they begin the journey.

In your list of goals you mention "make money from your content". And Peter's comment builds on that with his emphasis on revenues generated and costs minimzed (loved his point about employee churn!).

It should be reiterated. For business unit decision-makers, it really does boil down to the bottomline. Will [x] enhance it? Really? Then show me how.

All the current metrics about social media's reach within the community are vital, critical, to measuring its power. And more businesses will embrace it, embrace it sooner, when the next iteration of metrics about driving costs down or revenues up, become more commonplace in the discussion.

And that means more revenues for social media consultants, sooner.

This may come across crass. But at the end of the day, it's how it's measured.

Again, great post. I look forward to the series.

A couple of thoughts:

A. There is no conversation without a reply.
B. Not leaving a comment is a reply. Silence is acceptance, endorsement.
C. Walking away from a conversation is similar...but has a much different impression.
C. You can only decide your responses. You can't dictate either the reply, its format, frequency or its content.

Bloggers, collectively, tilt the scale towards noisy egoists. Do meek, unopinionated, bloggers exist? And still, no one's forced to read, write or comment on blogs. That's what makes the conversations worth joining.

I forget. Was McCain there, at the Senate hearings, when Petraeus recently testified? Oh. Right. He wasn't. He was out campaigning.

Can McCain explain the difference between Shia and Sunni and why that difference may play a role in Iraq's status as a country? Oh, right.

Has McCain's visits yet brought a solution? Huh, yeah, no.

It's an interesting irony here that 'amateurs' are those who can manage, honestly and openly, their conflicts of interest...

Chris,

I appreciate this column. I asked myself the same question and I'm not sure my authority is on a measurable scale.

And at the end of the day, the answer came down to what the previous commenter said. "Technorati is meaningless not because it's inaccurate, but because it doesn't do anything actionable for you."

Quibbling a bit with syntax, I think its inaccuracy leads to it being inactionable. And even if accurate, like he says, can you translate authority into payment or influence?

Thanks again. And thanks for the newsletter link/notice this morning.

This is a great post on traveling. Thanks for the tips.

Excellent post, Chris. You've articulated the next step of maturation for social media.

Great post. I liked the last line: "Successful community is set mostly by culture". Limits define culture like they do a brand. Everything for everyone, an anything goes, means...nothing, no meaning, for everyone.

Sad here. But I think you're right here. I don't think Obama's a snake oil salesman. I do think he got blindsided in an excruciatingly painful and public way. And the snakes circling him, much of MSM it seems, only twist this personal pain for their own agenda.

Bring it home, Barack.

Get the job done, B.