Punch Drunk

If you needed further proof that modern America has become a weird place, consider the strange dynamic that was supposed to put two of the richest men in the world, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, into a “cage match” for a mixed martial arts fight. Now it looks like that misguided event isn’t going to come off, perhaps because Elon Musk has come to his senses and questions why in the world he would want to get involved in a punch-out with anyone–much less the billionaire CEO of Facebook.

The talk of fisticuffs isn’t limited to social media tycoons. Recently former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is running for the 2024 GOP nomination for President, was asked who would win if he got into the ring with former President Donald Trump. Christie gleefully responded: “I’d kick his ass.” It’s not clear why the interviewer, Piers Morgan, raised the possibility of fisticuffs between a morbidly obese 60-year-old and an overweight near-octogenarian, provoking painful mental images for anyone who thought about that ugly scenario. But Christie wasn’t the first modern politician to raise the possibility of a physical encounter; his comment was reminiscent of an earlier dust-up between President Joe Biden and Trump about going out behind the high school gym for a brawl.

It’s interesting to think about why political and social leaders talk in these kinds of juvenile terms. I don’t remember the politicians or wealthy businessmen of my youth boasting about duking it out with opponents. To the contrary, hot-headedness was viewed as a negative quality at a time when an ill-considered decision in the Cold War setting could lead to nuclear armageddon. Whether in the business world or in the political arena, the idea was to be seen as cool, calm, and calculated, ready to out-maneuver and outwit your opponent and keep your head while everyone around you was reduced to blubbering panic–not as an angry, loud-mouthed street brawler ready to take a swing at the slightest provocation.

The world still seems like a very dangerous place to me, where those same attributes of calmness in crisis are crucial–but obviously perceptions have changed. Do current leaders mistake physical toughness for mental toughness? Do they feel they need to talk about fighting to break through the din and convey to their supporters that they really care? For whatever reason, it’s disturbing to hear political and social leaders acting like physical violence is a way to solve anything. Where’s the likes of Dwight Eisenhower or Adlai Stevenson these days?

Not The Next Big Thing

Economic theory teaches that stock prices usually are brutally honest. When investors are deciding whether to put money into a company or venture, social niceties typically go out the window, and investors–particularly the professional money managers–take a hard look at the company’s products and business plan and make an unvarnished judgment about whether they will succeed or fail. If the product line looks like a winner, buy decisions will follow; if products and sales are disappointing, the sell sign flashes.

The stock market’s honest judgment is saying something is wrong at Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp that is trying to introduce us to the “metaverse”–the virtual world pictured above. And the consequences have indeed been brutal: Meta closed at $323 a share on February 2, 2022 and $97.94 yesterday. Yesterday alone, the stock price fell $31.88 a share, losing 24.56 percent of its value, and the stock information page linked above says Meta’s “technicals” put the stock down into the “strong sell” category. In short, if you’re a shareholder in Meta, you’ve had a bad year, and apparently some investors have decided enough is enough.

Why has this happened? Some observers believe that Mark Zuckerberg, the Meta kingpin whose metaverse avatar is seen above, has unwisely focused all of the company’s attention on the metaverse, rather than protecting and nurturing the company’s core assets, like Facebook, which are facing their own problems. And the effort to summon the future in the form of the metaverse hasn’t gone well. So far, at least, people haven’t jumped at the chance to don virtual reality headsets, create an avatar of themselves, and interact with other people in interactive virtual spaces. The fact that the headsets are expensive–Zuckerberg recently introduced a new headset that goes for $1,500 a pop–and the virtual reality graphics don’t look all that compelling isn’t helping. One of the recent developments announced by the company, that metaverse characters will now have legs, sounds like a funny parody of a bad TV commercial. “Metaverse characters–now with legs!”

Meta’s struggles reveal a basic truth about technology companies: sometimes the tech product is a huge hit, but many times it isn’t. For every smartphone or personal computer that are wild successes, there are other devices or concepts that crash and burn. And it looks like the metaverse that Meta had invested billions in developing might just fall into the latter category. A recent article in Forbes expressed the point this way: “The entire problem with Mark Zuckerberg’s fascination with the metaverse is that he’s trying to force a sci-fi reality to happen long before the rest of the society wants or needs it to actually exist.” 

The Boy Who Cried “Regulation”

Recently Facebook’s billionaire CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post that called for “a more active role for governments and regulators” to establish “new rules” for the internet.  The op-ed has provoked lots of comment.

Zuckerberg’s op-ed piece begins:  “Technology is a major part of our lives, and companies such as Facebook have immense responsibilities. Every day, we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks. These are important for keeping our community safe. But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn’t ask companies to make these judgments alone.”  He says he agrees with people who say Facebook has “too much power over speech” and argues that government regulation is needed in four area — harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.  Zuckerberg adds:  “By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what’s best about it — the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things — while also protecting society from broader harms.”

Zuckerberg’s article, while couched as a call for regulation, reads like a PR piece for Facebook; it argues, among other things, that Facebook has developed “advanced systems for finding harmful content, stopping election interference and making ads more transparent” and has taken other steps in the four areas.

It’s safe to say that Zuckerberg’s clarion call has been viewed with significant skepticism in the United States and abroad.  An article in The Hill says that “[r]egulators, lawmakers and activists who have grown wary of Facebook saw Zuckerberg’s move less as a mea culpa and more as an effort to shape future regulations in his favor,” and quotes, for example, a UK regulator who says that if Zuckerberg really believes what he has written he can start by dropping an appeal of a $560,000 fine the UK imposed for Facebook’s activities in connection with the Cambridge Analytica scandal.  Others are leery of inviting the government to regulate on-line speech, and believe that Facebook — having thrived and made millions in a regulation-free environment — now wants to see regulations imposed in order to complicate and thwart efforts by new competitors to grab some of Facebook’s social media market share.

The reaction to Zuckerberg’s op-ed piece illustrates what happens when you have frittered away your credibility.  Facebook’s history doesn’t exactly fill people with confidence that the company has users’ privacy and best interests at heart; too often, the company appears to have placed generating revenue above user concerns and data protection.  I’m inherently dubious of any governmental action that touches free speech, and large-scale regulatory efforts often impose staggering costs without providing much benefit — but even if you think such efforts are a good idea, Zuckerberg is exactly the wrong person to float such proposals.  He’s like the boy who cried wolf.

Considering “Universal Basic Income”

Mark Zuckerberg is the latest of the Silicon Valley quadzillionaires to espouse the concept of “universal basic income.”

In a commencement speech at Harvard last week, the founder of Facebook called for the creation of “a new social contract.”  “We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” Zuckerberg said.  Zuckerberg noted that, because he personally had a safety net to fall back on, he had the confidence to try projects like Facebook, and he thinks everyone should have the same financial wherewithal.

For some, like Zuckerberg, universal basic income has become the Great White Whale.  It’s not fair, they think, that only people who come from families that have financial resources can experiment in pursuit of their dreams.  Proponents of UBI believe that, if only everyone had guaranteed funding irrespective of whether they worked or not, all people would have the freedom to follow their dreams, invent new things, and experience personal fulfillment.  Why, the outpouring of creativity and innovation would promote the flourishing of art, literature, music, technological development, and human interaction that undoubtedly would lead to a new Renaissance!

Or, people who got the money would sit around in their place of residence all day, watching TV and enjoying the recreational drug or adult beverage of their choice.

Look, who am I to disagree with Mark Zuckerberg?  But let’s lay aside the gnarly issue of how we could possibly pay for a basic stipend sufficient for every American to live on without working.  (Taxpayers, hang on to your wallets!)  My experience teaches that having a job is a good thing.  Working brings structure to lives.  It allows people to become self-sufficient and to learn the value of a dollar.  It promotes the development of responsibility, punctuality, responsiveness, planning, and other positive personal attributes.  And the labor of every worker also helps to fund things like national defense, Social Security, health care, national parks, and a bunch of other things that might not be as amply supported if the funds are going to pay basic living expenses for a bunch of people who are happily contemplating their navels.  And, if you really think your job sucks, maybe that will motivate you to go out on your own, become an entrepreneur, and follow your dream with the benefit of the real-life experience you’ve acquired.

And don’t call it “universal basic income,” either.  In my book, “income” should be reserved for something that you earn, through work or investment, not something that is handed to you.

So let me respectfully disagree with Mr. Zuckerberg.  If he wants to really help to create a “new social contract,” let him and the other mega-tycoons enter into some actual contracts — with employees working for the new ventures that Zuckerberg and the other filthy rich are in a position to establish and fund with their wealth.  Let’s help more people learn the value of actual work.