Brian Gongol Show on WHO Radio - August 25, 2018

Brian Gongol

Podcast: Updated weekly in the wee hours of Sunday night/Monday morning. Subscribe on Stitcher, Spreaker, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or iHeartRadio

Please note: These show notes may be in various stages of completion -- ranging from brainstormed notes through to well-polished monologues. Please excuse anything that may seem rough around the edges, as it may only be a first draft of a thought and not be fully representative of what was said on the air.

Breaking news to watch


Segment 1: (11 min)

BUT FIRST: The opening essay

Live read: Smart speakers (hour 1)

Smart speakers

21st Century conservatism

One of the concepts that has always made an impression on me is the effect that leadership or management has on setting the tone for an entire organization. The tone always comes from the top.

Now, there are certainly organizations where management pays lip service to the idea of listening to the "bottom of the pyramid" -- and there are even examples of smart organizations where they actually *do* pay serious attention to what front-line workers think and notice and do.

But even when that is the case, the tone that insists on listening to those workers, and on giving credence to what they say? It comes from the top. Every organization has a culture, and whether the organization and the culture survive depends on what happens at the highest levels.

As Charlie Munger once put it, "In my experience, the rate of failure at changing a corporate or organizational culture is 100%."

Culture comes from the top.

For all the emphasis that has been put, then, on President Trump's experience as a businessperson, the behavior of the people inside his organizations reflects the tone set at the top.

This week, a jury of his peers found Paul Manafort, who was President Trump's campaign chairman, guilty on eight charges of criminal financial fraud.

Not a special prosecutor. Not a judge. A jury of his peers.

The same day, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws and confessed to making illegal payments.

This was a guilty plea, not a charge or an allegation.

Nobody knows everything about what took place within the President's orbit. But tone comes from the top.

It remains my best guess that the President himself probably didn't initiate any criminal conduct. It sounds like he went along with some of it. And I am quite sure he tried to cover up a lot of it.

But it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to believe that the way he operated his business interests, and the way he operated his campaign, created an environment in which breaking conventions, breaking rules, and breaking laws looked like behavior that was worth the risk.

Tone comes from the top.

As I said in December 2017: "[H]e should welcome the chance to have the bad apples culled from the bunch, through a rigorous investigation of any wrongdoing around his campaign and his administration. His incessant complaining only makes it look as though he wants to protect the crooked rather than purge them."

Instead, again this week, the President turned to Twitter and resumed his claims about a "witch hunt".

Mr. President: When you become aware of criminals in your orbit, you should welcome the chance to purge them. Purge them ruthlessly. Without compromise. Without excuse. Without mercy. Thank everyone who helps you clean house. Praise those who help you enforce the law. And set a tone that says further lawbreaking will not be forgiven.

That's the tone a lawful person would set from the top.

Segment 2: (8 min)

Live read: iHeartRadio app

iHeartRadio app

Clean up after yourself

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed what she calls the Accountable Capitalism Act.

In her own words:

Conceptual problems with this idea:

Nuggets of good buried in this idea:

Specific problems with this idea:

What instead?

In the words of Mary Katharine Ham, as popularized by Jonah Goldberg: "Complexity is a subsidy". In other words, the harder it is to exist within the rules, the more those rules end up "subsidizing" entrenched interests.

Take the case of credit unions, just for example:

In the long run, the rules of the game determine the outcome -- or, if you prefer, "every system is perfectly designed to produce the results that come from it." So if what we want are more institutions that reflect the interests of many "stakeholders" rather than just "shareholders", it makes more sense to lay the groundwork to make it easier for people to create the next generation of mutual associations, cooperatives, and even "public-benefit corporations", rather than to take Sen. Warren's approach by ham-handedly attempting to kludge an entirely different model of capitalism onto businesses that emerged in a totally different environment.

Design the system -- holistically -- to create the desired outcomes. Don't try to retrofit a brand-new set of massively interventionist rules onto a vast existing system.

Segment 3: (14 min)

Iowa news: Cindy Axne interview

Segment 4: (5 min)

Segment 5: (11 min)

Guest: Jim Golby on civil/military relations

Segment 6: (8 min)

Live read: Smart speakers (hour 2)

Smart speakers

Guest: Jim Golby on civil/military relations

Segment 7: (14 min)

Guest: Jim Golby on civil/military relations

Segment 8: (5 min)

Guest: Jim Golby on civil/military relations

Unsorted and leftovers:

This week

By the numbers

Make money

Have fun

Mind your business

Quote of the Week

The week in technology

Your role in cyberwar

Iowa news

Contrary to popular opinion

Hyperbole is going to kill us all

Curiosity, competence, and humility

Have a little empathy

Inbox zero

Stop the deliberate ignorance

Tin Foil Hat Award

Yay Capitalism Prize

Capitalist solution of the week

Totally Unnecessary Debate of the Day


One year ago

Five years ago

Ten years ago

Programming notes

Live read: Contests

Calendar events to highlight


Listen on-demand