best and brightest = delusional and egotistical

When are people going to realize that the phrase “best and brightest” is only used without irony by those whose egos blind their senses?

David Halberstam used The Best and the Brightest the right way when he wrote about the supposed brain trust in the Kennedy administration that led us into the Vietnam War.  The title has roots going back almost 250 years, when a pseudonymous protestor applied the caustic label to the fools in his government’s ministry.

And yet the phrase remains an irresistible cliche to people who embody the opposite of the literal words.  The CEO of AIG misuses the phrase when he says Treasury must allow over $100 million in bonuses to be paid for the firm’s performance last year.  That’s right, bonuses for year 2008, when they made the decisions that led to a financial disaster that has cost $173 billion dollars of taxpayer money so far.  In explaining this bizarre disconnect between actual performance and justifiable compensation, this delusional buffoon says, “We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.”

Wall Street workers must be especially immune to irony these days.  Judith Warner says it’s a relatively modern malady to call finance workers the best and brightest, though she seems unaware of the irony deficit involved in the labeling.  On the other hand, commentators from all around the political spectrum seem appropriately aware of the mistrust we should have of any collection of pointy-headed resume polishers.

Are Wall Streeters the most delusional about their own talent and worth?  Well, they at least share the top of the list.  A peripatetic career through law, finance and technology has exposed me to enough people, professions and archetypes to form this thoroughly unresearched hierarchy of vocational delusion and egomania:

Seriously delusional: high finance versions of bankers, investors, lawyers, and consultants. This only applies to those who deal in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars daily.  Something about dealing with massive amounts of money causes these people to equate their self-worth with the heady figures involved.  Two factors encourage the greatest separation from reality: (1) the abstraction of money from actual value-creating activity makes it easy to misplace the truth, and (2) the impact of punishing hours of soulless work requires delusions of grandeur to justify the sacrifice.

Mildly delusional: doctors, engineers, and fiction writers. An odd grouping at first glance turns out to have important shared traits.  All are involved in the creation and expansion of life, doctors in the most literal sense and writers in an equally important artistic sense, with engineers somewhere in between.  High intelligence and passion is required for success, and at the most successful extremes, significant fortunes can be made.  So it is not uncommon in these vocations to believe that only the best and brightest could thrive in their fields.

Surprisingly humble: venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. Because the most successful in these fields can become as rich as any in high finance, you might be surprised to find humility in their ranks.  However, although these two classes are often at odds (where one needs money and the other supplies it), they share a deep knowledge that success often arises from repeated failure and fortuitous circumstance.  These people know that the best and the brightest lose repeatedly to the persistent and the lucky.

Pathetically self-loathing: journalists and comedians. The best in these fields are every bit as bright as in any other vocation.  But the necessity of constantly examining the foibles of humanity leads to a misanthropic cynicism, which extends broadly to all throughout their view while saving the greatest contempt for the familiarity in the mirror.

These are obviously broad generalizations subject to many exceptions in every direction.  There’s no financier higher than Warren Buffett, who is famously humble; on the other hand, entrepreneur Larry Ellison is a reputed egomaniac.  And there are people in every category who hold dear to the belief that they exemplify “the best and the brightest” – and to these I say:  You’re right!

bailout 2.0

I complained about auto industry bailouts and was chastised.  Thomas Friedman says VCs should get bailed out and VCs say No No No.  Then I realized that No is not enough of an answer.  You have to propose an alternative, preferably one without the government deciding who gets the money.  That’s not how we do it in the S.V., yo. (I kept expecting Sarah Lacy to say that, but since she didn’t, I did.)

There are few who are ideologically strong enough to say that we shouldn’t have any bailout for anyone for any reason.  I’m not one of them.  This crisis is too enormous; adherence to ideology now can only be accomplished through disconnection from reality.  I do think that government bailout funds should go to stimulating the economy.  But as someone with a Silicon Valley belief in economic growth through innovation, I just don’t believe that the federal government will make the wisest choices about how to spend bailout money.

So who should make those choices?  Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .

You should, of course.

That was too easy, but let’s think hard:  Is this any worse an idea than anything that’s on the bailout agenda now?  Web 2.0 may be dead, but the underlying values of participation and collective intelligence are enduring concepts that will continue to pay off in the future.  Sure, the wisdom of crowds has many exceptions and qualifications, but I’ll gladly bet my tax dollars that the crowds are wiser than Washington.

Let’s say the government designates $100 billion for a crowdsourced bailout.  They just have to set up services to collect and analyze the input from all the social nets out there.  Twitter users could nominate worthy recipients with a #crowdbail hashtag.  Mobile camera phone users could use barcode scanners to submit deserving products, and location based services to tag retail stores worth bailing out.  There would be dozens of ways to submit suggested recipients on the web.  In order to limit fraud, the payouts could be in the form of tax credits or “consumer purchase credits” (CPCs).  I just made up CPCs – government credits that a seller can apply to reduce the consumer purchase price of goods.  For example, a business that received $100 in CPCs can take 100 items that are usually sold at $2, and sell these for $1 instead, receiving $1 in cash from the government for each item sold.

Would this work?  Is it too complicated, too stupid, too difficult?  Look, this is just half hour’s worth of musing, but I believe that any objection you can raise can be fixed with further work to at least to this standard:  it’s not worse than the government bailouts going into effect now, and it’s certainly not worse than some being asked for.  Something along these lines is in the spirit of what Silicon Valley can do, and I’d be thrilled to see more serious efforts to design something that fits with the ethos of our region.

For example, I’d bet that the folks at Virgance could come up with something that would make sense, and they’d probably be glad to implement it for less than 1% of that bailout amount.