“Getting feedback is the best experience beside the process of creating the incentives for others to give the feedback to you. Whether or not the feedback is good, bad, somewhere in between – or all three at the same time – then you’re getting the most valuable data of all time: the data on yourself, which is what you need to serve all the others.”
“Never denigrate the nature of stupidity for, if you do, it must mean that you hold yourself in a higher regard in the consideration of your own intelligence. If you do that then you must ask yourself is the other worth lambasting or was it indeed yourself – along with the other so-called intelligent – that simply didn’t do good enough of a job in education? Just a thought.”
“I have a dream of a world where socially responsible isn’t a competitive marketing advantage. Rather, it just is. All we need is a science that isn’t built on the infinite reductivity cost-cutting – causing resultant behaviour as taught – and we should be fine. I mean – yes – it’s cost-cutting to a certain extent but when quality starts to suffer, then that’s when we need to understand the other direction of economic thought, the one where emotions matter: the cost-growing, and all the life-motivational aspects it brings along with it.”
“Beauty: it isn’t just in the eye of the beholder. It can also be in the ear, the mouth, the stomach, the muscles.. so many places for beauty to be felt through. So many.”
“The best thing you can always fall back on is physical activity. It will enable you to draw upon the energy required to provide yourself and others around you with much more wholesome life experiences. Healthy: it’s better for you.”
“A salesperson is like a farmer. Just as a farmer connects a seed with the Earth to grow food, a salesperson connects an idea with a human to grow value. Perhaps we can define the primary sales idea as eat something so you don’t die.”
(Suomessa lienemme siis voivan kaikella niin sanotulla terveellä järjellämme käyttää maanviljelijän ohella sanaa mielenviljelijä, joka
käyskentelee ympäriinsä istuttamassa arvoa kasvattavia ideoita)
“My warmest regards to my Finnish Air Force-based upbringing and the entire worlds of Formula 1 and skydiving for leading the way in teaching me all about epicness and how to secure it.”
When I hear people in Finland speak of alustatalous (literal translation: platform economy) then I proceed to raise my thumb in approval and think to myself: “Good job – you have understood the basic nature of business. I am very proud of you.”
For the economy is the platform, the social network with a purpose.
If there is one thing I have learned from my career through the past dozen-plus years – whilst realising the significant gaps in the prevalent business and economics education that I myself went through in getting my Master’s degree (not blaming anybody, just saying there’s a lot of work to do in reorganising the schools of organisation) – then it is this: every business is a platform business, and this should be taught on the first day of business school, because it describes the core – the seed – of where the formation of the markets begins and thus is one of the most basic knowledge components of the entire science. A common teaching of the unquestionable basics creates a shared logic – just as is everyday with physicists and chemists and biologists and whatnot – and thus a shared manner of operation-in-thought, which increases the potential for successful outcomes in co-operation amongst practitioners, out in reality.
You know – just like medical doctors can gather around a human body and work together, because they jointly know what they are gathering around – a human body, just like the one they themselves inhabit. Similarly – practitioners emergent out of the schools of organisation should know what it is that they are gathering around, starting with the basics: of organisations, for example – organisations of people.
Every business is a platform business since every business is connecting people from two sides. It makes no difference as to how the connection of the people is achieved. That is what the attempt of making money is all about: trying to see what human connection works in creating value. What do people want to make and consume to create value for each other?
Who knows? You can’t really know. Not until you try, that is. That is why in Finland we say Yrittäjä for Entrepreneur, which literally means Trier or Attempter.
There is a potentially infinite set of connective permutations possible – as in ways to connect people – always reducing down to one person connecting with another to create value, intermediated by a business operating the exchange of money and the contracts enabling the exchange of it in trust (indeed, it is a bunch of contracts that create the very existence of money in and of itself – setting the core definition of money as a system of quantitatively objectified trust: as opposed to trust being retained solely inside humans in a qualitative form).
I’ll say it again in different words. Whatever value is being created (whatever a transaction makes real and worthy), the connection creating the value is the platform that is always being spoken of: the business itself, through the products & services that it offers. It is of no matter who makes the products & services, whether it is the business itself or an outside source of content they draw upon: it is the business that brings the pieces together. That is why, objectively, it is called an organisation.
The organisation – the business – is a container built by the documentation of history (proving that history has a lot of practical value, as it practically operates the foundations of today). The container contains all the parts it requires to bring people together in whatever manner, like a function f(?) that contains the potential to contain all the variables within itself, with the variables defining whatever it is that is being traded. The variables are the pieces of the puzzle being put together in the process of value creation: the organised parts, forming the organisation.
I’m going to keep repeating these basics in different permutations of words so that the message really sinks in with my intended audience, the message about the presentation of the fundamental core of the Market Sciences: the sciences studying the components of the organisations and the organisations themselves that create the markets, the interaction between the organisations that grow the markets, and the sum whole of the economy that they end up resulting in by way of accumulative logic.
Businesses – all businesses, and all organisations for that matter – exist to connect people, allowing for the creation of value, whatever value that might be. By definition, organisations are platforms, connecting people within them and between them. When business people such as Bankers speak of the markets, they speak of the people coming together through organisations in the act of valuation, capitalisation, and realisation had when potential demands meet potential supplies (valuation) and form a contract enabling an exchange (capitalisation), leading to the operation of the exchange (realisation).
This is a completely industry-agnostic definition of what money does as it runs through organisations of whatever kind – wherever they might lie in society. Money flows through the organisations in society as guided by the prevalent sets of factual and moral knowings held by people (which also explains the motivations for the initial creation of organisations), creating potential supplies and demands that lead said people into situations in life in which they then operate a series of decisions that either end up forming capitalised contracts of exchange or not. After which life goes on, once more*.
All businesses are platform businesses. All organisations serve to connect people. A grocery store connects eaters and farmers: people. A newspaper connects newsmakers to newsreaders: people. An AI connects its developers minds to those who need support in forming analyses, or whatever else the AI is designed to do: people. A trout company connects a fisherman and a trouteater: people.
People to people: One’s demand for supply is an Other’s supply of demand.
It is always a matter of people operating on platforms to come together, since even the algorithms trading the stocks were created by people. Always people in, people out – that is how the money works, flowing from the people into the system of organisations (the economy) and back out of it, into the hands of the people.
Even within the organisations – people.
All businesses operate in two-sided markets – not just digital media companies, where the term is most used. The business is a container – like a factory in paper form – where content goes in on one side and then someone takes it out on the other, creating value both ways. First on one side there must be a product (starting with an ad), then on the other side there can be customers, and there must always be a promise of a match between the sides, since otherwise there is no potential to invest into. When there are customers, then there can be more products.
The company is by definition a platform bringing people together to have their needs fulfilled: a utilisation of skills to be supplied, a set of demands to be fulfilled. Skills create supplies that fulfil demands, always held by people.
It does not matter what the product is, it does not matter who the customers are: all businesses operate a two-sided market where both demand- and supply-sides, by definition, need to be played by the One operating the business. Ultimately, the playing of the instrument of the markets reduces down to the Entrepreneur’s relationship with themselves, standing on the platform of life – their balancing of the three fundamental, objective forms of equity: the contracts, the money, and the time.
The Entrepreneur is the ultimate human platform, owning the paper that runs the organisational platform – the legally organised platform – the platform that is a business, through which the Entrepreneur connects with other humans.
This is the first lecture of all business schools in the future. I work every day towards making it so that the teaching of the basics is not forgotten, for it is the shared knowing of the basics that forms mutual understanding in the markets, increasing the potential for trust to form between market participants, increasing the likelihood of a healthy global market. The basics are the foundations of a common operating language – the obvious things that need to be taught, the Newtonian Laws of Physics of the economy – and the contents of this text, its links, and this website of mine are as basic as it gets when it comes to teaching about business. When you get more basic than the human – as in the ground we stand upon and the atmosphere within which we live – you’re in the product engineers’ world: a different, deeper realm of science.
As basic as it gets is what we must go for when we create real, actual science, for there comes a point where the arguing ends and the knowing begins: objective truth is the seed of knowledge and when we talk about people connecting with people to create value, you need but think of all the people involved in having delivered everything around you right now to you – including yourself, to yourself – to know that you are looking at objective truth, where even the philosophers of Theory of Knowledge** can’t deny that people connecting with people are what brought this moment and its surroundings to you, right now.
All students of business around the world need to begin their journey into Academia by learning about the basics of how business is all about connecting people: about the nature of contracts and money themselves and how they serve, through time, to bring people together through the organisations they inhabit and utilise: day-in, day-out.
The function of an organisation is to connect people. These must be commonly shared knowledge for global markets to function properly: for global money to be able to act better and operate a healthier market that builds the quality of the lives lived on this Planet, now and in the future. People operating the market must have a shared language that starts with the very basics, because though the basics may be basic, that does not mean the basics are simple and trivial to learn or teach (not to mention apply), for the basics – like seeds – are immense in size, once they start to grow. The global market consisting of the entire breadth of human cultures cannot function cohesively without shared knowledge of the absolute and objective basics, starting with all of the above.
Once more, I shall repeat the same message in different words, assisting in its understanding:
The Market Sciences cannot develop further without a shared base of absolutely common, unquestioned understanding. Without the Market Sciences – the sciences churning out market practitioners – functioning on a commonly shared logic, the health of the global markets mostly reduces down to chance (gambling on the hope of functioning human interactions), and we simply cannot live in a peaceful, modern, interconnected world – sharing the fruits of our knowings – if its operating system (the markets) relies on the mathematics and logics of chance.
I look forward to my academic career (with practice on the side, to check my own skills, as proven with revenue) and the infinite stream of first-years ready to face human reality at its hardest core: the contracts and the money, enabling the love had in time, by connecting the people.
Quantum Economics: The New Science of Money by David Orrell
Social Physics by Alex Pentland
*It is my personal belief that this description of the modus operandi of money in the markets is one and the same thing as quantum gravity, which I wrote about in an artistic fashion back in July (see link) when I felt I got it – the sense of a path of emotions leading towards a point: an event of culmination, such as the formation of a contract or a gathering of emotions with some other purpose. Let’s see what the physicists have to say about this power-grab of a term from their realm of science. But I do believe that the cleanliness of our homes proves the existence of quantum gravity: because at some point, it gets so messy, that you have to either buy cleaning services or become a student of Marie Kondo, and it is the seemingly random appearance of the decision, that does the proving, of the quantum gravity’s being (for it is what can pull you into the situations, that you’d rather have continued to deny their right to be, but since here they are, you must be able to at least somewhat see, how it is that you got sucked into it: and you should want to, for by facing your weaknesses, and by giving them value through the challenge that they by their nature provide for improvement, for it allows you to realise that using the muscle of the will makes you stronger. Quantum gravity: when it comes down to the basics of power, it’s what it’s all about).
ps. Physicists – have you ever considered remembering that we move around the sun at an insane speed of 30km a second? Are we thus, in real-time, integrating our path from A to B, over and over again at different wave-amplitudes and -frequencies (depending on the situation we’re in)? Just some thought.. for thought. Me to you – like a thought trade, entangled through (active transfer) space and time by the Internet, and in (passive storage) space and time by some hard drive within some server, somewhere!
“At times, when I’m really performing at my best, I feel I can integrate the information of being at a data transfer rate of infinite megabits per instant!”
**My Theory of Knowledge essay dated February 13th, 2006, from my completion of the International Baccalaureate diploma, can be found below (and to all other IB-Ohhhh graduates – yes, it was worth the extra point, bringing my total to 41/45):
Do questions like “Why should I be moral?” or “Why shouldn’t I be selfish?” have definitive answers as do some questions in other Areas of Knowledge? Does having a definitive answer make a question more or less important?
People from different parts of the globe see the world in many different ways. For some, the eternal question in life might be “Where will I find my next meal?” whilst others might ponder the ultimate question over the meaning of life itself. Different areas of knowledge spur different methods of thinking and evaluation of knowledge, and many questions that arise might not have definitive answers. However, this lack or presence of a definitive answer does not define the importance of a question.
Ethics as an area of knowledge results in questions such as “Why should I be moral?” or “Why shouldn’t I be selfish?” which, in practise, do not have definitive answers. Can such a question over morality or selfishness be labeled universally with a single answer? In my opinion, this is an impossibility since people around the world are in very different situations. When someone lives in the ongoing search for their next meal, is it right of them to be selfish and eat without sharing, even if others wil continue to starve? Some could say that they are perfectly justified in keeping themselves alive at the expense of others in such conditions, whilst others would most likely argue that it would be wrong to act to the detriment of another. Such situations would be unlikely in developed nations, where the viewpoint of such an act would be negative.
It is important to remember that, while a situation of justified selfishness may arise, overall an individual is very dependent on the collective decisions made around him. Political decisions over social welfare, for example, can be very serious issues for low-income members of society. Whereas a low-income family may depend on social welfare, a well-off politician might consider it more important to divert funding to something more pertinent to himself. Depending on the situation, selfishness can be objectively justified or unjustified. It is true that, most often in the actual world, it is more common to run into objective justification for being unselfishand moral.
But how would a well-off citizen act if put into the situation where he has no food? The question over morality and selfishness cannot universally be given a definitive answer, as being moral could mean, for example, following one’s own or someone elses moral rules. Situations for differing individuals are remarkably varied around the world. If you had barely enough necessities (food, water, clothing, shelter) to live, would you mainly concern yourself with protecting your own family, or think about everyone else living around you before yourself? There exists such different peoples that thinking a single set of absolute moral rules exists everywhere is almost absurd, even if arguments for absolute morality exist. A definitive answer cannot be given.
Does this lack of a definitive answer make questions, such as these over morality and selfishness, less important? I strongly believe that it does not. The examples of morality and selfishness are perfect in illustrating cases where definitive answers are not available universally, but questions about them are still important. This has been recognised by the United Nations in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed for the first time in December of 1948. The declaration sets out, in thirty articles, the basic rights for every human benig, which reaches out into morality by preventing immoral and atrocious acts against a human’s rights. This is perhaps the closest that one can come to a universal set of rights and morals set out in writing, which the UN of course hopes every individual will adopt into their own system of moral beliefs. Nonetheless, people in India cannot be expected to hold the same set of moral rules as people in Finland, for example.
This same view can be seen in other areas of knowledge as well. The Arts is an area of knowledge that gives birth to many questions and is a field where opinions and subjective thoughts play a major role. Judging a piece of music, for example, has a set of guidelines where it’s different attributes can be more objectively valued through evaluation of technical difficulty, musical flow, and other such measures. But can there be a definitive answer to the question: “Is this a good piece of music?” Through personal experience, I am strongly of the opinion that there can be no such definitive answer. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed music that was, in terms of musical theory, of the highest calibre, but still an ardent listener of rock music may consider Mozart as not worthy of his ears. The same logic applies to paintings and other branches of the Arts. Even so, the questions posed in the Arts are not any less important, since critique and questioning has moved artists forwards in search of new, previously unheard or unseen, forms of art.
In history, many interpretations of past events would be unheard of were historians not willing to pose questions without definitive answers. Asking these questions is no less important, however, as historians might come up with several different possibilities that open up new ways of looking at some aspect of history. The question over the cause of the First World War does not have a single definitive answer, but is rather a collection of many different causes that historians have brought to light. Asking the question has been important, since all the different causes that historians have brought about have been written in today’s history books, which hopefuly the politicians of today and tomorrow are learning from.
Opposing views can be considered as well, though. Arguments for the importance of a definitive answer are based on the search for knowledge. Knowledge is a “true and justified belief” which, according to this definition, has factual backing that makes it true. The natural sciences, as an area of knowledge, is more often based on the search for definitive answers that explain why and how things in the world are. A scientist might argue that asking questions with no definitive answers is pointless, since it does not provide any gains forward in terms of knowledge and understanding of the natural world. For example, the question lingering over homeopathy, an alternative form of medicine, has existed since the practise emerged in the late 1700s. Homeopathy is treatment with an “ultra-high dilution” that has perhaps less than one molecule of a substance, and there is significant controversy over whether or not it works and, more importantly, whyit works. Some have the opinion that if homeopathy is safe and determined to be helpful, then it is not important to ask why. This view takes it that the question is not important, as it might not have a definitive answer.
Doctors researching new medicines might consider the questions they are asking more important, since their results can provide new treatments and actual gains in medicinal knowledge that can help the sick. Finding a cure, or a “definitive answer” for cancer or AIDS, for example, would benefit the people of the world far more than searching for an answer to the meaning of life. There is definitely a logical and strong argument for the doctor’s case, and for him a definite answer is far more important than an ambiguous one. Does it make the other’s quest for an answer any less important? No. The doctor has an opinion, but it all boils down to everyone having their own priorities and thoughts of what is important and what isn’t. It is comparable to the situation encountered with morals, as they are not the same for everyone, either. In these matters, great personal emphasis must be taken on what one considers to be most important. I admit that in this case it is most likely that the majority would back researching a concrete cure for AIDS, rather than attempt to answer a philosophical question that, in reality, probably doesn’t have any universal answer. Most important, however, is in my opinion the acknowledgement that some individual’s may have different opinions.
Not asking any questions on subjects with no definitive answers would mean no progress, however, and thus I would personally counter the statements claiming the unimportance of researching the causes of why homeopathy works. More important, to challenge the importance of knowledge, would be in my opinion to question the subjects that have definitive answers. As an example, the atom was thought to be the smallest thing in existence, until it was split open and sub-atomic particles were discovered. Who knows, perhaps sub-sub-atomic particles are a thing of the future, if a scienctist decides to challenge the current knowledge. The example of the earth being flat fits in perfectly here, as the belief could still be around had no questions been asked. Questioning existing knowledge is equally important as questioning things that don’t have answers.
The importance is not on the answer, but the question itself. Asking whether or not a definitive answer makes an answer more or less important is, in my view, not as important as asking the question in the first place, no matter what type of an answer is achieved. Even in today’s world, where many things are accepted as knowledge, it is important to remember to question the answer, as only then can new realms be discovered.
Iuvenes dum sumus.
Post iucundam iuventutem
Post molestam senectutem
Nos habebit humus.
Vivat membrum quodlibet
Vivant membra quaelibet
Semper sint in flore.
Semper sint in flore.
Ubi sunt qui ante nos
In mundo fuere?
Vadite ad superos
Transite in inferos
Hos si vis videre.
Vita nostra brevis est
Venit mors velociter
Rapit nos atrociter
Vivant omnes virgines
Vivant et mulieres
Vivat et res publica
et qui illam regit.
Vivat nostra civitas,
Quae nos hic protegit.