capturing value

Years back in Managerial Economics, the very first class that I took as part of my MBA program, the very simple concept of capturing value was presented.  The example used to illustrate the idea was something like the following.

Person 1 wants to sell a car and Person 2 wants to buy a car. Person 1 values his or her car at $8000 and person 2 values that car at $10,000. There is therefore $2000 worth of value to be captured.  If Person 2 purchases the car for $2000 he or she has captured that amount of value in the transaction. If he or she purchases the car for $9000 both individuals capture $1000 of value.

With a few notable exceptions, most of the classes I took in that program could be boiled down to, "These are the strategies you take to capture the most value."  I even had one instructor who I respected a great deal state that a business person's primary objective is to collect the most margin dollars, which is another phrase for capturing the most value.  If you understand the nuances of this, you're more or less an MBA, I guess.

What is noteworthy to me is that this is slightly different than the economic story that I usually hear people tell laypeople.  One illustration I heard a radio personality provide was the following.

To understand Capitalism imagine I need $20. I then go to my neighbor and agree to exchange one hour of my time to mow his yard and he gives me $20 for that time. Through this arrangement we both get what we need. I get the $20 and he gets a mowed lawn.

On the very simplest of levels this works, but there's a reason that this is not the example provided to business students.  Business is not the art of creating value, but rather it is the art of capturing value. If I run the business I'm less concerned with who creates the value than I am with whether I get to capture that value.

When I hear someone present an illustration like the above I now figure that they haven't gone through business training, or I assume that they have a vested interest in their audience having an incomplete understanding about how business works.

This distinction is important for a few reasons.

First, the mowing example is typically in line with what parents teach their kids.  It's actually a good example to use to explain a minimum wage job.  It's probably not a good example to give someone who is looking to establish a career, though.  There are many types of jobs where the worker captures less value than the business.  All else being equal, it is in a person's best interest to look for fields in which workers are able to capture more of the value that they personally create.

Second, the mowing example implies that there's a yard out there to mow and that I have the skill to mow it.  While this has always been the case, automation is changing the economy such that the ratio of unskilled work to skilled work is decreasing.  Some people have the means to "learn how to mow" and some do not.

Third, this understanding is key to grasping the value or danger (depending on your perspective) of a union.  One of the things a union provides is a guarantee to capture a specific amount of value for the worker, and on the flip side a union causes a business not to be able to capture specific value from its operations.  FYI, I have no strong opinions of unions in general.

There are other reasons for understanding the distinction, I'm sure.  I'll stop at two for now, though.

feel loved

When you think of the feeling of love between spouses, boyfriend/girlfriend, or whatever, how do you define it? What does it mean if a person feels loved? I believe that this is the most fundamental difference between men and women, and this discovery is a multi-year process that I am still walking through.

A long while back I wrote something about not needing to feel loved. Ultimately, I've determined that this is not true, but only because of the way the word is defined. Almost every time I have heard the phrase "feel loved" used it has been applied to some need I identified as feminine. I don't generally have the same needs as a woman, so that verbiage feels inaccurate.

I really did not think in terms of actually needing love until Golden and I read The 5 Love Languages together a few years ago, and that only because the author kept speaking in terms of "feeling loved."

However everyone has needs.  That's part of the human experience, and I'm certainly no different.  If those needs are or are not getting met I have not historically gauged it in terms of whether I, "feel loved," though. I have discovered over the years that the phrase, "feel loved," makes more sense to the women in my life (especially Golden) than other phrases that I might use.  While to me the words might be "respected/disrespected" or "important/insignificant," the words "loved/unloved" appear to communicate feelings better.

Now, when I think of whether I or anyone else feels loved I try to reinterpret, "feel loved," with, "feel like my needs are getting met." I know these aren't perfect apples-for-apples phrases, however this makes much more sense to me.  While we all have different needs, we are all alike in that we do have needs. So, this is how I am resolving this minefield of a phrase.

based on a true story

I am extremely fascinated by history, and especially the cultural and human factors that were behind consequential events in history. I also greatly enjoy taking in an entertaining film as a pastime. Surprisingly, even given these two likes, I have a hard time getting excited about movies based on true events. I've had trouble pinpointing the reason, but I do think I know a big part of why this is.

When we initially watched Catch Me If You Can through a Blockbuster rental I recall watching a documentary on the extras on the disc about the person the movie is based on--Frank Abagnale, Jr. One small comment that the real Abagnale made in that documentary was that, though the movie portrayed his mother as unfaithful to his father, this was not actually the case in real life. This illustrates a huge issue I have with "Based on..." movies. I don't trust them, and artistic license is often used to sully people's names in the interest of telling a more compelling story.

I know this isn't a shock, but little of The Sound of Music, from the character of the individuals, to the number of kids in the family, to the nature of their escape from Austria is based in fact.  At least the antagonists in that movie were actual Nazis, regardless as to whether they were based on real people. Other movies cast real people as antagonists based on artistic choice rather than because those people deserved to be portrayed in that way (Examples: Titanic, The Imitation Game, Cinderella Man, Rudy, Lawrence of Arabia, and Gladiator).

I understand that "Based on..." stories are supposed to allow for modifications through artistic license, but knowing that the story really is modified usually tells me that the most compelling and interesting aspects of the story are probably contrived. As a result, I typically feel manipulated through the story, and it makes for a less enjoyable experience. Worse, I feel like movies like this improperly cast real people as heroes and villains, and so dishonor the real people who are being portrayed.  Furthermore, they give audiences a wrongheaded view of history and humanity.

Also, I know there are exceptions to this. I've heard that many of the scenes both in Saving Private Ryan and in Dunkirk are accurate portrayals of respective World War II battles.

I did a search for, "most accurate historical movies," and found several list pages. I noticed that I have not seen most of the movies at this page, though I do recall that I enjoyed the Jesse James one, only wishing it was a bit shorter. Maybe my real problem is that I've been watching the wrong historical movies.