151–160 of 169 posts
I think Michael H. Goldhaber's work on the "Attention Economy" gives reason to believe there may be a limit. When there is enough traditional wealth (goods and services), then time to enjoy it becomes the new scarcity.
Of course, if the limit is every consumer being ecstatically happy every waking moment, we have a loooooong way to go before we reach the limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "initial pixar deal" was all Eisner, which got Toy Story and so on, happened before 95, which was before Disney purchased ABC (which is how Iger got to Disney). Yes, which resulted in Pixar having to give up 50% of the revenue for the films in exchange for Distribution... which is what caused all the friction in the beginning. Pixar felt like they were getting screwed. > 2005 Eisner was arguably a disaster. How…
The initial claim was that Eisner nearly killed Disney animation. When I provided evidence showing that Disney animation got significantly better under Eisner's reign, the claim becomes "someone else made it better" and that Eisner did nothing. Note the unstated retraction of "killed". As far as Katzenberg goes, he wasn't created by Imagineering - he was hired by Eisner. And yes, he eventually left. That's what succe…
That article you quoted is irrelevant, it talks about Dreamworks Pictures (the non animation division) which is doing horribly (can you name anything of late that they've released that did well?)
Perhaps instead of reading an article from a blogger and becoming an instant expert, it would be wise to read the annual reports sometime which are freely available. Or even just read some of the press releases from the company itself.. I'll give you a headstart.
http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/dwa/opencms/company/news/n...
I'm not sure I agree totally with Paul Graham's antonym choice -- the opposite of hapless when dealing with things might be named "resourcefulness", but when dealing with people "steadfast" might be closer to the feeling you want. Things need to be moved around, but when dealing with people often the most important action is to stand still -- to find a position and refuse to be knocked over or pushed around. This mig…
"Things need to be moved around, but when dealing with people often the most important action is to stand still -- to find a position and refuse to be knocked over or pushed around. This might be part of the reason it is so hard to find a proper antonym. It might also be why it is so hard to do." This idea sounds really interesting. Would you be willing to expand on it? A couple of examples might help me understand w…
Looking at the Google guys gives you a couple of examples of the first assertion. They were ultra-careful when hunting for a CEO, and chose one who didn't try to dominate them. They played off their VC's against each other, making sure that the both of the two top venture capitol firms invested in them. That's the kind of thing I mean.
Personally, I think that's where the challenge in life is. It's a challenge before and after the money or success comes.
Really appreciate the comment regarding foot note [3] - "Now that we know what we're looking for, that leads to other questions. For example, can this quality be taught? After four years of trying to teach it to people, I'd say that yes, surprisingly often it can. Not to everyone, but to many people. [3] Some people are just constitutionally passive, but others have a latent ability to be relentlessly resourceful tha…
"There's no reason to believe there is any limit on the amount of newly created wealth consumers can absorb" I think Michael H. Goldhaber's work on the "Attention Economy" gives reason to believe there may be a limit. When there is enough traditional wealth (goods and services), then time to enjoy it becomes the new scarcity. Of course, if the limit is every consumer being ecstatically happy every waking moment, we h…