<p>
</p>
<p>Well, first of all, I never talked about Farmville (or, specifically, Zynga). But I would argue that, however ‘uninnovative’ you may think Farmville to be, it’s still more innovative than what most companies do. Let’s face it - figuring out how to convince more people to buy more junk food or beer is not exactly the epitome of useful innovation. </p>
<p>But regarding Twitter, why isn’t that innovative? Surely you realize that the world learned about many of the details of the Iranian Presidential election protests in 2009 and much of the spontaneous organization of protesters that have brought down or threatened the regimes of numerous Arab nations this year was channeled through Twitter. Similarly, Twitter users exchanged real-time information regarding attack locations, body counts, and locations of medical facilities and security zones during the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. How many other companies can boast of building technologies that proved to be instrumental in such worldwide social and emergency response movements? </p>
<p>Now, certainly I agree with you that Twitter is often times used for frivolous purposes, just as all technologies can and have been. For example, the computer itself is one of the most groundbreaking inventions in history, yet people nowadays often times use computers just to play games and surf Internet porn all day long. Similarly, the airplane is surely another momentous technological achievement in world history, but many people frivolously use airplanes solely as a means to enjoy vacations at tropical resorts. But at least the technologies can and have been used to create social value, even if not all the time. Twitter has been a key communications medium in effecting worldwide social & political reform. How many other companies can say the same? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In contrast, the vast majority of industries barely innovate at all. Honestly, how much innovation does the consumer goods industry produce? How about the food/beverage industry? How about the travel/hospitality industry? How about the retail industry? Again, you may argue that Farmville is not particularly innovative, but I don’t see how that’s any worse than trying to convince customers to buy Budweiser over Miller or vice versa. After all, beer is beer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, that would seem to be an argument for bailing out the homeowners, not the banks. Even if the banks all defaulted because they were never bailed out, that should have no first-order impact upon homeowners equity and mortgage payment schedules. After all, if I’m a homeowner, and my local bank through which I obtained my mortgage were to declare bankruptcy, then that doesn’t directly impact me. I would not be foreclosed upon if I continue to pay my mortgage bills. My homeowner’s equity would be determined by local real-estate prices. </p>
<p>Where the bailout was deemed necessary was to prevent any second-order effects, in that a freeze in the banking payments and clearing system because of a default might result in the entire economy falling down. I might then lose my job which would then prevent me from paying my mortgage. Even if I don’t lose my job, enough of my neighbors might lose their jobs such that local real estate prices might plummet, thereby reducing my equity. </p>
<p>But that only means that the banks effectively took the rest of the economy hostage: bail us out, or we’ll instigate financial Armageddon. That is in fact why I and many others (grudgingly) conceded that the bailout was necessary. </p>
<p>But that only reinforces the notion that banking compensation packages and policies are very much a concern of the taxpayers, and rightfully so. Not only should nobody be allowed to take the rest of the economy hostage, nobody should especially be allowed to pocket high bonuses while devising financial bombs that will place the rest of the economy on a knife’s edge.</p>