Friday, September 30, 2016

Real Talk From 4 Airline Pilots On How To Beat Jet Lag

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome from the flight deck. Our nonstop service from Los Angeles to London’s Heathrow Airport has a flight time of 10 hours and 35 minutes. So sit back, relax, and accept our sincere apologies in advance for the debilitating case of jet lag during your stay in London, including falling asleep mid-conversation with the executive you needed to impress, and wandering, bleary-eyed, through a vacant Piccadilly Circus at 5:15 a.m. Looks like we’re first in line for departure, so enjoy the flight ― because jet lag’s coming for you, and it’s not going to be pretty. My co-pilot and I will be just fine, though.”

OK, so you’re unlikely to hear this kind of real talk from a pilot. But doesn’t it feel like the captain and her crew ― who seem to hop the International Date Line weekly without complaint ― know something you don’t when it comes to beating jet lag?

In partnership with United Polaris, we checked in with four long-haul commercial pilots to finally clue passengers in on the secrets of the flight deck, sharing their top tips for combating the grogginess and fatigue of traveling to another side of the world. With this guide, you’ll be crossing time zones like a pro before you know it.

Switch Up Your Sleep Schedule Beforehand

BFG Images via Getty Images
If you wake up one to two hours earlier a few days before a flight to Europe, your body will thank you later.

Overcoming jet lag starts before you step into the taxi to the airport. Begin adjusting your sleep routine three days before your flight, says Captain Lisa Mrozek, a commercial pilot for a major domestic carrier who’s logged 18 years of flying to far-flung locales. If you’re departing an American city for Europe, Mrozek recommends waking an hour or two earlier than usual. Conversely, try to stay up one to two hours later if Asian travel is on the itinerary.

Yet even in spite of all the proper prep, you may still nod off into a glass of chardonnay at your Parisian hotel’s bar. Flying east, Mrozek says, is just more of a challenge. “If you’re flying against the sun, it’s a lot harder on your body,” she explains. “If you’re going west, it just seems to be easier. That’s the general gist I get from most airline people.”

An All-Nighter Before Flying Can Only Lead To Sadness

Ryan McVay via Getty Images
Exhausting yourself the night before a long flight can be a recipe for jet lag disaster.

For once, your penchant for procrastination will serve you well! Or so you might think. If you’re up all night barreling through last-minute laundry loads, you’ll be knocked out for the duration of the 14-hour flight from D.C. to Tokyo, thus arriving in the Japanese city feeling fresh as a sakura blossom. Right?

Not a smart move, Mrozek says. “You don’t want to start out your trip tired,” she cautions. “Make sure you’re well-rested before you depart and that you have some sort of a base to start with.” Trying to catch a few Zs on a plane when you’re already exhausted isn’t a sure bet, and the quality of sleep you have may leave you feeling sluggish even when you’re on the ground. If you’re overtired, you might also have to skip that power nap after your 2 p.m. hotel check-in, lest you accidentally snooze until 10 p.m. ― and then stay up all night ― as your body tries to make up the deficit.

Your New In-Flight Cocktail: Water And Electrolyte Powder

Maciej Laska via Getty Images
Tempting, but just say no.

All of the pilots we talked to agreed: Hydration is key in stemming jet lag, especially as you while away hours in a plane’s pressurized cabin. So think of the beverage cart as more water fountain than booze barge ― avoid the dehydrating influence of alcohol or salty drinks like tomato juice and instead simply opt for H20. Captain Suzanne Skeeters, a long-haul commercial pilot with decades of experience ferrying passengers to cities like Mumbai, Bangkok and Frankfurt, recommends boosting the benefits of your water even further by mixing in powdered electrolytes, essential minerals that keep your body in an optimal balance.

Step Away From The In-Flight Entertainment

Fran Polito via Getty Images
We know the 14th viewing of “Frozen” is even more special than the first 13, but substituting sleep for binge-watching on the plane means having a better chance of beating jet lag after you land.

International flights have become, for many of us (cough, parents, cough), prime time to catch up on movies. But beware: binge-watching Meg Ryan rom-coms is liable to leave you Sleepless in your destination city. Mrozek remembers a family trip she took to Australia, in which her kids insisted on watching every movie on the plane they could, over her suggestion that they sleep instead. “They didn’t listen,” she recalls. “And we were up at 2 a.m. every night for the next five nights. We had to wait for the local McDonald’s to open up at 5 a.m. because they were starving and there were no restaurants open.” Their fellow patrons at that hour? The sequined, tipsy bar crowd. “It was kind of an eye-opener for them, let’s put it that way,” she laughs.

Test This Pill At Home First Or Face The Sleepwalking Consequences

Digital Vision. via Getty Images
If you’re not used to sleeping pills, taking them could lead to awkward cuddling with your neighbor.

To medicate or not to medicate? So many travelers weigh the question of whether to use sleep aids in-flight to mitigate the effects of jet lag. Of course, pilots aren’t allowed to use sleeping pills, says Kathy McCullough, a retired 747 captain whose 17 years of Tokyo-Singapore-Taipei routes would often take her from home for 13 days at a time. But melatonin, a hormone supplement which helps to reset one’s sleep cycle, is permissible for pilots and proved helpful to McCullough in managing her work-sleep balance. She now recommends it for others. “It kind of just quiets the thoughts in your head long enough so that you can go to sleep,” she says. “But it’s not a sleeping pill, so it won’t knock you out.”

Mrozek is more direct about sleeping pills. Unless you want to star in “The Flying Dead,” your very own mile-high zombie spinoff, she advises against using them on a flight if you’re not already accustomed to taking them. “We’ve had passengers take sleeping pills and then they sleepwalked on the airplane,” she says. “Or they keep sleeping and the flight attendants have trouble waking them up when they land.”

Get In A Workout At The Hotel Gym

Radius Images via Getty Images
Got back-to-back meetings as soon as you land? Squeeze in a quick treadmill session as soon as you hit the hotel and you’ll be in better shape to fight off jet lag.

Flights from the West Coast of the U.S. to Europe tend to touch down in the early afternoon, says Chris Cooke, a pilot with 24 years of experience flying commercial. Listen to your body if you’re tired and take a nap ― no more than two to three hours ― but then get active if you’re looking to keep jet lag at bay. “If I’m staying longer than 30 hours, I have to exercise,” Cooke says. “Even if it’s just getting out and walking for a half hour or going to the gym in the middle of the night, that’s what I do.” Regular exercise, especially after a long bout of travel, will keep your body operating at peak conditions, which allows your internal systems to more nimbly adjust to changes in eating, sleeping and other activities.

Shut Out The World In A Room That’s Cool And Dark

swissmediavision via Getty Images
Not pictured: Restful slumber.

You’ve finally made it. Arrived at your destination well-hydrated, took an afternoon nap, and kept yourself busy and awake with exercise and meetings until the local bedtime. Now all that’s left is to let yourself drift off into a full night of sleep. And with the right hotel arrangements, enjoying a truly restful slumber could be well within reach.

“Go for a really cold room so you can snuggle under the covers and sleep much better,” McCullough advises. A room that fully blocks out light can further ensure you’re maximizing restorative R.E.M. sleep. “They have shoji screens [in Japan] that fit together so tightly, hardly a crack of light comes in the room,” McCullough recalls of her usual base of operations on Asian routes. So go ahead and cocoon yourself in your suite. By the time you emerge, you’ll be more than ready to get the day started ― on local time.


United Polaris is United Airlines’ all-new business class service, featuring a reimagined, built-from-scratch experience that prioritizes sleep and rest with the goal of making jet-lagged business travel a relic of the past.


Thursday, September 29, 2016

The Power of Vision: Elon Musk and The Wright Brothers

And the naysayers nayed...

First a Tesla crashes, tragically killing its occupant/owner/"driver" while it was on autopilot

And then....

The Falcon 9 rocket exploded early on September 1, during a static flight test on its launch pad in Cape Canaveral. The rocket was preparing to launch the Amos-6, an Israeli communications satellite, but both rocket and satellite were destroyed in the explosion.

An expensive setback, for some, and the pundits were quick to jump on the feasibility-of-it-all bandwagon:

According to The Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket explosion puts NASA in a bind:

The explosion of a Space Exploration Technologies Corp. rocket during ground tests last week has added urgency to a key question for NASA: When will U.S. spacecraft be ready once again to carry astronauts into orbit?...

NASA expressed confidence that its commercial partners could transport its crews. But the agency said it was too soon to know whether spacecraft-development schedules would be affected....

If NASA's commercial crew program "experiences additional delays," the inspector general warned prior to the explosion, "NASA may need to buy additional seats from Russia to ensure a continued U.S. presence on the space station."

The Guardian, on the other hand, took a much more historically optimistic position in an article titled, "SpaceX's booms and busts: spaceflight is littered with explosions and disasters":

When NASA tried to launch a satellite into orbit, the rocket crumpled into smoke and fire. Almost 60 years later, SpaceX is feeling similarly explosive growing pains....

Musk has handled SpaceX's crashes stoically, reasoning that progress requires failures - science is messy. Nasa, for instance, has had contractors mix up metric measurements, lost a lander somewhere on Mars, and its Kepler spacecraft jerry-rigged into a planet hunter sailing on pressure from radiation off the sun.

And an industry expert took a realistic approach:

Although SpaceX is bullish about getting back to launching Falcon 9 rockets and its $10 billion worth of payloads, John M. Logsdon, a space-policy expert and historian at George Washington University's Space Policy Institute, said there will be some kind of disruption. "This will definitely affect their business," Logsdon told Business Insider.

Most importantly, to be fair to Musk, "The first time NASA tried to launch a satellite into orbit, in December 1957, the rocket made it 4 ft off the ground before crumpling into a blossom of smoke and fire. America's ambitions to catch up to Russia's success with Sputnik would have to wait."

The news of that day, back in 1957, was full of accusations, naysaying, paranoia about the Russians who were ahead of the US effort. I have even found a new clip of the mishap, here.

Needless to say, President John F. Kennedy, only 4 years later, changed the discussion by making it clear that the Unites States would land a man on the moon: "...[T]ime for this nation to take a leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth."

Musk, not missing a beat, channeled Kennedy and in an announcement a few weeks after the Falcon failure ignored the short-term issues and announced his plans for interplanetary travel, colonization of Mars and universe domination.

Let's be clear, I am a believer--big time. I am a sucker for Kennedy-type challenges and I love that Musk has taken up the gauntlet and is running with it.

Not to be outdone, other entrepreneurs and companies that represent entrepreneurialism made their own announcements about the frontiers they are conquering:

As reported by Fast Company last week, "Microsoft's 'Biological Computing' Lab Aims To Fight Diseases By Reprogramming Cells":

Microsoft's researchers don't talk about "curing" cancer. Instead, they are aiming to "solve" it. ...

In exclusive interviews with Fast Company, Microsoft's scientists provided an inside look at two ambitious projects of their own that are currently under way that treat cancer as an information system that can be programmed.

...The first is an effort to model the computational processes that happen within the cell. The second ... is the development of a tool for scientists and researchers to create their own computer models of biological systems.

Truthfully, I'd be happy if Outlook worked....

Google never misses a beat:

According to Business Insider, "This Is Google CEO Larry Page's Grand Vision For Changing The World":

Page spoke at TED about about how Google plans to connect the world by building a "worldwide mesh" of balloons. The goal is to use these balloons to provide Internet access to the two-thirds of the world living without it.

...Page also has his eyes set on driverless cars. Twenty million people or more are injured every year due to automobile incidents. It's the leading cause of death for people under 34 in the U.S. To date, Google has driven over 100,000 miles totally automated.

Google also wants more people to ride bikes. But in order for this to be safe, Google is exploring ways to cost-effectively separate bikes from traffic. In researching solutions, Page says, he came across this aerial bikeway.

And, please add to stop selling my data unless you really know that what I receive is relevant, even in some minor way.

And of course the two big disruptors were not going to be left in the cold:

WIRED reassures its readers, "Uber and Airbnb Are Making the World Better--They Promise!"

[Joe] Gebbia argued that Airbnb has compelled people to overcome their "stranger danger" bias and fear each other less.

...Kalanick sought to reinforce the idea that, by removing cars from the road, Uber is performing a critical public service. A future with fewer cars on the road, he said, improves people's quality of life and removes thousands of metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air of each city Uber conquers.

No comment....

Clearly, I have a touch of cynicism, Musk is a promoter: a showman with investors he needs to juice and an almost unlimited source of money as are the other "visionaries" I mentioned. And therein lies the problem.

The great entrepreneurs who drove the stakes in the ground that changed the world did so with little money and little support initially. They learned to improvise, to make things happen by sheer willpower. And others followed behind them building on their innovations, adding their own, and on and on.

The Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Gutenberg, Louis Pasteur, Madame Curie, the inventor of the wheel all had three things in common--focused vision, passion for what they were doing and a huge amount of serendipity, as so often the pivot was, made them successful.

And there was more. Listen:

The vision of a champion is bent over, drenched in sweat, at the point of exhaustion, when nobody else is looking. -Mia Hamm

Here is my bet. Somewhere out there--bent over, drenched in sweat, at the point of exhaustion--is someone we don't see. That person will open the universe for us in ways we have yet to imagine and frankly, I can't wait.

So for now I buy into Elon Musk's journey (which, by the way, is a partnership, let's not forget) not so much into the others. But who knows--maybe Airbnb will bring world peace, Microsoft will cure cancer and Uber will bring our environment back to Eden.

But forgive me if I keep my eyes open to help up that unknown champion.

What do you think?

Read more at The Weekly Ramble

Follow David Sable on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidSable


Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Twitter Is Reportedly In Sales Talks With Google And Salesforce

(Reuters) - Twitter Inc has initiated talks with several technology companies to explore selling itself, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday, as the social media company grapples with its slowest revenue growth since going public in 2013.

The sale negotiations will test Twitter’s value both as a data and multimedia company, as other social media services such as Facebook’s Instagram and Snapchat are expanding their footprints and developing new ways to generate profits.

CNBC reported earlier on Friday, citing anonymous sources, that Twitter is in talks with companies that include Alphabet’s Google and Salesforce.com, and may receive a formal bid soon.

Twitter and Alphabet could not be reached immediately for comment. Salesforce declined to comment.

Twitter shares rose the most since its stock market debut in 2013, up 21 percent to $22.59, giving the company a market capitalization of close to $16 billion.

Twitter has been a near-constant focus of takeover speculation amid persistently disappointing sales and user engagement. In its most recent quarterly earnings statement, Twitter’s revenue missed Wall Street estimates and the revenue forecast for the current quarter of $590 million to $610 million was well below the average analyst estimate of $678.18 million.

As rivals such as Instagram and Snapchat gain traction with advertisers and social media users, investors have questioned how long Twitter could persist as a stand-alone company.

Co-founder Jack Dorsey returned to the company as chief executive in 2015, but his plan for reviving Twitter is at best seen as unfinished.

 

(Reporting By Greg Roumeliotis and Sinead Carew in New York; Editing by Meredith Mazzilli)


Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Bud Light Hopes Amy Schumer, Seth Rogen And Beer Help You Forget This Horrible Election

WASHINGTON ― Is a beer summit with Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen what America needs to forget about this horrible presidential election for at least a moment? That’s what Bud Light has been counting on.

The best-selling beer brand in the U.S. rolled out its “Bud Light Party” campaign during the Super Bowl and ran it through Labor Day weekend, with dozens of TV and radio spots, a concert series, in-store merchandising displays, a big social media push and more.

Making two extremely popular comic actors the faces of your brand is a no-brainer for a company like Anheuser-Busch InBev, the world’s largest brewer and maker of Bud Light. But any brand that forces Americans to think about the ugly politics of 2016 is taking a big risk.

Election-themed ad campaigns are as predictable as elections themselves, and Bud Light is just one of the big consumer brands that has recently tapped into this tried-and-true idea, by playing on ideas of “choice” or people “voting” for their favorite brands. PepsiCo’s Mountain Dew, Kellogg’s Pop Tarts, Yum! Brands’ KFC, Chia Co., Expedia’s Hotels.com, Mars Inc.’s Twix, and Wakefern Food Corp.’s ShopRite Supermarkets have also used the election as a peg for ad campaigns, according to research conducted for The Huffington Post by Kantar Media.

The New York market research firm couldn’t quantify whether fewer brands are using the election or politics as a basis for ad campaigns this year. But a senior advertising executive at DDB North America speculated that some companies are likely avoiding what’s become a more taboo subject, even while Bud Light and others made the opposite choice.

Politics has grown a lot more divisive since Coca-Cola tapped Democratic strategist James Carville and Bill Frist, then a Republican senator from Tennessee, for a Super Bowl ad in 2008, or even since Carville and his wife, GOP operative Mary Matalin, hawked Maker’s Mark bourbon four years later.

“Based on the existing landscape politically, brands and companies are probably sitting this one out a bit more,” said Wendy Clark, the New York-based CEO of DDB North America, a unit of Omnicom Corp., one of the world’s largest advertising, marketing and communications agencies.

Companies like to tie their promotions to current events to tap into what people are already talking about. But they also want to avoid associating their brands with unpleasant ideas, and this presidential election certainly has plenty of those.

More than half of Americans hold negative views on both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, and two-thirds believe the country is on the wrong track, according to HuffPost Pollster. 

“You’ve got to weigh the potential upside with the potential downside,” Clark said. “In an environment that is so charged, as we’re seeing right now, I think those upsides would have to be pretty significant for you to think about going there.” 

Anheuser-Busch InBev/YouTube
Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen are the faces of the "Bud Light Party" ad campaign.

Anheuser-Busch InBev plainly sees things differently.

“We thought it was a great platform for us to then take a fake political party and come out with commentary that would make the entire conversation be significantly more lighthearted, and bring people together over a beer to have a conversation around politics and not necessarily always take it too seriously,” said Jorn Socquet, the company’s St. Louis-based vice president of marketing.

Anheuser-Busch InBev may have found the right balance. When the brewer reported its quarterly earnings in July, CEO Carlos Brito announced that the company’s internal research shows the Bud Light Party campaign helped improve consumers’ perceptions of the brand and, more importantly, led to a rise in consumer intent to buy the beer.

Yet even with a trusted brand, Bud Light took a big chance by bringing up the election, according to John Immesoete, the chief creative officer of Irving, Texas-based marketing firm Epsilon. “That just seems to get into the kind of ‘yuck’ feeling people have in general about this,” he said.

“When I do see ads or jokes that kind of go there, you kind of just wish they didn’t,” Immesoete said. “I really think both Seth Rogen and Amy Schumer ― these are really funny people that really do huge box office, a lot of people love them ― and I suppose if I was to hire them to do a funny ad campaign for beer, I don’t know that I would tie them into an election right now.”

Funny takes on the election and politics are possible ― and the ads from Bud Light, Mountain Dew, Hotels.com and others are decidedly comedic in tone ― but that’s a tough hill to climb these days, Clark said.

“Almost all brands want to have or seek to perpetuate a positive or optimistic viewpoint,” Clark said. “Let’s be honest ― there’s not much that is lighthearted right now.”

When it decided last November to roll out the Bud Light Party campaign, Socquet noted, Anheuser-Busch InBev didn’t know what course the presidential election would take or who would be the major-party nominees.

Still, the Schumer-Rogen ads touched on political issues that tend to split along party lines, including spots supporting marriage equality and equal pay for women, indicating that Anheuser-Busch InBev was willing to taking a position on controversial topics. In the end, the company counted on Bud Light’s own popularity to serve as a bulwark against any negative associations.

“Bud Light stands for the fact that we bring people together, and then even when there’s going to be potentially divisive moments in the political campaign, we will always stand for inclusivity,” Socquet said. “We were very well prepared in order not to be dragged down into any form of negativity,” he said.

If the Bud Light Party results reported by Anheuser-Busch InBev hold true, maybe Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen should’ve run on an actual presidential ticket themselves.

Alexander Kaufman contributed to this article.


Monday, September 19, 2016

Is this the END of YouTube?

YouTube has been blowing up lately with drama over "ad-friendly" content. I decided that I should take a stab at this topic, because it ties in so well with what I normally talk about in my videos and articles. Before we jump into my thoughts though, I think it would be beneficial to catch up on the story so far.

YouTubers Get Notified


The first stories that started coming out about this situation all focused on the fact that content creators on YouTube were receiving several notifications of their videos losing monetization status all at once. This led to the belief that YouTube had made some kind of change to their "ad-friendly" policies.

YouTube Responds


Then came a quick response from YouTube, which stated that nothing had changed in their policy. The changed that was made was in their notification system. They made it more reliable and created a more efficient appeal process. These notifications going out were just being made since the new system had been implemented.

Youtubers Get Angry


At this point, content creators all over YouTube start putting two and two together. YouTube had been revoking the monetization status of videos all along and not even letting the creators know! What made this even worse is that fact that several creators were able to successfully appeal their videos and regain monetization. So those videos should have never lost monetization in the first place, but since the creators had no way of knowing it has lost monetization, they were losing money all along.

YouTubers Notice Double Standards


As the drama progressed, many creators started talking to each other and communicating about who had been hit, who had been safe, who was denied their appeals, and who was able to regain monetization. Based on these conversations, it became apparent that there was no recognizable pattern or consistency to who was losing monetization or regaining it. Channels like Philip Defranco's were losing monetization for merely talking about current events, while a traditionally foul-mouthed channel like RoosterTeeth was reporting that they hadn't seen a single video lose monetization. Is it just a matter of time before other channels start seeing the hammer dropped, or is this a legitimate inconsistency in YouTube's standards?

When it comes to my thoughts on this matter, I'd like to start off by saying that agree with Philip Defranco when he says:

YouTube is, of course, well within their rights here.

There has always been censorship in the workplace. In the same way you can't mouth off to your boss on a regular basis and expect to continue receiving payment from that boss, YouTube has the right to determine the etiquette standards for getting paid on their platform. I am not saying that I believe their policies are right or proper for the current landscape of content creation, but they do have the right to set the standards however they see fit.

The one bit of the policy that I really can't get behind is the last bullet, which seems to target new channels. It states:

Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.

If they stick to their guns and enforce this, it will effectively destroy every news channel on YouTube. Those creators will either be forced to find other forms of monetization, or they will have to start censoring their news. The first option leading to less content, due to the creator spending more time establishing other forms of monetizations. The second option leading to the channel becoming just as frustratingly unbalanced as the traditional news networks we all hate.

It really all comes down to risk versus reward. Those in charge of this policy over at YouTube had a conversation about the risk of losing advertisers and the risk of losing creators. Could they get away with relaxing their policies without advertisers running for the hills? Even if they did run for the hills, would that open up the platform for more open minded advertisers to work with the content creators? By creating more firm policies, would the platform become more attractive to advertisers in such a way that the reward would outweigh the risk of losing creators to other monetization platforms like Patreon?

It's all just theory until we see it in practice. Will this cause more and more creators to rely on sponsorships and Patreon pages? Will this result in massive loses for YouTube? Will people calm down and life move forward as if this never happened? It remains to be seen. One thing is clear though, YouTube is maturing. They are making difficult decisions in the interest of seeing the platform grow and evolve. We will just have to wait and see if they have made the right decision.


Sunday, September 18, 2016

Wells Fargo CEO Blames Multimillion-Dollar Fraud On The Lowest-Level Employees

Less than a week after Wells Fargo was slapped with a historic $185 million fine to settle customer fraud allegations, CEO John Stumpf is starting to open up about the scandal.

But instead of taking responsibility for what’s been described as a “pressure-cooker sales culture,” Stumpf seems to be blaming low-level Wells Fargo employees for opening up millions of fake bank and credit card accounts and billing customers for services and products they didn’t request.

Richard Drew/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wells Fargo chairman and CEO John Stumpf, seen here in 2015, is putting most of the blame for his company's recent customer fraud scandal on some of its low-level employees.

In a Tuesday interview with The Wall Street Journal, Stumpf refused to say who was responsible for the corporate culture that regulators say led to the creation of more than 2 million deposit and credit card accounts that customers didn’t necessarily authorize.

Stumpf insisted there was nothing in Wells Fargo’s atmosphere that encouraged these practices. “There was no incentive to do bad things,” he told the Journal. 

Instead, he appeared to lay blame at the feet of what he characterized as a minority of bad employees who didn’t “honor” the bank’s culture. Wells Fargo has said that at least 5,300 employees were fired over a five-year period for “inappropriate sales conduct.”

Not everyone in the financial industry accepts Stumpf’s assertion that Wells management knew nothing of the shady practices. 

“Stumpf has clearly forgotten Harry Truman’s maxim that ‘the buck stops here.’ He’s responsible for how the org runs,” said Helaine Olen, a financial columnist at Slate and the author of the personal finance industry exposé Pound Foolish.

“It takes a particular level of what my grandmother called ‘chutzpah’ to ― when you are earning millions of dollars annually ― to turn and dump the blame on what are fairly low-paid employees,” Olen told The Huffington Post.  

Shifting the blame to employees is “an astonishing indictment of how people in power think,” she said.

“Come on...this went on for years and they didn’t smell anything in the air about fake accounts?”Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is set to grill Stumpf next week when the Senate Banking Committee holds a hearing on Wells Fargo’s fake customer accounts, has been equally dubious that the company’s higher-ups were in the dark about the sales practices. 

“Come on...this went on for years and they didn’t smell anything in the air about fake accounts?” Warren told CNN last week.

In a later appearance on CNBC’s “Mad Money,” Stumpf modified his stance somewhat, telling host Jim Cramer that “the buck stops with all of us” and “especially me.” 

Stumpf also pushed back on the idea that he should resign in the wake of the scandal, telling Cramer the best thing he can do right now is to lead the company. 

Olen and Cramer both pointed to E. Scott Reckard’s bombshell 2013 story in the Los Angeles Times that exposed the very culture Stumpf denied knowing about ― even as the practices raised in the report prompted employee dismissals. 

“From that day forward, Wells had to know it had a problem,” Olen said. “But the settlement last week did not take on any of the higher-ups, and that is concerning.”

Olen said Stumpf’s denials “could come back to bite him” if the Securities and Exchange Commission decides to investigate Wells Fargo and finds evidence that contradicts his claims.

On Wednesday, federal prosecutors said they plan to investigate the bank. No civil or criminal charges against anyone with Wells Fargo have been announced, but prosecutors have issued a subpoena for documents.

A spokeswoman for Wells Fargo declined to comment to HuffPost.

“We’ve seen that very few in the financial services sector are held to account for anything right now,” Olen said. “I find it hard to believe that if there’s already this [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] settlement, when there’s a fairly decent body of evidence saying Wells had to know about this. It defies reason that they were unaware of this.”


Saturday, September 17, 2016

Dr Vishal Sikka's Meaning of Inclusive Capitalism

Dr. Vishal Sikka
Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Infosys

Technology as the enabler and amplifier of our uniquely human ability.

The single action that I believe will make capitalism more inclusive is to embrace, rather than fear, extreme advances in technology - in particular, advances in areas such as automation and artificial intelligence.

This might seem counterintuitive: I often hear questions about these advances creating a larger gap between skilled and unskilled workers or taking jobs away entirely. But the strength of inclusive capitalism is that it recognizes resources and potential beyond those that we traditionally consider (namely capital, raw materials and machines) to enable focus on the things that make us uniquely human.

Our most valuable future resource actually lies within us - our passion, creativity and imagination. Only when we open our minds into new areas will we solve the greatest challenges of our time, developing peaceful societies, improving the health of all, creating environments in which all children thrive, enabling stronger connections between us - which ultimately drive our feeling of being responsible for one another.

These notions, and the things we need to achieve them, are uniquely human capabilities. We can leave the mundane and routine tasks to artificial intelligence and automation, freeing us to pursue new ideas, new societies, new ways of connecting with each other - the important things, the things no computer program will ever achieve. Embracing technology is precisely what I believe will unleash this human potential.

At the same time, I understand the fears. Digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence have their risks - privacy protection and cyber security are pressing issues that need to be tackled by the public and private sectors. And technology, if it is to become an amplifier of our human potential, needs to be accessible to everyone. This will only happen if all people are in a position to exploit and benefit from the incredible opportunities of technology.

I believe we can solve these issues - fear, access, knowledge - in two ways. The first is by focusing on lifelong learning, satisfying people's continual hunger to develop, rather than focusing only on formal education systems. Such systems barely scratch the surface of our potential to learn and often fail to encourage or foster that which makes us human, such as a desire to explore. Learning brings deep understanding, and with that we can see the potential in all of us, the potential to use technology as an amplifier.

The second is formal education, which must be transformed. There is little disagreement that we must change our education systems and challenge our assumptions around education, but there is much disagreement about how best to do this. I believe a simple but significant thing we can change in the education system is to include computer science as part of the core curriculum.

This would give everyone access to fundamental knowledge and skills, removing the elitism around technology and enabling us all to be part of the dialogue. It would reduce the fear of technology and of artificial intelligence taking over the world, and enable a more inclusive and open debate about how to solve challenges around privacy and other areas.

These are not easy things to do, but we must do them. We must take away the fear of what is inevitable and create the right framework for us all to benefit. That starts with embracing extreme advances in technology and creating a level playing field around understanding the power of technology. I urge all of us - in business, politics and society - to play our part and ultimately help create a more inclusive capitalism.