What is the Opposite of "Creative Destruction?"

Live by the (Innovation) Sword, Die by the (Innovation) Sword

To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

--Isaac Newton

First, there was the original kind of destruction, "destructive destruction": things like wars and earthquakes and other scourges that have always afflicted mankind, without anyone noting silver linings.

Then, in the 1940's, economist Joseph Schumpeter posited a beneficial form of destruction, "creative destruction," i.e., the notion that undergirding capitalism's success is a continual process of technological innovation, by which newcomers oust entrenched incumbents -- only to be displaced themselves eventually.

So, just as department stores like Montgomery Wards and Sears supplanted mom-and-pop retailers, Wal-Mart later supplanted Wards and Sears.

Two More Strains

But, in a world of Newtonian "equal and opposite reactions," two more strains of creative destruction logically must also exist: 'creative construction,' and 'destructive construction.'

The latter is best exemplified by so-called "bridges to nowhere": expensive, unnecessary public works whose only legacy is greater national debt.

The opposite of that would be worthwhile public projects, whose benefits more than outweigh their costs.

Best examples of the latter?

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which helped electrify the Southeast; Eisenhower's interstate highway system in the 1950's; and a little project initally underwritten by the Defense Department, now called "the Internet."

Tra . . dish . . .on. . . Tradition!!

Jewish New Year Tie-Tying

A longstanding, Kaplan family tradition got passed down today -- kind of.

To get ready for synagogue, my 10 year-old son needed to put on a tie. A real tie.

While I was upstairs fumbling with mine . . . he looked up how to do it on the Internet, and did it himself!

"Made 'Ya Look" Marketing

The Real Point of Online Photos

Real estate photography, as it's currently practiced, reminds me of the joke about two hikers who encounter a Grizzly in the woods.

The first hiker thinks he has to outrun the Grizzly. The second, smarter hiker realizes that his task is to . . . outrun his companion.

So, too, the object of online photos of a given property is not to get you to buy the property. Even at the peak of the housing market, in the hottest locales, very few people were buying, sight unseen, purely on the strength of online marketing materials (and 100% of those likely regretted it).

If the point of marketing photos isn't to sell a home, then what is it?

To get you in.

It's axiomatic that if you don't tour a property, you're not going to buy it. And if you don't see it in person, there's no chance for you to fall in love with the amazing built-in's, the cozy Kitchen nook, or the lovely gardens in back. (And no chance for the listing agent to engage with you -- or your Realtor -- about what you're looking for, your budget, time frame, etc.)

Unfortunately, simply getting prospects in to a home only to be disappointed once they get there is to win the battle, but lose the war.

In my experience, the single best way to sell a home is to exceed a Buyer's expectations.

Getting a prospect in to a home using borderline false pretenses is guaranteed to sow disappointment (if not anger).

That reaction is the opposite of the mindset that leads to a deal.