Report Warns Silicon Valley Could Lose Its Edge (NYT)

By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER

SAN FRANCISCO — Silicon Valley’s economy is sputtering and risks permanently stalling, according to an annual report by a group of researchers in the region.

Part of the toll on Silicon Valley has resulted from the recession. The
region, the center of the global technology industry, lost 90,000 jobs from
the second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009. Unemployment is
higher than national levels and the worst in the region since 2005, when
technology companies were still recovering from the dot-com implosion.

The drop in the number of midlevel jobs — the engineers who drive much of
the Valley’s growth — has been sharpest. And when companies do hire, they
are cautiously hiring independent contractors instead of regular employees,
and are hiring abroad, according to the “2010 Index of Silicon Valley”
report, which was produced by the Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network and
the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, two local nonprofit groups.

Other economic indicators are also gloomy, the report found.

“We show no evidence that the recovery has arrived,” said Russell Hancock,
chief executive of Joint Venture.

One of the Valley’s measures of success — akin to the size of bonuses on
Wall Street or box-office sales in Hollywood — has been the number of
patents received and the number of initial public offerings of stock in
technology companies. Patent registrations dipped slightly in 2008, and
initial public offerings have dropped to the lowest levels since the 1970s.

Venture capital financing of start-ups sank 37 percent from 2008 to 2009.
And vacancies in commercial real estate jumped 33 percent.

The report’s pessimism is by no means the prevailing view in the San
Francisco Bay Area, where stalwarts like Apple and start-ups like Twitter
continue to pump out new products and new ideas.

“Innovation continues unabated,” even though venture financing is difficult
to raise right now, said Timothy Draper, founder of Draper Fisher Jurvetson,
a Menlo Park venture capital firm. “Moore’s Law persists, as $1,000 worth of
computer power doubles every 15 months or so, and innovators continue to
march along.”

Still, if Silicon Valley’s traditional advantages weaken, residents may no
longer be willing to put up with its ultra-expensive homes and poor public
schools, said John Kao, chairman of the Institute for Large Scale Innovation
in San Francisco.

“It’s like SoHo, which started out as a low-key, cheap place to do art, and
now it’s expensive and an artist wouldn’t go to SoHo,” he said. “It’s the
same threat here. So far people have stayed, but entrepreneurs have many
other options today.”

Even when the trauma of the financial crisis subsides, Silicon Valley will
still be at risk because of deeper, long-term challenges, the report said.

Sixty percent of the region’s scientists and engineers are foreign-born, but
foreign immigration to the region dropped 34 percent over the last year. The
home countries of foreigners are increasingly luring them back, while the
United States government’s policies have made it harder for them to stay,
the report said.

To combat the brain drain, California must do a better job educating local
students, said Stephen Levy, director and senior economist of the Center for
Continuing Study of the California Economy, who also serves as an adviser to
the annual study. “We’re not going to be able to live on global talent
forever,” Mr. Levy said.

However, 5 percent fewer high school graduates are meeting requirements for
entrance to state universities, the number of science and engineering
degrees has leveled off and state general fund spending on higher education
dropped 17 percent last year, according to the report.

The report’s authors said that green technology could be the way out of the
region’s, and perhaps the nation’s, downturn. From 2006 to 2008, patent
registrations in green technology in Silicon Valley increased 7 percent.
From 2004 to 2008, green jobs increased 24 percent.

A green Silicon Valley would be a very different place than the current one,
which was built on semiconductors and software and is now home to Web
innovators like Google and Facebook.

Factories that once made chips would have to be revamped to make solar
panels, and venture capital firms are unlikely to be able to provide enough
money to build such capital-intensive companies, Mr. Hancock said. Venture
financing of green technology companies slid 37 percent last year.

With green technology, “it’s not whiz-bang software guys in garages, but
utility-scale projects you must do with a federal partner,” Mr. Hancock
said.

Yet Silicon Valley is failing to compete as intensely as other communities
for federal stimulus grants and loans, said Emmett D. Carson, chief of the
Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

Silicon Valley’s poor economic health will affect the nation as a whole,
said Judy Estrin, former chief technology officer of Cisco Systems and
author of the book “Closing the Innovation Gap.”

“Silicon Valley is both a barometer of the rest of the country and a spark
for the rest of the country, and if we don’t protect that innovation culture
here, it’s going to be hard to sustain an innovation culture in the
country,” she said.

February 11, 2010
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/technology/11valley.html

Report says Silicon Valley economy sputtering

By BROOKE DONALD, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, February 10, 2010



economic bi-furcation

November 30, 2009

A Tale of Two American Economies

PrintShare

Nouriel Roubini | Nov 18, 2009

From the Globe and Mail:

While the United States recently reported 3.5 per cent GDP growth in the third quarter, suggesting that the most severe recession since the Great Depression is over, the American economy is actually much weaker than official data suggest. In fact, official measures of GDP may grossly overstate growth in the economy, as they don’t capture the fact that business sentiment among small firms is abysmal and their output is still falling sharply. Properly corrected for this, third-quarter GDP may have been 2 per cent rather than 3.5 per cent.

The story of the U.S. is, indeed, one of two economies. There is a smaller one that is slowly recovering and a larger one that is still in a deep and persistent downturn.

Consider the following facts. While America’s official unemployment rate is already 10.2 per cent, the figure jumps to a whopping 17.5 per cent when discouraged workers and partially employed workers are included. And, while data from firms suggest that job losses in the past three months were about 600,000, household surveys, which include self-employed workers and small entrepreneurs, suggest a number above two million.

Moreover, the total effect on labour income – the product of jobs times hours worked times average hourly wages – has been more severe than that implied by the job losses alone, because many firms are cutting their workers’ hours, placing them on furlough or lowering their wages as a way to share the pain.

Many of the lost jobs – in construction, finance, and outsourced manufacturing and services – are gone forever, and recent studies suggest that a quarter of U.S. jobs can be fully outsourced over time to other countries. Thus, a growing proportion of the work force – often below the radar screen of official statistics – is losing hope of finding gainful employment, while the unemployment rate (especially for poor, unskilled workers) will remain high for a much longer period of time than in previous recessions.

Consider also the credit markets. Prime borrowers with good credit scores and investment-grade firms are not experiencing a credit crunch at this point, as the former have access to mortgages and consumer credit while the latter have access to bond and equity markets.

But non-prime borrowers – about one-third of U.S. households – do not have much access to mortgages and credit cards. They live from paycheque to paycheque – often a shrinking paycheque, owing to the decline in hourly wages and hours worked. And the credit crunch for non-investment-grade firms and smaller firms, which rely mostly on access to bank loans rather than capital markets, is still severe.

Or consider bankruptcies and defaults by households and firms. Larger firms – even those with large debt problems – can refinance their excessive liabilities in or out of court, but an unprecedented number of small businesses are going bankrupt. The same holds for households, with millions of weaker and poorer borrowers defaulting on mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, student loans and other consumer credit.

Consider also what is happening to private consumption and retail sales. Recent monthly figures suggest a rise in retail sales. But, because the official statistics capture mostly sales by larger retailers and exclude the fall by hundreds of thousands of smaller stores and businesses that have failed, consumption looks better than it really is.

And, while higher-income and wealthier households have a buffer of savings to smooth consumption and avoid having to increase savings, most lower-income households must save more, as banks and other lenders cut back on home-equity loans and lower limits on credit cards. As a result, the household savings rate has risen from zero to 4 per cent of disposable income. But it must rise further, to 8 per cent, in order to reduce the high leverage of the household sector.

To be sure, the U.S. government is increasing its budget deficits to put a floor under demand. But most state and local governments that have experienced a collapse in tax revenues must sharply retrench spending by firing policemen, teachers and firefighters while also cutting welfare benefits and social services for the poor. Many state and local governments in poorer regions are at risk of bankruptcy without a massive federal bailout.

Moreover, income and wealth inequality is rising again. Poorer households are at greater risk of unemployment, falling wages or reductions in hours worked, all leading to lower labour income, whereas on Wall Street, outrageous bonuses have returned with a vengeance. With the stock market rising and home prices still falling, the wealthy are becoming richer, while the middle class and the poor – whose main wealth is a house rather than equities – are becoming poorer and being saddled with an unsustainable debt burden.

So, while the United States may technically be close to the end of a severe recession, most of America is facing a near-depression. Little wonder, then, that few Americans believe that what walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is actually the phoenix of recovery.

Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose
Doing Business By Respecting the Earth
Ray Anderson

Ray Anderson, founder and chairman of Interface, talks about his efforts to
transform his waste-generating commercial carpet company into one that has
no environmental footprint by 2020.  Mr. Anderson spoke at Barnes & Noble
Booksellers in Atlanta.

Ray Anderson founded Interface in Georgia in 1973.  He has been the co-chair
of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development and the Presidential
Climate Action Project.  For more, visit: rayanderson.com.

http://www.booktv.org/Program/10961/Confessions+of+a+Radical+Industrialist+P
rofits+People+Purpose+Doing+Business+By+Respecting+the+Earth.aspx

————————

Ray Anderson is founder and chairman of Interface Inc., the world’s largest
manufacturer of modular carpet for commercial and residential applications
and a leading producer of commercial broadloom and commercial fabrics. He is
“known in environmental circles for his advanced and progressive stance on
industrial ecology and sustainability.” Since 1995, he has reduced
Interface’s waste by a third, and plans to make the company sustainable by
2020.

He defines sustainability as “taking nothing from the earth that is not
rapidly and naturally renewable, and doing no harm to the biosphere.”

For instance, under his leadership, Interface seeks to reduce and then
eliminate “petroleum from its manufacturing processes.” He is pioneering
recycling efforts with nylon and polyester which “is recyclable, leading to
more closed loop technologies for the future.” However, Anderson wasn’t
always a friend of the environment. He had his epiphany in 1994 when he read
The Ecology of Commerce, by Paul Hawken, who argues that [the] industrial
system is destroying the planet and only industry leaders are powerful
enough to stop it.

Anderson is featured in the documentaries The Corporation and The 11th Hour
as well as an interview in The Day After Peace.

Ray Anderson is the author of Mid-Course Correction: Toward a Sustainable
Enterprise: The Interface Model. Inspired by Daniel Quinn’s novel Ishmael,
Paul Hawken’s The Ecology of Commerce, and many others, Ray Anderson has
successfully composed a piece that covers his personal journey towards
sustainability in his work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Anderson_(entrepreneur)

Key segments and analysis of Obama’s MIT speech

 

I want I want to thank all of you for the warm welcome and for the work all of you are doing to generate and test new ideas that hold so much promise for our economy and for our lives.

 

Note priority. Economy. Of course we need an economy, the question is, which one?

 

 

Now, Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT’s Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren’t built, but are grown — that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create — to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.

 

It’s the early part of the speech. Good ideas, but not systemiccally embedded. What of manufacturing and sdistribution costs, and converting solar to heat?

 

And it’s a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation — not just here but across America — that has improved our health and our wellbeing and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity.

 

Standard aren’t we great speech, but, as we know, it is those achievements that have got us in the climate and financial crisis, and wars.

 

 it’s the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it’s the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail — but might also change the world.

 

Are we talking love of truth, love of profit, love of fame and power? This muddling up of concepts is pure political rhetoric, looking to keep everyone happy with the speech.

 

Even in the darkest of times this nation has seen, it has always sought a brighter horizon. Think about it. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln designated a system of land grant colleges, including MIT, which helped open the doors of higher education to millions of people. A year — a full year before the end of World War II, President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped unleash a wave of strong and broadly shared economic growth. And after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, the United States went about winning the Space Race by investing in science and technology, leading not only to small steps on the moon but also to tremendous economic benefits here on Earth.

 

The payoff expected of these, land grants, GI Bill and "space race" were military and economic, in ways that created the current problems with climate. The argument here appears to be, "we did great things, and we are going to do great things." I wonder if this is to get the headline for the speech so he can deliver more critical thoughts without press attention?

 

So the truth is, we have always been about innovation, we have always been about discovery. That’s in our DNA.

 

Mixing truth, which it isn’t, innovation, which was rare and market driven, and declaring it DNA rather than character is to really muddle concepts.

 

 The truth is we also face more complex challenges than generations past.

 

Note the repeated use of "the truth is" from rhetorical level to analytic level.

 

 A medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures is attached to a health care system that has the potential to bankrupt families and businesses and our government.

 

There is also the problem of population gowth through medicine. That is, the solutions create the problems, not just economic, but sustainable. Too ugly to mention.

 

 A global marketplace that links the trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street to the factory worker in China — an economy in which we all share opportunity is also an economy in which we all share crisis.

 

So we share opportunity and crises but not profit or jobs. Correted by

 

We face threats to our security that seek — there are threats to our security that are based on those who would seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness that’s so essential to our prosperity.

 

Bu tnote that it is our security that is threatened, not our  distribution of wealth. He is trying to appeal to the wealthy, not alienate them.

 

The system of energy that powers our economy also undermines our security and endangers our planet.

 

So again security is put first, then planet. 

 

Now, while the challenges today are different, we have to draw on the same spirit of innovation that’s always been central to our success. And that’s especially true when it comes to energy. There may be plenty of room for debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels — we all understand there’s no silver bullet to do it.

 

What’s missing in that paragraph?  It is clear he is making a transition to the "we must" part of the speech.  Our success was built on waves of economic and military reality: wining the civil war, the shift toward the US after Europe died in two world wars. These are not questions of policy,b ut of historical circumstance larger than under the control of any nation.

 

 There’s going to be a lot of debate about how we move from an economy that’s importing oil to one that’s exporting clean energy technology; how we harness the innovative potential on display here at MIT to create millions of new jobs; and how we will lead the world to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. There are going to be all sorts of debates, both in the laboratory and on Capitol Hill. But there’s no question that we must do all these things.

 

This looks pretty good.  The problem is, what do we need to get there and can we get it? My view is that he leaves out, at this point, the finance community and the  control of congress through money. Let’s see how the rest of the speech deals with this,

 

Countries on every corner of this Earth now recognize that energy supplies are growing scarcer, energy demands are growing larger, and rising energy use imperils the planet we will leave to future generations. And that’s why the world is now engaged in a peaceful competition to determine the technologies that will power the 21st century.

 

Is competition the way to go? What happens to the losers How will they respond? The current corporate regime concentrates wealth continuously. What would happen to that economy in the new competition?

 

 From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation. It’s that simple. (Applause.)

 

That’s why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America. And, by the way, helping to finance extraordinary research.

 

All these projects are costly in terms of energy and transportation and materials. System effects? Who does the calculations? What if they are very discouraging? Can such analysis get into the pubic debate, and acknowledged by the White House? Alos ‘tens of thousands" Watch outsourcing of those efforts. Note that we have an unemployed of 6 million or more . Does the new economy scale up for workers, or only for owners?

 

In fact, in just a few weeks, right here in Boston, workers will break ground on a new Wind Technology Testing Center, a project made possible through a $25 million Recovery Act investment as well as through the support of Massachusetts and its partners. And I want everybody to understand — Governor Patrick’s leadership and vision made this happen. He was bragging about Massachusetts on the way over here — I told him, you don’t have to be a booster, I already love the state. (Applause.) But he helped make this happen.

 

Hundreds of people will be put to work building this new testing facility, but the benefits will extend far beyond these jobs. For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world’s newest and largest wind turbine blades — blades roughly the length of a football field — and that in turn will make it possible for American businesses to develop more efficient and effective turbines, and to lead a market estimated at more than $2 trillion over the next two decades.

 

This grant follows other Recovery Act investments right here in Massachusetts that will help create clean energy jobs in this commonwealth and across the country. And this only builds on the work of your governor, who has endeavored to make Massachusetts a clean energy leader — from increasing the supply of renewable electricity, to quadrupling solar capacity, to tripling the commonwealth’s investment in energy efficiency, all of which helps to draw new jobs and new industries. (Applause.) That’s worth applause.

 

Now, even as we’re investing in technologies that exist today, we’re also investing in the science that will produce the technologies of tomorrow. The Recovery Act provides the largest single boost in scientific research in history. Let me repeat that: The Recovery Act, the stimulus bill represents the largest single boost in scientific research in history. (Applause.) An increase — that’s an increase in funding that’s already making a difference right here on this campus. And my budget also makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent — a tax credit that spurs innovation and jobs, adding $2 to the economy for every dollar that it costs.

 

And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. John Kerry is working on this legislation right now, and he’s doing a terrific job reaching out across the other side of the aisle because this should not be a partisan issue. Everybody in America should have a stake — (applause) — everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that’s far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America — making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable — sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

 

From a technical point of view do thee initiatives add up to a real lessening of the dangers of greenhouses gases? And are the impacts on income and wealth. These all require private investment, and the biggest pile of private investment is coming from the rise in the stock market. Middle class people bought into the last bubble just before it collapsed. The more knowledgeable got out, Now as the market comes back it is the profits from the last bubble driving expansion – and a new bubble, according to Reich

 

The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are traveling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil — (applause) — we have a few of these folks here today, right there. (Applause.) The young people of this country — that I’ve met all across America — they understand that this is the challenge of their generation.

 

Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation, due in large part to the efforts of Massachusetts’ own Ed Markey, he deserves a big round of applause. (Applause.) We’re now seeing prominent Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham joining forces with long-time leaders John Kerry on this issue, to swiftly pass a bill through the Senate as well. In fact, the Energy Committee, thanks to the work of its Chair, Senator Jeff Bingaman, has already passed key provisions of comprehensive legislation.

 

None specified, hard to critique. Is he right?

 

So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it’s important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we’ll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we’re engaged in.

 

There are also the naysayers from the more progressive side, the folks that see private interest being served so that solutions cannot emerge that are not self-serving – increasing wealth concentration.

 

 There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim — make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.

 

So we’re going to have to work on those folks. But understand there’s also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we’re all somewhat complicit in it. It’s far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way progress — and that’s the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do.

 

Should the very possibility be explored? I hear from many business leaders that they think it is too late. And I hear it from scientists and technical people.  If they are acting on that surmise, what do we do?

 

 It’s pessimism. It’s the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we’re facing. And implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we’ve lost something important — that fighting American spirit, that willingness to tackle hard challenges, that determination to see those challenges to the end, that we can solve problems, that we can act collectively, that somehow that is something of the past.

 

Lots of us are right there. But the conclusion? Is there any politics that can change this? Are "interests" too powerful to yield. Historical analysis Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies suggests no. So, the next word is revolution. I hear it in private from people on all sides.

 

I reject that argument. I reject it because of what I’ve seen here at MIT. Because of what I have seen across America. Because of what we know we are capable of achieving when called upon to achieve it. This is the nation that harnessed electricity and the energy contained in the atom, that developed the steamboat and the modern solar cell. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers and this generation is no different.

 

Those were each exploitative moves in the name of empire on the large side and private wealth on the other.

 

Today’s frontiers can’t be found on a map. They’re being explored in our classrooms and our laboratories, in our start-ups and our factories. And today’s pioneers are not traveling to some far flung place. These pioneers are all around us — the entrepreneurs and the inventors, the researchers, the engineers — helping to lead us into the future, just as they have in the past. This is the nation that has led the world for two centuries in the pursuit of discovery. This is the nation that will lead the clean energy economy of tomorrow, so long as all of us remember what we have achieved in the past and we use that to inspire us to achieve even more in the future.

 

He doesn’t say how hard this will nor that the real systems innovation of late has been financial.

 

I am confident that’s what’s happening right here at this extraordinary institution. And if you will join us in what is sure to be a difficult fight in the months and years ahead, I am confident that all of America is going to be pulling in one direction to make sure that we are the energy leader that we need to be.

 

We do need to be an energy leader. In the background is China saying we can do better if we cooperate. What strikes me is the low level of rhetoric in this speech, the few real concepts, the lack of analysis – and this is MIT! And the core word is "fight".

 

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Soros sets some pace

COPENHAGEN Reuters – Billionaire George Soros said on Saturday that he would invest $1 billion in clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change.The Hungarian-born U.S. investor also announced he would form and fund a new climate policy initiative with $10 million a year for 10 years."Global warming is a political problem," Soros told a meeting of editors in the Danish capital where governments are scheduled to meet in December to try to hammer out a new global climate agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

"The science is clear, what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem," he said, according to a brief email statement.

but, defining it as a apolitical problem implies that politics – or green energy – can solve the problem. Way too narro for he current understanding.

via Soros aims to invest $1 bln in green tech| U.S.| Reuters.

the real struggle with health care is the cannibalism between health and other businesses. Business claims health takes too much, health wants to expand what it takes. Note, there is no reference to health in this struggle.

An economy in real decline (especially when environments are  included along with bad distribution of incomes) will lead people to struggle at the gutter level for scraps. This is completely inevitable with a  culture that stresses money wealth as core value.

Only careful attention to the quality of the whole culture can prevent this scrambling at the margins, and into the core.