Online Statistics Course

Seattle Teachers’ College Introduces New Online Course: Introduction to Statistics

Seattle Teachers’ College has a program that makes it easy to take high-quality, noncredit online courses. Seattle Teachers’ College has partnered with ed2go to offer hundreds of online, instructor-led courses and is pleased to announce the launch of "Introduction to Statistics." 

Participants in this course will learn to apply basic statistical procedures to data and understand how to use this information to make better decisions. They'll gain techniques to summarize and describe data with charts, numbers, and graphs; see how to calculate and interpret probabilities; and grasp the basics of statistical inference. 

This course is part of Seattle Teachers’ College’s growing catalog of more than 300 instructor-facilitated online courses. Through well-crafted lessons, expert online instruction, and interaction with fellow students, participants in these courses gain valuable knowledge at their convenience. They have the flexibility to study at their own pace combined with enough structure and support to complete the course. And they can access the classroom 24/7 from anywhere with an Internet connection. 

New sessions of each course run every month. They last six weeks, with two new lessons being released weekly (for a total of 12). The courses are entirely Web-based with comprehensive lessons, quizzes, and assignments. A dedicated professional instructor facilitates every course; pacing learners, answering questions, giving feedback, and facilitating discussions. 

You can enroll for this course here...

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Medicine in America - You Suffer So Others May Be Rich

No one went to prison for what the Centers for Disease Control did to Americans of some African ancestry with the Tuskegee experiments.  Medicine in USA is wide open for charlatans, scam artists, snake oil salesmen, etc, because we have foolishly replaced caveat emptor with an FDA and a CDC.

Today it is much worse than in the 1970s, when the CDC was running the Tuskegee experiments.  See how "consultants" create panic for a medicine, and then clean up when congress pays off big time big pharma.

The Los Angeles Times breaks a scandalous story of a Pentagon advisor who lined his own pockets while creating an imagined scenario where currently available antibiotics would be ineffective due to germ resistance, requiring a back – up plan – a multi-million dollar drug that has cost $334 million so far. The developed drug, raxibacumab (for short, raxi) costs $5100 per dose, according to the LA Times report.Called "a horrible conflict of interest," the scaremonger served as advisor both to government and the developmental drug company, taking money from both sides by conducting seminars that government health authorities attended and gaining fees from the drug company as well. Pentagon authorities say they knew nothing about the consultant’s conflict of interest. The developmental drug company eventually sold to a Big Pharma company for $3.6 billion and the consultant, who had purchased 3000 shares, must have reaped a giant gain.

Never mind there is already an effective, cheap, plentiful cure for anthrax called a bacteriophage.  Problem is, you cannot patent a bacteriophage (a virus that eats anthrax and is found naturally in pond scum, etc.)   If you cannot patent it, it cannot be monopolized, so you cannot rip taxpayers and consumers off at the point of a gun, the operative heart of "intellectual" "property" "rights."

Think in terms of doctors who still use maggots to clean up a nasty wound, since it is faster, cleaner than drugs and devoid of side effects.  And for a perfect example of USA medicine in practice, let's listen to a doctor who uses maggots:

"After two or three failures of conventional medical or surgical therapy, maggot therapy should be considered for non-healing wounds, especially those which are infected or contain dead tissue [gangrene]," said Ronald Sherman, a doctor at the department of pathology at the University of California at Irvine.

Excuse me doctor.  If maggots always work, and the conventional surgery or medicine does not, why not always use what works?  The reason is BigPharma first, patients second.  People who find that offensive do not go into medicine.  People who think that is just fine, do go into medicine.  It is a downward spiral (or upward spiral from the point of view of bigpharma.)

And never mind, like the cure for syphilis denied the victims of the CDC experiments of the 1970s, we've known about bacteriophages for a very long time.  Google bacteriophage and anthrax.  Here is a study from the 1960s.  Note the Slavic surnames.  Under Communism, there are no "intellectual" "property" "rights."  There is no capitalist abuse of consumers.  (There's communist abuse, but hey, that's for another day.)    So with no need to play the patent game, bacteriophages, a cheap, effective, plentiful antidote to anthrax was developed.

Slate magazine did an article on Georgian cures -

 New antibiotics are being discovered. But it takes 10 years and at least $800 million to bring an antibiotic to market, according to theInfectious Diseases Society of America. 

It takes neither ten years nor $800 million.  That is just one of those "moral panic" nonsense figures, never substantiated anywhere, ever, that is repeated in article after article.  So people believe it.  BigPharma may SPEND 800 million, and what with paying off the people who "oversee" bigPharm, expenses can add up.

There are two ways that phages are currently used in the former Soviet Union, and both pose problems from the point of view of the Food and Drug Administration. At the Tbilisi phage center, phages are personalized: You send your bacterial sample to the lab, and it's either matched up with an existing phage or a phage is cultured just for you. In the United States, by contrast, drugs are mass produced, which makes it easier for the FDA to regulate them.

I've been saying for years this will happen, cures will be tailored to you, and since that will not make money for bigPharm, it will not be allowed by the FDA.  The FDA protects big Pharma.  The way to solve the problem FOR the FDA is to get rid OF the FDA. Under communism, good medicine is allowed.

Phages are also sold over-the-counter in Georgia. People take the popular mixture piobacteriophage, for example, to fight off common infections including staph and strep. These phage mixtures are updated regularly so they can attack newly emerging bacterial strains. In the United States, the FDA would want the phages in each new concoction to be gene sequenced, because regulations require every component of a drug to be identified. To do so would entail prohibitively expensive and lengthy clinical trials.

Exactly.  Every pharmacy on every corner whips out a cure for what has broken out in the neighborhood.  Your local pharmacy has everything it takes to eliminate and anthrax outbreak.  But prison and ruin awaits any pharmacist who would do what is common in Russia here in USA.

In communist Russia, good medicine was common.  IN capitalist USA, you will go to prison after being swat-teamed, if you survive that.

Using phages to treat infections at home, on the other hand, for the moment seems unlikely. One company recently tried to open a phage center in Tijuana but was deterred by the Mexican government. Phages might be offered someday at clinics on Native American reservations, as a casinolike quirk of legislative autonomy. But for now, U.S. patients at a loss for options may decide that Tbilisi is close enough.

A yes, USA and Mexico have such an interesting relationship vis a vis drugs.  The Indian reservation is a possible option.  Are Indian reservations USA's Hong Kong?

Although the Soviets, (Georgians today) have had the anthrax cure all along, A Rockefeller outfit "discovered" the cure in 2002.  The point is, all of the shenanigans outlined in the LA Times story above occurred well after 2002.  Like the Tuskegee experiments, we are not told there is a cure when we are being abused by the government medicine authorities.

There was once a huge and powerful government agency called the (ICC) Interstate Commerce Commission.  It was created in 1887.  By the 1970s it was probably the most powerful government agency, controlling the movement of anything.  My favorite president, Jimmy Carter, set in motion deregulation that eventually led to its elimination.  It is gone now.  After it disappeared there was tremendous improvement in transportation in USA, we got more better cheaper faster.  President Reagan enjoyed the delayed benefit from President Carter's action, and Reagan got the credit.  (Most people who adore Reagan do not realize the reason they do is for the benefits Carter bestowed on Reagan.)

Getting rid of the ICC brought tremendous benefits to USA.  If we were to deregulate medicine, and get rid of the FDA, we'd see a comparable economic recovery and a renaissance in medicine.  But we live in a capitalist regime right now, and if there is any initiative to make changes, the IRS will target you and the government-controlled media will vilify you.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Apple And Taxes - Here We Go Again

Corporations cannot pay taxes.  Only end users can pay taxes.  When you buy an Apple product, you pay all of Apple's taxes.

A report released ahead of Apple CEO Tim Cook’s inaugural Capitol Hill appearance Tuesday alleges the tech giant took advantage of numerous U.S. tax loopholes and avoided U.S. taxes on $44 billion in offshore, taxable income between 2009 and 2012 — a characterization Apple flatly rejects.

Apple follows the law on what taxes it does pay.  If Apple was obliged to pay more taxes, you would simply fork over more money to Apple who would fork it over to Uncle sam.

The congress that wrote the rules to get companies like Apple to behave the way they do now wants to punish Apple for behaving along the lines indicated by the tax code.

It has begun.  If you have a paycheck, a pension or property (such as a company) you are screwed in USA for at least the next thirty years.

Better get self-employed.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Supreme Court Monsanto Decision - Farmers: Get Big or Get Out!

The Indiana farmer fighting Monsanto for the right to use seeds he bought from a third party lost his Supreme Court case.

In a unanimous decision, the high court sided with Monsanto Co. in a dispute with an Indiana farmer who sought to cut the planting cost of his soybean crop by relying on subsequent generations of Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready soybean seed.

The case is about patents, and I have no sympathy for any farmer desiring to grow Monsanto FrankenFoods.    But the case has interesting aspects which may be instructive.  

The company developed a genetically-altered strain of seed that is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. Monsanto sells the new seed under a licensing agreement with farmers that permits its use to grow one crop for sale or consumption.

So you see, there is patent law, and contract law.  Patent law says Monsanto “owns” the seed, and as the owner, Monsanto writes a contract, terms and conditions of sale. 

The company explicitly bars farmers from using the resulting crop to seed future cultivation. The 20-year patent is designed to ensure that Monsanto reaps the rewards of its invention and innovation, and to provide an incentive for more innovation.

OK, that is terms and conditions, the contract.  (Why anyone would repeat the nonsense about “rewards and incentives” I do not know, but that is journalism today.)  That may be fine in the contract, but the farmer bought the seeds in question from a legitimate 3rd party.  

But rather than pay the higher price for Monsanto’s seed, Mr. Bowman purchased soybeans from a grain elevator and used them to seed his second crop of the season.

So there is the problem.  He complied with the contract, and then formed a new one with a grain elevator operator.  A straight purchase and sale of the seeds, out of another channel of distribution.  This would be like buyer a John Wiley  Company Textbook that is $400 in USA in Thailand for $25.  The Supreme Court ruled well on this one, it is allowed.

But not in the Monsanto case. There was no contract with Monsanto at this point. The grain elevator operators stored the seeds to be used to make tofu or flour or soy ink or whatever.  But enterprising farmers figured the seeds could be used to grow crops.  They were right.  Grain elevators operators were selling product they owned.  There was no contract that said they could not.  Farmers were getting a deal.  That would be free trade. Capitalism cannot allow free trade.

“Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium,” Kagan wrote. “But it was Bowman, and not the bean, who controlled the reproduction (unto the eighth generation) of Monsanto’s patented invention.”

Note the biblical flourish by Kagan.  The implication that Bowman was some evil genius.  And note the product placement in the Supreme Court decision.  Nice work!   But to the point, no, Bowman was doing what countless farmers have been doing, and that is getting around a stupid law.  Bowman could not afford all of these cases, no doubt this case was representing countless farmers.  For Monsanto, Kagan had to devise and execute a ruling that paid off for Monsanto and Big Ag.

Kagan emphasized that the decision was limited and could not be extended to every patent lawsuit concerning a self-replicating product.

This ruling was for Monsanto only!  Don't expect similar results if your case comes up.

“We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse,” she said. “In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose.”

“We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances,” Kagan wrote.

Here here, 9-0.  Monsanto gets its own special ruling.

Now, the real point of patent protection is if farmers work around stupid laws, they can be sued and judgements levied.  If the farmer refuses to pay the judgment, the courts will attache his property if he refuses to give up, he will be arrested  If he resists arrest, he will be met with necessary and sufficient force to gain compliance (at this point, he has lost all sympathy from the audience glued to their TV sets watching the nutter defend his farm.)

If he resists beyond what the police think they can handle (or by this point the FBI) he will be killed.  You see, patents are enforced ultimately by violence, and you and I pick up the bill for compliance for Monsanto.

So Monsanto takes out patents.  Monsanto also uses contract law (which is necessary and sufficient to the task of rewards and incentives).  But no where is Monsanto using marketing to advance its business.  It does not need to.  The economics of capitalism mean inevitably Monsanto and the banks will finish the task of mass collectivization of USA agriculture once articulated by Sec of Ag Earl Butts, “”The agriculture policy of the United States is get big or get out.”

That was 1972.  Monsanto has been a big winner in that policy, and small farmers the losers. The Supreme Court agrees with Monsanto.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Farrakhan on Detroit

You see in Detroit what a downward spiral state intervention n an economy can do.  Motown was doing fine until it began to get protections and subsidies.   The made for a temporary increase in revenues, and that led to malinvestment, misallocation and the public service employees benefits that now have broken the finances of the city.

Detroit could go back to a world class automobile center for the reasons it became one in the first place.  But the claims of all of the retirees on any future activity in Detroit mean there is no hope for one side or the others. Either the retirees' pensions must be repudiated or the hopes and dreams of creative, freedom loving people must be denied.  Yet, if the hopes and dreams of creative, freedom loving people must are denied, those pensioners will be repudiated anyway.

The way forward would be to form on the peninsula upon which Detroit resides a special economic zone in USA such as China has in Hong Kong.  It would take leadership to accomplish this.  Perhaps that leader has stepped forward.

Louis Farrakhan has called on Christian preachers of some African heritage in Detroit to join him in restoring Detroit.

“The city abandoned, crime and violence rampant, and the governor has seen fit to take away the rights of the voting public,” Farrakhan said, referring to putting someone in charge of the city’s finances that wasn’t elected. “I don’t know what democracy really means if you can be given the right to vote and then somebody can take it away.”

Farrakhan may be barking up the wrong tree.  Are Negro Christian pastors leaders?  Or are they too compromised?

Miss Sanger developed a strategy called “The Negro Project.” That strategy sought to employ black professionals and preachers to aid in the extermination black people. Sanger said:
“[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I would not limit doubtful leadership to negro Christian pastors, I think the people of Detroit would be hard pressed to find any Christian pastors who have no been bought and paid for.

On the other hand Detroit has remarkable private initiatives that directly replace the odious "public services" that have destroyed Detroit:

There never was an rational argument for city provided police protection, but now that the city cannot provide police protection, private individuals are offering superior service -


Another crazy idea is that a city would provide transportation.  Now that Detroit cannot, entrepreneurs have stepped in to fill the gap.


There is actually an org called Detroit Black Food Security Network such is the fear of being short of food.  Well, private companies again...


Farrakhan is a separatist which makes him an ideal for a movement to separate Detroit from USA.  Given the crazy racist comments on the article above mentioning Farrakhan, maybe enough American would welcome a separate Detroit.  But if Farrakhan wants to revived Detroit, he should ally with people who produce, the small business people who can create a replacement for the government that destroyed Detroit.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Customs Rulings

When importing, here is a site that may provide some insights:

http://rulings.cbp.gov/

Just type in say "pecans" and you get all sorts of past problems and decisions regarding the item.  Also, you get the HTS number named, and find out there are two numbers for macadamia nuts, prepared and plain.

***John Spiers will be offering an all-day seminar on small business international trade start up at Orange Coast College, Los Angeles Area, June 29, 2013.  Full info here...***

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Rabbi Levine, I Mean Lapin

When I was growing up in Seattle, there was the ubiquitous Rabbi Raphael Levine in all forms of media, bringing a Jewish perspective to current events.  Today there is Rabbi Daniel Lapin, whose focus is on business.  When I try to recall his name, Levine pops up first.

Anyway, the bible is full of business advice, and the good Rabbi shares this in a newsletter this week:

The Israelites beseech their new king to lower taxes.  He responds by instructing them to depart for three days and then return. And he (Rehoboam) said to them: “Go away for three, days then return to me…” (I Kings 12:5) Clearly, he had no intention of lightening the yoke.  When they return three days later, he tells them that he is going to increase their burden significantly.  Since he already knew what he would say, why did he send them away for three days, rather than immediately giving them the bad news? Ancient Jewish wisdom explains that King Rehoboam recognized that the Israelite delegation was presenting an ultimatum.  They approached him as potential rebels.

It is an interesting explication of negotiation.  You can sign up for his weekly blurb here...

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Will China Skip IPR? All Hail Fucheng County!

"Intellectual" "Property" "Rights" has been an unmitigated disaster in the West.  The Chinese are toying with the idea of shooting themselves in the foot with this disastrous regime, but sometimes we see glimmers of hope.  For example, PLU stickers come to Fucheng County!

China has a terrible PR (public relations) problem for its goods within China.  The problem is solved by simply adding traceability labels.  Once one adds a traceability label, then a trade mark is pointless.

Trade marks are one of the sillier "intellectual" "property" "rights" but yet one that people who thoroughly reject copyrights and patents sometimes argue in favor.  Inscrutable.

Meanwhile, back in the states, Inc Reports:

Just two months after several provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) went into effect, the House Committee on Small Business met to evaluate how it's been doing. 

As fewer small businesses seek patents for services, it's beginning to look like the act might have offered too little, too late. 

Maybe they are wising up.

Patents also give small businesses a "powerful foothold" when they "may not yet be able to fully realize the market potential of their product or service," said Dennis Crouch, a law professor at the University of Missouri. 

Prove it.  You'd think by now someone, somewhere would provide evidence patents do what they say they do.  Marketing gives a foothold, not violence backed regime.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Internet and Freedom

Dr. Gary North has very interesting essays, and more interesting when I disagree...

Never in history has there been such an avalanche of information. It is not coordinated by any central institution. Its lack of coordination is the central fact of modern times. The Internet was designed to produce this, and that is what the Internet has produced. The larger the Internet gets, and the more it penetrates into the lives of people around the world, the less possible it is for any one source of information to influence the thinking of all those people who are connected to the Internet.

His conclusion is the internet will benefit free markets because google cannot tell us what to think.  here is the problem...  there is no more info today that at any other time in history, because people have X amount of info-processing ability. In Roman times, they had brains full of memorized things, their version of google, and they paid attention to stars and omens and even had a government office to study the flight patterns of birds for info.

People are slow to realize that when I get google results and you get google results, we get different google results?  Why, google tailors the results to our google patterns.  They want to make a buck.  The more they know about our searches, the more they tailor our results.

And once they know your predilections, they more they send you info that compliments your predilections.  In fact, you are being told what to think.  And here is the hard part, most people do not mind, because they have never had the experience of finding joy as a byproduct of suffering.  They just want to avoid the pain of thinking for themselves.

Dr. north is making, I think, a common mistake, and that is to think the internet has changed anything.  It has lowered the cost and widened access to research and communication.  It has done nothing for the quality of the content of either, and to say it will effect our freedom, I don't think so.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

eMail Exchange: Error of Organizing Around a Resource

An email inquiry:

I have a good friend who is from overseas but lives here in USA now for past 13 years.  One of her cousins is married to the owner of a food company overseas.  The company is 60+ years old and exports to Europe, Asia and Africa but not to the US.  She was visiting them in their country recently and asked the owner why he doesn’t pursue the US market and he said he didn’t need the market and didn’t speak English.  She asked him if she could pursue the US market for his food products and he said sure, no problem. His company does about euro 30 million in sales with multiple production facilities throughout the home country.   

My friend asked me to partner with her on this venture of introducing their food products to the US. 

I think we could approach this opportunity as follows:

-          Need exclusivity with the company to be their only agent in the US.  I believe the owner would be agreeable to this.

-          Rather than import the products ourselves, we would seek out importers/distributors of Fancy foods here in the US that are interested in the products they have.

-          Either the importer or the company would pay our company (my friend and myself) an agency fee of 10% of all revenue they generate from the US.

I believe this could be a good opportunity but not sure how to proceed. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.

*** My answers are in between the ***    ***

My friend asked me to partner with her on this venture of introducing their food products to the US. 

I think we could approach this opportunity as follows:

-          Need exclusivity with the company to be their only agent in the US.  I believe the owner would be agreeable to this.

***It would not do you any good...  if and when the product was popular, any one could get around that... it is called grey market...Exclusives never work in international trade.***

I perused your book last night and I remember how exclusivities are worked around.  In this case, one of the buyers of the  food product in let’s say Germany could then export some to the US.  Is that what you mean? 

***Yes. one way or another.***

-          Rather than import the products ourselves, we would seek out importers/distributors of such foods here in the US that are interested in the products they have.

-          Either the importer or the company would pay our company (my friend and myself) an agency fee of 10% of all revenue they generate from the US.

***Why?  What value would you be providing that would warrant 10% of the action?  An introduction?  Neither side would consider that fair, and not agree. 10% is probably his net.  Although having an export price no different than a domestic price will obviate the need for exclusives, if he gives you 10% he is essentially managing his operations and expanding production to meet USA demand for no compensation.  Why would he do that?***

I believe this could be a good opportunity but not sure how to proceed. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.

***You get paid for contribution, and nothing else.  Can you name what you would contribute?***

Reply - 

I understand what you are saying and my answer would be that we are contributing the work to get his company into the US.  He has indicated to my friend that he doesn’t want to get involved with the headache of getting his company selling into the US market.  We (my friend and I) are taking on that headache for him 

So, he is not interested in devoting any of his time to pursuing the US market, so if we do that for him it is like a new revenue source for him that he doesn’t need to chase after.  We do the chasing (finding US importers/distributers interested in his products) and for that he pays us...

***Since he has no interest in pursuing the US market himself, you are saving him nothing.***

and for that he would hopefully be willing to forego 10% of his profit margin.  No terms have  been discussed with him, I have not met him yet.

***Above you said 10% or revenue and now you are saying 10% of profit margin. What is the difference?  Say the revenue is 10 million, then 10% of revenue is one million.  If by profit margin you mean gross profit, and that is 50%, then 10% of 5 million, or 500,000.  If you mean net profit margin, and the net is say $150,000, then you are talking about $15,000.  Gotta get the terms straight.  No one is going to give you 10% of revenue.  No one is going to give you 10% of gross profits.  10% of net profits is not enough for all of the work you’d need to do.  Better to start your own company and earn all of the net for yourself.***

He told my friend he would send 50K worth of samples.  Maybe he wants us to be the importers and distributors and he just takes big orders from us.  I am really not interested in that, too risky.  I want to find the buyers and then have them go directly to the company to place their orders.  

***Risk is not the issue because entrepreneurs never take risks.  The question is what work do you do that warrants any income?  $50k in samples does you no good.  You need orders, customers, not samples.  Yes, he wants you to be the importer, and he just takes big orders, becuase that is how the business rationally works.

I think the toughest problem would be how come this product is not already selling in USA?  To say he has not tried is one-sided.

1.  Ask him if he has ever received inquiries for his products form USA, and if so, how did he respond.

2.  You have a hypothesis that there is business here. Find your customers first: get samples and pose you hypothesis - "I believe if I introduce this to you, you will buy through me and build good business with it in USA (or whatever your hypothesis is).  Am I right?"

Test your hypothesis before you put a minute or a dime into this....***

My hypothesis is that importers of Fancy foods in the US would want to sell this food once we approach them with the idea (and samples to taste).

***Then  test exactly that.  It would cost you nothing to walk into Fancy food importers with samples and say “taste this and tell me if you would want to sell this in USA.”

I don’t think you’d need to do that more than a dozen times to get your answer.

DO NOT spend $20,000 on a booth at a trade show to get the answer you can get for free.

The fundamental error here is “organizing around a resource, that is $50,000 in samples.  You ought to organize around the opportunity, the customers.  What customers?  Your customers.  Customers for what you should be trading in, unique to you, that no one else does like you do.***

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post