Saturday, March 17, 2012

Blame The Jews

No one in polite society actually says "Jews" but when the financial crisis is discussed and perpetrators criticized ... it is Goldman Sachs, Greenspan, Bernanke, Geitner, Blankfein, Cohn, Paulson, Summers, Rubin, not to mention Madoff, and so on.

And to be sure any article that allows comments certainly features plenty of blaming of the Jews.

What?  Rockefeller, Gates and Buffet had nothing to do with what is going on?  Jews control the financial world by means of a vast conspiracy?  Really?  Hasn't that been always said?  If so, how come in every other time in history economic crises turn out very badly for the Jews? How does it turn out badly for them if they are in charge? Or is this time it is different?

When Michael Lewis wrote Liar's Poker to explain just how wicked the practices were on Wall Street and the utter abuse of the USA investor, he hoped to effect some change and improvement by his expose.  He was perplexed to get an overwhelming number of letters from the best and brightest at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Yale... Christians all, inquiring as to how they could get such jobs themselves.

Getting Jews to do tax-farming has a long tradition in the West.  A Jewish face on oppression makes life easier for a Prince.

Mustn't be naive and think no Jew would so jeopardize other Jews. Just like the Irish and the Turks and the Japanese and the Bantus any other group, there are always those who will sell their own tribe down the river for fame, prestige and fortune.  And there are plenty of Jews who will gladly front the desires of the wicked capitalists who do not want to take the blame when the exploitation comes crashing down.  Where would Warren Buffet be without his Jewish bankers doing his bidding?

If it is to be different this time, how about we do not blame the Jews this time?  Let's see how the patterns and practices of capitalism are inherently evil, and reorder our patterns and practices to inhibit the concentration of power that motivates the powers that be?  Let's prove USA is exceptional.

The English threw the Jews out for 400 years (they were the first to mark Jews with a yellow star) and they had the exact same problems without the Jews.  It ain't the Jews that are the problem, it is the ideas.  And the ideas aren't Jewish, they are human.  And it is not unique to Judaism that Jews sell Jews down the river.  We all do it.  Time to admit it and withdraw our consent to be governed by the state, and engage in voluntary association.






Friday, March 16, 2012

Food Borne Illness Imports

Government Workers Make Bid For More Budget. The War Street Journal is dedicated to the expansion of the state so you can count on it to duly report anything emanating from a government office.  Here is a call for more inspectors, due to the rising "problem" of foodborne illness within imported foods.

"There's a lot of room for improvement," Ms. Schlunegger said. "We need to see more inspections, more consistent inspections."

Well, the idea that inspectors can inspect is absurd, as I have covered before.

Further, it is pretty clear the FDA taints imports itself to enhance its budget, in one of the worst cases ever recorded.

I am an importer.  If you want to deal with imported food-borne illness, then courts should view the importer as the responsible party.  See how long the problem lasts.  AS it stands now, since the government "inspects" food, people at once trust the food is safe and importers can avoid the cost of maintaining safety standards as well.  Bad results all around.  Government gets bigger and less effective.

This is similar to airlines letting the TSA handle passenger safety.  Any airline cooperating with the TSA should go out of business, bankrupt, with all of their stockholders wiped out, and the employees all losing their pensions.  They deserve it for abandoning their customers to gate-grope and 4th amendment violations.  If we had a free market, airlines would handle security themselves, and air travel would be safe.  But airlines are protected form market forces, and are bailed out like banks.

What we get now is theatre and ponzi-economics.  We need freedom.  More government is not the solution, it is the problem.


Thursday, March 15, 2012

Drakkar Pope

A small business perfume maker picked up an order from the Vatican to make a cologne for the Pope.  It has lime, verbana and grass.  Now see, I would have based his cologne on frankincense and myrrh.  I guess that is why I am not in that business...

You cannot buy any for yourself, but the owner will make cologne just for you.  I was in the Vatican once examining some of its treasures when I overheard a protestant decry the luxury of the previous popes shoes and personal articles, and how the money could be better spent on the poor.  What the complainer did not understand is almost none of these things are bought, they are donated by artisans who want to contribute what they can.

Pope John Paul II spotted a pair of Doc Martins while in New York, a white patent leather high top boot, which he liked of all shoes.  His attendants could not abide the white laces with the white boots and searched high and low to find gold laces for the boots.  Happily New York has a large gay population so there are gold shoelaces on offer.

Working largely in the gift and housewares industry, in time it dawned on me, "if you enjoy it, a homosexual was involved."  No matter what industry, you can always trace the delightful and enjoyable things to a homosexual designer as the originator.  I am not saying gays don't design anything grave or serious, I am just saying what I said.



Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Catholic Charity


1.  Did the Bishops not see this coming?  How is that possible?  If so, and they walked into a trap eyes wide open, what does that say?  If not, then are they the ones to be leading?  No wonder the Vatican keeps stressing we are heading into an era of the laity.

2. The fall back position, the position the Bishops desire to hold, is obamacare, without the mandates.  Over 800 companies and unions have exemptions ot obamacare.  Obamacare is unlikely to survive a supreme court challenge.  True Christian health care organizations do in fact have exemptions form obamacare.  The bishops want to defend a position no one else wants.  But Obamacare continues the vast money flowing into Catholic coffers.

3. I listen to Catholic radio when I drive, so I get a good cross section of the talk.  I have never heard a simple question addressed: since when can anyone take government money, but not be obliged to spend it the way the government says?    OK, plenty of criminal types engage in welfare fraud, to be sure, and incalculable amount of money is wasted in programs, but those are people knowingly doing wrong.  The bishops are arguing that they should be free to do their own thing.  That just is not going to fly.

The bishops point out carefully that if they have to leave the field for moral reasons, about 400 of their 600 hospitals will be assumed by private and government entities, and about 200, which serve the truly needy will simply shut down.  The people on the margins will die on the way to the long trip to the hospital.

Exactly.  These bishops have no idea who they are up against.  Killing off the marginal is how we save money in these tough economic times.  It is what obamacare is all about.

Now, should the church withdraw, and start over, they will find it impossible to do so due to new regs and bonds and so on.  The best the church might be able to do is invite the sisters of charity in to pick up the dying off the streets.

To have ever taken government money was a disaster.  


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Creativity Unleashed!

An artist...

Musicians.... (in English a nickname for an Ocarina is a "sweet potato"...)

Dance

No doubt each of these will inspire products...


Monday, March 12, 2012

It's a Crime If The Black Guy Does It

A couple of days ago as I was writing on the solar panel trade war, and referenced Solyndra, what jumped out at me was all of the articles centered on the outrage that Obama may have picked a winner and a Potemkin village for political reasons.  No one objected to the idea that picking winners is a bad thing for government to get involved in.

But how come it is wrong when Obama does it?  Did not Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush all do it too? (Just to name the presidents I remember...) Why all of a sudden is this a bad thing?  And remember that for a day it was a bad thing, when the next president, a white woman, does it.

In the USA we fashion laws that tend to snare blacks.  For example, cocaine use is widespread in the upper crust.  Crack is widespread in the ghetto.  Crack is made from cocaine.  To arrive at crack, extra processes are required.  If so, then how come crack is about half the price of cocaine?  Normally, the more processing required, the higher the price.  In any event, the punishment for crack is far worse than cocaine.  And when was the last time you heard of a SWAT raid on a police captain, a doctor or a lawyer?  Or even an arrest?

The processing arrives at a highly addictive version of cocaine.  A narc told tell me, from personal experience using crack cocaine, that it is designed to take every cent you have or are capable of making. It cannot kill you.  It is cheap at 10 bucks a hit.  Anyone can make $10, and he related how men said they could not believe what they would do for $10 to get a hit. Cops marvel at how nothing seems to kill a crackhead: starvation, exposure, rape and beatings.

Such a drug had to be designed.  So highly skilled scientists are involved. (Forensics would tell us who did it.)  There are billions of dollars in the business.  Therefore, there are bankers involved.  The money has to be laundered, so there are lawyers involved.    The price is stable, so law enforcement must be involved in regulating supply.  Much is written about black crime a result of blacks being inferior, therefore academia is involved.

The money for crack comes from welfare.  The narc said when welfare checks go out (now EBT cards are replenished) both Walmart and crack dealers are busy at 12:01 am processing transactions.

This is just one of very many ways in which the "criminal justice" market is segmented to harvest disproportionate amount of blacks to feed the prison-industrial complex.  And as long as slavery is enshrined in the US Constitution, it is unlikely we can begin to repent of our original sin of slavery.

In the mean time, one critical part of American culture is the option of "blaming the black guy."

To me the most objectionable part is USA is denied the good of the market competition of all those blacks rotting in prison.  A free market would have all those people employed as guards in essence enslaving blacks, otherwise occupied providing a value in the marketplace.  Free markets are a better way to go.


Sunday, March 11, 2012

It's Not About USCustoms

I was doing some research when I came across this blogpost, which was amusing.  I did leave a comment, which is "awaiting moderation" (when has anything I have to say need moderation?!) so you can read the blog post and the linnk and here is my comment:


I’ve been importing since 1974 at the small business level and have seen lots of changes. One constant is people not doing their job and then blaming others. I wrote a book on the topic and am an adjunct lecturer at San Francisco State University on the topic. I can and do occasionally fill out all of the paperwork (7501, ID Permit, and even how Customs makes the Homeland Security supplier code) required by a customsbroker to get goods into USA. So I know what I am talking about when I say get a customsbroker. I use customsbrokers. Finding an excellent broker, the best one for you, takes about an hour, but it is your job. And that test is no joy ride, only 6% of those who take it pass.
( If the value is more than say $2000, get a broker, less than that just make sure you have the supplier mail it to your home. )
Yes, I know my way around the HTS and CFR 19, and yes it is true it is difficult to get hard and fast answers, but they can be had, for a price. Or you can manage the uncertainty, which again, is your job. If the customsbroker says “well, it might be this HTS at 6%, or that HTS at 12%..” then figure the 12% in your costings, and when the entry liquidates in a year or so, you are either fine or Uncle Sam sends you a check for your overpayment. Same thing with freight, when they are not sure whether it is this or that, then pick the worse case scenario. And so on.
When you know what your product is, who your customers are, and have identified the supplier and the weights and measures and cost of the minimum production run of the supplier, then sit with the best customsbroker and have them dummy up a set of proforma documents on a shipment. (Any less info that that and you are wasting everyone’s time). The customsbroker will dummy up a set of docs at no charge. Have them show you all of the costs, worst case scenario, and their bills and anything else. From there you can figure what your need to charge your customers to make money.
I will remonstrate with customsbrokers: you do leave things out you know about. Since I am experienced, I can figure out what those are, but you need to include “outport services” or whatever else in your proforma.
Newbies: At the meeting, bug the customsbroker, “what else?” What else?’ then when the broker is done, ask them if they will sign it as a promise that is all of the charges. (They will not, but let them know you are serious.)
I will say if the person involved above found a $500 variation on costs on a full container load a deal breaker, then the margins are too tight. Also, at the small business level, FCL shipments are usually a bad idea. AS she found out, surprises are too big.
And yes, government hates small business, but that is not unique to USCustoms. They are just the messenger. The world can be a wicked place, and that is good to know. Your job is to manage things so it works for you.


Glassybaby A Great Example of ...Oooops!

I was going to continue my series on knock-offs with the example of Glassybaby, an item that has no patent or copyright or trademark, is extremely easy to copy, made of the most common materials on planet earth (silica and potash) and made in USA, is eminently knock-off-able in China, if cheap labor matters. Glassybabys have been selling since 2003.  Glassybaby has made so much money in that time that they have given away nearly a million dollars to charity, and say so on their website.  These have sold increasingly for 8 years (2003 - 2011). And even more provoking to knockeroffs, Glassybabys today are the same as Glassybabys eight years ago. This is fairly unique in the specialty business, making it far more attractive to knock off.   Most specialty businesses are changing designs constantly.  The knockoff people are "stealing" what we let go 4 years ago. What more could a company do to tantalize those knockeroffs, than provide such information freely on a product so easy to knock off?

Not only that, Glassybaby carefully explains exactly how they make their items, helpfully even providing a video to show how.  What elan! What insouciance!  Precisely the attitude of those who thrive in small business.

So my wee lesson was to be that it is eight years before the knockeroffs got to work. Those who believe their neat idea will be immediately stolen, it takes a very long time for knock-off artists to "steal" your idea.   So far so good.

Then, just to make sure, I googled "Glassybaby patent" and yielded this.  Ugggghhh...  In 2011, they seek a patent on a trademark.  Sigh.  Because the owner desires to block "knock-offs."  Ooooof...

The article has some interesting information...

The Seattle company has grown to 65 employees and more than $4 million in annual revenue. Since opening its first store in 2003, it's added two more here and one in New York City....Glassblowers are working seven days a week, churning out 200 candleholders a day to meet demand that grew 50 percent last year, the company says.


Well, let's run the numbers...   4 million in sales divided by 65 employees is about $61,500 in sales per employee.  Yikes, that is about half of where it should be by my benchmark.  Maybe most of those 65 are part timers, which would bring that in line.

They make 200 Glassybabys a day.  I doubt that figure, unless it is an average, because there are sales cycles in any business, no business is straightline.  So let's go with it as an average, and multiply 200 times 7 days a week (what?),  let's say 325 days per year (there has to be some holidays and maintenance downtime!) and come up with 65,000 Glassybabys made per year.

$4 million in sales divided by 65,000 equals $62 each cost.  But they retail for $45!  Something is not right with these numbers, and of course reporters just repeat what they are told.  Let's say they really make 40,000 per year:   Now they cost $100 each.  No way.

Since these retail for $44, let's figure wholesale for $22, and cost about $11 each to make.  From my experience in glassware, that sounds about right.  But to get to $4 million in sales, they'd be making about 360,000 of these a year.  Well, the numbers just can't be right.  No matter.

The company sued online-gift marketer Red Envelope and New York-based candle merchant Northern Lights Enterprises in early March, alleging they are selling "a cheaply made imitation" imported by Northern Lights from China." The Northern Lights website offers them at $6.49 apiece.

OK, so Northern Lights has found a market for its cheaply made glass production capacity.  Put the two glasses together and you'll see the difference. Glassybabys are a very nice piece of glass. At this point, Glassybaby can get into that cheap business or not.  (I would advise not.)   But certainly someone who pays $6.49 is not a customer of Glassybaby.  This is new business for Glassybaby if it wants it.

I can pretty much imagine what happened: One day Northern Lights got a letter from a lawyer, designed to intimidate, on behalf of Glassybaby demanding Northern Lights stop selling the knockoff.  These letters are tossed out like confetti. The people at Northern Lights had a good laugh, and ignored the letter, or even sent back a ribald response to the lawyer.

Next the lawyer took the opportunity to file a lawsuit.  Kaching!  No doubt Northern Lights is playing rope-a-dope, frustrating the plaintiff's attorney every step of the way. Kaching!  If really smart, Northern Lights is defending the case pro se.

Glassybaby founder Lee Rhodes says in a statement: "I have put my heart and soul into my business and I intend to protect it."

O dear. Music to a lawyer's ears.  The way one protects a business is to listen to customers and provide them what they want.  I very much doubt any customer ever decided not to buy Glassybabys because a knock off is available.  If Glassybaby believes this to be the case, they ought to test that hypothesis. How does it serve Glassybaby customers in trying to stop Northern Lights from using the Northern Lights productive capacity to serve the Northern Lights customers?  Let's ask someone super successful in competing on design about this question - ladies and gentlemen:  K A R L    L A G E R F E L D !!!!

When a reporter came across Karl Lagerfeld shopping for Chanel in the New York city knock-off markets, the reporter asked Lagerfeld how he felt about all of his designs being knocked off:  "Flattered" said Lagerfeld.

Lagerfeld Shopping In Knock Off District New York  via http://www.infdaily.com/
Here is Lagerfeld again being asked about knock-offs:



This is not unusual. Most successful people competing on design have no concern whatsoever about the knock-off artists.  Nonetheless, a lawsuit is filed:

The lawsuit says Glassybaby's "distinctive design... constitutes a famous trademark" and buyers will be unfairly confused by the other products, diluting the value of the company's brand.

Come on... that is just silly.  I am pretty sure nobody reading this post has any idea what a Glassybaby looks like.  And if they did, they would know the knockoff is not a Glassybaby.  Where is the problem?

But how legally unique is that design? The company was denied a trademark for the design by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in January. The PTO preliminary decision says the design "appears to be generic and incapable of acquiring distinctiveness because many other sources in the marketplace use almost identical designs for candle holders, cups and vases."


Heck, I could have told Glassybaby folks that.  And since I do business and not law, I could have told them how to make news, enhance the image and grow the business, instead of paying a lawyer.

Glassybaby attorney Robert Sulkin says he's not done pursuing a trademark.

I bet.  Kaching!

The company also has common-law protection for its design, he says, adding that the close similarity of the Chinese version shows how distinct and valuable the Glassybaby look is — "To me, that speaks volumes."

See how convoluted matters become when legal considerations take precedence over market considerations?  It does not matter what the lawyer thinks, in business it is what the customers think.  Has Glassybaby done any valid and reliable test of customer reaction to knock-offs entering the market?

I'd advise Glassybaby to institute a customer listening process, to find out what else in gift and housewares category the present customer base would ALSO buy. I would switch to wholesale only, and as the leases ran out of the retail locations, not renew.  My guess is sales have been slowing down and Glassybaby management has made the fatal error of trying to block others (who do not matter anyway) instead of grow their own business.  That is my guess.

Here is a full time working patent attorney, Stephen Kinsella, who holds patents himself, who argues we need to rid the USA of Intellectual Property Law if we expect to remain innovative and competitive.  Here is a .pdf  that is a good starting place to study his thoughts.

If you have an hour, here is a lecture...  and below a good primer book.



The book on the topic...  (although they argue for trademarks monopoly... nobody is perfect.)