Saturday, August 4, 2012

Unregulated Medicine


On Aug 4, 2012, at 5:19 AM, A.M. A. wrote:

You didn't answer the question. Who's the good, better, best person to renconstruct my knee. Where did they learn.



Who's the good, better, best person to renconstruct my satellite receiver? Where did they learn?  School, apprentice, assistant, reputation and renown.

How did I become the worlds foremost authority on small business int'l trade?  The above.  So it is with candy, modelling oil fields, astrotelegraphy, and simple shit, like knee rebuilds.

And did you know the most advanced field of medicine is reconstructive surgery, because it is almost impossible to regulate  (smashed-up and deformed bodies are far more challenging for lack of precedent than a mere common cancer), the vast bulk of the work is elective so not covered by insurance, and massively dynamic pricing as you have Michael jackson paying a million for a new nose while the same doctors will fix a cleft palate for a couple of hundred bucks.

Unregulated medicine is best.

John



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


Diversification


On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:42 PM, A.M.A. wrote:

 I get how deep unregulation works in say education and law. This is a no brainer. Hw about medicine. I don't know how this works. Like who do I choose to say ...

***I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the auto industry.  There is the engineering of the car.  There is the extraction of the raw materials and all of the processing to get materials for making parts.  There is the oil industry to create the fuel and lubricants.   These things come together to make cars.  then there is the dealership network, with their repair sections.  then there is the service stations and all of the specialists to keep the cars running.  Maaco for transmissions. Les Scwab for tires and brakes.  Auto detailers to refurb interiors. Japan only and German only auto rebuilds.  then the body shops, painters.  And so much more.

Better way to thing about it is "mmmm chocolate.  Oooo Godiva." End of story.  Same as "eeeek anthrax!"  "Ooooo... Bob's better bacteriophages."  Why do we have to think of medicine in such universal terms?  Why not think of terms of coffee in coffee shops, beer in taverns, bottled water from a spring?  Why not allow medicine to be completely unregulated so that friend with cancer can go to the corner drug store and get a cure $29.95, over the counter?  the reason we can't is we are conditioned to think of medicine as one thing, to be dealt with as an integrated whole.  just as you note, no one brain can wrap around the totality.  All of the politicians and supreme court justices (I repeat myself) and bishops (there I go again) cannot wrap their brain around solving the problem of "health care."  The minds of a couple of thousand cannot replace the brain power of billions of decisions everyday.

If Odetta makes money doing up people with cornrows she can be jailed.  How is it anyone's business except Odetta and her client?  If Bob is shooting up people with bacteriophages how is it anyone's business except Bob and his client?  But but but!  Anthrax is contagious!  How do we know Bob's bacteriophages are human grade?  What if Bob misfeases? In a free market we can imagine besides Bob there is a company who earns fees forensically tracking who Bob's patient had contact with and notifies them of the exposure.  People will pay to find out if they should be treated.  Yelp will tell the world about Bob's efficacy.    Bob's insurance company will be inspecting him regularly to assure they never have to pay out on any claims.  And businesses yet will emerge for which we have no inkling.

And note, no Government needed.

You don't need to know how it works.  None of us does. In a free market on a hot day a guy with a cooler full of chilled beer just shows up right on time. And another guy with Tamales.  Right on!  We can stay here in the park and enjoy the day. In a free market like Hong Kong.  But not in USA


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


Self Employment & Self-Actualization

Regulations are designed to keep some people out of a given field, and to herd people as customers into those providers.  It is a discouraging system, in which very many people default to "finding a job."  From there they are living a series of compromises, a narrow range of choices that in one way or another contribute to the hopes and dreams of someone else.  So what?  Doesn't a merchant do the same thing?

Work both unifies and creates.  If you take a job, you are necessarily tasked with a narrow range of activities that serve the purposes of an employer.  Whatever your range of capabilities, your employer does not want you to do your own thing, set your on schedule, and use your own judgment in meeting the needs of the customers.  You employer wants you to know the product line and the policy manual, and stay within procedures.  Even within a company like Apple or Google, your freedom is woefully constrained.  Your creativity is compassed, and your ability to fully engage in the needs of those whom you encounter is narrowed to the product range of the business for which you work.  I will say businesses pay employees a very high wage for so very little of what you have to offer.

With self-employment every fiber of every aspect of your life, your body, your mind, your spirit is taxed to the breaking point as you being all you have to bear on the problem your customer is experiencing.  Self-employed,  you unite with your customer and create what is needed.  And self-employment is a process in which your work is the medium where you ever improve your ability to create things that ever more please customers.  Change is constant as you get better at pleasing a wider range of people.

Self-improvement is a popular category in publishing, with whole sections of self-improvement books, quotes self improvement, improvement quotes, and so on.  There is no better situation in which to pursue self-improvement than in self-employment given that all improvement is in relation to your ability to relate to others, and business is about unifying and creating in service to others.

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


Friday, August 3, 2012

How Obama Is Right On Business Success

What a strange controversy over Obama's comments.  AS is usually the case, the more controversial, the more he is right.

First off, we do have a tightly managed economy, which is why it is in such a mess.  It is no secret that the powers that be through taxes and regulations and subsidies picks winners and losers.  How does anyone think Solyndra managed to burn through billions?  Or Washington Mutual?  Or Google?

Here is Peggy Noonan mocking Obama:

"How about that Michael Phelps? But let's remember he didn't win all those medals, someone else did. After all, he and I swam in public pools, built by state employees using tax dollars. He got training from the USOC, and ate food grown by the Department of Agriculture. He should play fair and share his medals with people like me, who can barely keep my head above water, let alone swim."


Well, Peggy,  Phelps does get lots of help because those facilities he trains in cost a lot, and the prizes  he can win are huge, but not available universally.  Taxpayers foot the bill for community pools, Phelps takes home hundreds of millions in endorsements. Notice the Olympics, if the training is capital intensive, USA and the west tend to dominate.  If it is not capital intensive, lesser countries dominate.
How come azerbaijan dominates judo?  But not swimming.

There is an anaology to USA's wars:  if we go against high tech wars we do well.  But if it is actually fighting against foot soldiers we lose.  See Vietnam and Afghanistan.


Our economy is producing a deficit.  That means we are all necessarily losing money.  If you are actually turning a profit, it is because you are being subsidized somehow.  This website costs me nothing, but it costs someone something, somewhere.

When I sell a book, I ship it media rate, which is subsidized, so you pay some of my customers costs.  When I teach a class, taxpayers are footing the bill for the school infrastructure that I get at far below cost to the taxpayers.  You bet my "success" is based on others.

Obama was fed that line about "you didn't build it" by his handlers after it was used by a senatorial candidate, Elizabeth Warren.  It was a loser for her.  So why have Obama use it afterwards?  Why introduce 'class warfare' now, except to put Obama further back.

And note Romney just failed overseas, and he'll be running against Hillary, who has been working overseas the last four years.

One reason to have Obama speak these lines is because when the next president introduces a 90% tax it will be implemented based on the premise "you didn't earn it."  Obama is just taking the heat for what will come anyway.  But not to worry.  A 90% tax rate will hurt employees and landlords.  Bring in lots of money.  Employers don't care how much tax employees pay.  And the self-employed will not pay those taxes, since federal taxes are voluntary.  We'll see a boom in small business activity and hiring is there is a 90% tax, so bring it on, it is better than nothing, and it will pay down the debt.  Or not.  it could.

But this misses the point.  No taxes would be necessary in a free market.  All of those Government services would be provisioned better cheaper.  Yes, you subsidize my shipping of books, but if there was no post office the freight would be much lower because it does not cost as much as the post office charges to deliver goods.  Schools paid too much for too much so when you subsidize my on campus activity, you are paying for overhead that was never necessary to begin with.

The government merely arrogates unto itself at a very high cost, and putting the taxpayers on the hook, for all and sundry things.  The state had much to do with the creation of the internet as we know it, and what a mess that is. 92% of traffic is spam, porn is force fed to 14 year old boys to the detriment of girls for generations, at a very high cost even if we pay nothing.  Someone is paying.

In a free market the internet would be everyone bouncing messages off of any one of the millions of meteors coming at us each minute, with computer controlled probablity making communication impossible to snoop.  Anyone can do it.  Step one: get a FCC radio operators permit.  How come?  Literally the sky is the limit for this cheap and plentiful message distribution system.  But you see, the state has hijacked it.  Only they can use it.  You see, the powers that be cannot possibly track who is saying what when your computer predicts the next thousand meteors and catches one to send your message. No way to snoop on that.

If you use this safe, secure, costless unlimited means to send messages without permission, expect drones.

Sure Michael Phelps and Bill Gates never built anything others did not pay for.  That is not the question.  The question is how come so many people are forbidden to contribute to society?

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


Thursday, August 2, 2012

Bankrupting Government Pensions

This is how it works:  Police, fire and other unions endorse the candidates that will give them raises at the next contract time.  Over the years, public-employee union members saw constant sweeteners to their contracts.  Such sweeteners cost the politician nothing.  It was a deal in which the Government unions and the politicians agreed taxpayers would pay all costs.  The people inside of government agreed the people outside of government would would pay.  There is a rule against this, it is called thou shalt not steal.

That rule you can violate, because religion is voluntary.  There is no way you can violate the rules of economics.  That which cannot go on will eventually stop.  The costs of police and fire in San Bernardino have resulted in that city joining the growing list of cities filing for bankruptcy protection.

In bankruptcy a judge overrides all of the earlier agreements, based on the arguments of creditors.   The Government pensioners are not going to get zero, they will be awarded, on paper, something, some percentage.  Say 60%.  In this way San Bernardino can limp along.  Until such time as they cannot afford that.    Since no Government entity at any level is addressing the economic concerns facing us, there is no way our economy can improve.  In fact, they are making it worse, for in total breakdown the State becomes more powerful.

But we see here the results of what I've been talking about since 1982: unfunded pension liability.  Political action in Wisconsin wherein the powers that be begin to make Government workers pay some of their costs (since Government workers pay no taxes, it is really just a pay cut.)    So pay is reduced, and there is no logical limit to that.

Another is that cities go bankrupt, and obligations are reduced.  There is no rational limit to this.

Another is the powers that be inflate the currency, lessening the buying power of what checks show up.

Between the two, there is a viable balance, for a time, struck.

Pensioners adjust to tightening circumstances, downsizing homes and selling off summer cabins, travel less, replace things less often and buy Alpo at Costco.  It is a downward spiral.

Without a cut in the size of the state, a cut in taxes, a vast deregulation or a narrow deep unregulation (banking, medicine, education...) there will be no growth for anyone.

Start a business and begin the process of reviving the economy.

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


Ron Unz on Race And Wealth

Scientific racism is a pillar upon which the US economic system rests.  Ron Unz does an exhaustive refutation of leadings authors in support of this theory.  In the comments to this article, there is some serious heavy lifting going on in support of scientific racism

Unz works too hard. The evil is simpler to discern than parsing the numbers requires. The IQ tests are white man tests.  The more you are like the people who make the tests, the better you do on the tests.  The tests themselves are absolutely no predictor of success or wealth.  Nonetheless, they are widely employed?  How come?

Think about it.  We live in a regime of scientific racism.  That is some pretty vicious stuff.  If you can "pass the test" you'll be earmarked for a better life, but not guaranteed, by the scientific racists who are in charge of the commanding heights.  You can be a victim or a perpetrator.  Given the choice, who wouldn't take the latter?

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


Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Doctoring Obama Photos

The Clintons came of age at the time of the 1968 Chicago Convention riots, and Hillary in particular served as a lawyer prosecuting President Nixon for wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal.  There she was privy to the way the world works.  One facet of the scandal was the work of Donald Segretti, who task was called ratf***ing, or the politics of personal destruction.

I am surprised at people's response when I declare Hillary will be the next president.  They usually say something along the lines of "it is unprecedented."  Hunh?  What in a country less than 250 years old is anything "precedented."  And then I simply say, "You don't know the Clintons."

Now, Bill Clinton is slotted to two speeches at the convention.  One early, and one crucial.

After Warren finishes her convention remarks at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, N.C., Clinton is slated to deliver a speech that culminates with the former president formally nominating Obama for a second term.

Or not.  maybe by this time Obama has withdrawn.  Or the party elders have decided he cannot beat Mitt, so they need to change horses.  One way or another, Clintons speech will be one of the most famous in history.

In the meantime, the Republican theme is a conciliatory "He tried, we tried, it did not work, let's try someone else. Vote Mitt."  Well, any democrat could view that as well as "He tried, we tried, it did not work, let's try someone else. Draft Hillary."

In the meantime, the right wing is busy with the politics of personal destruction on Obama, aiding the Clintons.  Here Jerome Corsi takes apart a photo from the Obama campaign website.  It is a poorly doctored photo.  Corsi claims it is proof of a coverup.  Corsi has a phd from Harvard.  He is a smart guy.  He knows Occams razor.  Is a poorly doctored photo on the Obama website the result of a African based communist conspiracy stretching back decades as Corsi outlines?  Or is some Clinton functionary ratf***king Obama from inside the campaign, putting up a poorly doctored photo guaranteed to be spotted by opposition campaigners?

The free market is already the best way to advance democracy because one transaction, one vote.

Hillary 2012!

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


Modern Anarchy Explicated

Stefan Molyneux has come to my attention as a prolific expounder on anarchy.  Although this is 2 hours long, it is a wide ranging question/answer in relation to anarchy in action, as opposed to liberal socialism.  He has a splendid insight as to how small free states become huge oppressive states, among many other good points. Although I can agree with most of what he says, I see a couple of problems with his interpretation.


1. Defining family as a coercive institution.  I think this is an error, it is hierarchical, but it is also a unique institution, so the tag does not quite fit.  One clear distinction is families involved obligations, whereas markets involve debts.  If a friend or relative invites me to dinner, I should at some point reciprocate.  If I order a meal in a restaurant, I must cancel the debt by paying.  Families are voluntary institutions, where we learn about anarchy.  It is a basis for training to function in the market.

2. Towards the end, he talks about raising kids without violence, as a solution to getting to where anarchy is widely accepted.  That is classic anarchist thinking, that be raising children differently we can have a better society.  The fatal flaw is any system that requires people be different than they really are will fail.  To my mind we do not need people to change to achieve anarchy, we simply need not give our power to others.

I know people who have raised kids "sparing the rod" and producing lovely results.  Good work.  But I also know kids need to learn "no" and "come here" if nothing else for safety's sake.  It may take a well-timed swat to keep a kid safe, as paradoxical as that sounds.  A teenager or a grammar school kid who still needs a whipping is more a question of parenting than the kid.

Molyneux points out that kids who learn to obey violence in the family expect it from the state.  I don't think so.  I think most people sense the difference.  What does happen is way too many people see the state as mommy and daddy, sometimes running to mommy (the democrats) when in trouble, and sometimes to daddy (the republicans.)  I think they have the same problem as Molyneux, failing to see the difference between the family and the state.

3.  Anarchists and libertarians widely subscribe to the theory that private police forces will be necessary and sufficient to maintain law and order.  Yes, 2/3rds of uniformed policing in USA is in private hands, but I think the critics' complaint that any organized armed group will eventually introduce tyranny is perspicacious.   And as 1 Samuel 8 points out, kings, that to which anarchists object, is what we got when the Israelis asked God for a king to fight their battles for them.  The solution advocated by libertarians and Molyneux is precisely the punishment for asking for kings.  No, in anarchy the cop is you, and no one else.

4. He mentioned progress, and that it sticks, for example, no politician calls for slavery, which 100 years ago was not unheard of.  I do not think there is progress, because we already have all of the elements we need for a peaceful, prosperous, just society.  It is a matter of sliding over away from force and fraud, and to freedom.

He asks if anyone can imagine blacks returning to the fields as slaves in USA today?  Well, no, only because capitalism has figured out how to monetize people down through their descendants.

All slavery is abominable.  Private slavery is what we had until 1865, when it was replaced with state slavery in the US Constitution.  All slavery is abominable, but let's compare private slavery, which is outlawed, and state slavery, which is legal in the US Constitution.  I am familiar with slavery inasmuch as my great grandparents were slavers, and have the paperwork to show for it.  Here on Christmas Eve 1857 my family sells some slaves at auction.  No doubt they needed some Christmas money.

Spiers 1857 Slave Auction Tally
In private slavery, slaves had to be bought and sold.  To abuse them too much would lead to financial loss.  To allow them to use their creativity was to make for private gain.  All slavery is abominable, but some slaveholders incentivized their slaves to maximize their own wealth.

After the US Congress legalized slavery, the state never had to buy slaves, so state slaves were commonly worked to death, as in the Patchman farm, which operates to this day in Mississippi.  the 13th amendment is no oddity, it was and is an actively employed provision in the constitution.

Private slaves had 3/5ths of a vote, which was very valuable to slaveholders, whereas state slaves, as felons, are not allowed to vote.

Slaves cease to be of economic value if you sell them or they die as private property, or are worked to death as state property.

Now all slavery is abominable, but at some point the value of any slave is relatively minimal if you can figure out a way to monetize the lives of the descendants of those targeted for slavery.

And with capitalism, with fiat credit to lend, and usury to keep it an ever-growing burden, the state can monetize the lives of future generations.  Slavery is not gone now because of any Christian scruples, slavery is gone because capitalism found a better way for ever fewer people to exploit the most out of the most.  Who wants to mess around with slavery when there is capitalism?  Who wants to bother exploiting a few when you can enslave generations of future workers and enjoy the profits today?

No, the solution to slavery was to end it, without a war.  The way was to make the power to enforce slavery, the state, wither with lack of cooperation.  Ending slavery was not progress, for the simple reason we did not end it, we just changed it, and what came after was worse. not better.

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


Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Why Gold Coins Hard to Find in Hong Kong


I was keeping my eyes open looking for a place in Hong Kong that sold gold coins, when I happened upon a snake restaurant.  I was hungry, so I inquired as to whether they had beer on the menu as well, since I like a beer with my snake, and the waiter said no problem, he would run down to the 7-11 at the corner, buy the beer, and serve it with my snake.  Splendid.

Now I don’t have to tell you such a transaction would bring in armed intervention in the United Snakes.  Serving beer without a license!?  Bringing it in from one place to another!  Reselling beer!  Cooking and serving snakes!  And there are no health inspectors.  You are the health inspector.  Saves time and money.

I was contemplating this as I dined, and at the same time how finding gold coins for sale is so difficult.  

Now gold coins can be had, and there are those who claim, erroneously, they they can be had at a discounted price.  But not in any meaningful way.

Those who want to buy gold coins do so through their bank, which makes sense since the most reasonable place to store them is in the safety deposit boxes in the banks.  The banks prefer to trade in China Panda gold coins, and occasionally run out for lack of huge demand.

Since Hong Kong is the closest thing we have to a free market, there are lessons to be learned about gold, money and free markets.

Gold (and silver) coins are today what is traditionally called money.  Money is a medium of exchange.  Prices are signaled with money, how much in gold or silver indicates what the price is.  And it also indicates prices rising and falling, in relation to the relatively stable medium of exchange.

The medium of exchange can be any commodity item, it is just in all times and places gold and silver trends to be the winner by popular accord

Some economists bridle at the widespread addition of “store of value” to the definition of money as a medium of exchange.  The store of value is an attribute of any and every commodity item.  If you are holding any commodity item, such as wheat in a silo, or pork bellies in a freezer (or salting them for dry storage) you are doing so as a store of value.  The idea is to feed out that which is stored over time and as necessary or advantageous.  Because the value of commodities change over time, and because dumping a commodity all at once lowers the value, people feed a given commodity out over time.  Because gold is relatively scarce, its price is fairly stable in relation to other commodities, another attribute recommending it to market participants as a medium of exchange.

So when gold is being stored, it is a store of value.  When it is employed in exchange, it acts as a medium of exchange.  Since it can do both it is easy to assume it is both at the same time.

What makes gold relatively stable as an objective source of price signals is, as Spooner noted, when there is a surfeit of gold it is converted to plate, decoration and jewelry.  When there is a shortage, that plate, decoration and jewelry is melted down for conversion to gold as money.  Yes, gold is never destroyed since it is elemental, and yes, all the gold ever mined is still available, and yes, overall what is mined is miniscule in relation to what is available, but one critical factor in the relative stability of gold is the market actors that are either fashioning it into plate, decoration and jewelry, or melting it down into coin.

Gold as plate, decoration and jewelry is plentiful all over Hong Kong.  But gold coins are hard to find.

newshopper.sulekha.com

Implicit in what I said so far is the fact that what commodity serves as money does not offer stability as an absolute, only relatively.  It is a neat slight of hand for the powers that be to attribute to money a false necessity of stability, then demonstrate gold fails to be absolutely stable, warranting a conclusion that we need a central bank to achieve absolute stability in money.  Which is all the more astonishing since the central banks manipulate the price of their currency woefully.

To desire gold provide for stable prices is to submit to the evil of managed economy.  To desire gold do something it is not intended to do leads one to legislate laws to “help” gold do what it is, in your erroneous thinking, “supposed” to do.

As to prices, in a free market, prices are constantly dropping.  If prices are rising, something is wrong.  Falling prices, all is well.  gold allows us to see this relatively clearly.

Gold should not give us stable prices, gold should constantly signal prices are falling, and if not, warn us prices are not falling.  

UW Prof. Jere Bachrach offered a seminar to the public on gold coins from the era the Ptolemys fell, which inadvertently noted that gold coins emerge in chaos.  In times of peace and prosperity, it is credit extended among market actors, historically to surprising degrees, that make an economy hum.

One stores up gold in anticipation of the need being near.  Another use is to use gold to back a venture that no one believes in, so they want to be paid in advance in gold since they doubt you will be able to participate in the market to the extent those working with you will be paid back on their credit.  End times make gold coins useful, since there is little assurance the other actor will perform in a creditable way.

So here is a fair sketch of gold as money in an economy. Credit rules in peaceful times, voluntarily extended among market actors voluntarily.  In time, the wealth of the productive attracts actors who in the name of the state slowly arrogate unto them selves control and eventually issuance of all credit tallies, with a view to taxing the transactions. As part of the process the state monopolizes money. The state replaces money with credit, and then legalizes fiat credit.  Next it legalizes usury on fiat credit.  Now the state controls the economy.

As the economy asphyxiates from state control, the state offers easy credit to funds risky ventures. And that is unstable.  When the unstable economy comes down people want gold to settle up, since debased currency is of no value.  hence gold trade is growing in USA.

Now Hong Kong has competing private companies issuing the currency, not the state. In Hong Kong the state doe snot control credit between businesses because it does not tax added value or transactions  (just some net profits).  In Hong Kong relationships are still king so credit is widely extended among market actors.

The people of Hong Kong do not hoard gold because they do not fear the end.  and reasonably so.  No matter what happens elsewhere, the economy in Hong Kong is solid and stable.  So shops selling an end-times product, gold coins, are hard to find.  Because they are not necessary in a relatively free market.


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


Is Homsexuality Due To Injury?

An MD, University professor, writer for WSJ, NYTimes and Washington Post has proposed a theory regarding homosexuality:  it comes from head injury.  I first heard of this from late night talk radio, and I though it was a joke.  She is serious.  And the idea has over 2 million hits on google.

What strikes me as so weird is when I was a kid, we all joked that people became homosexual from a whack on the head.  The TV show In Living Color had a hilarious skit covering this idea back in the 1980s, and it was out of date then.




I never believed it then, I don't believe it now.  If this idea gains traction, Obama care just might include a cure for this.


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


Monday, July 30, 2012

China & Gold

In the USA we are told gold is a foolish investment, at the same time we are barraged by ads from people wanting to buy our gold.  How come they want to buy it? Gold is one of very many commodities, any one of which can emerge as a medium of exchange.  Usually commerce is based on credit, but in disastrous times, people want to be paid in gold and silver.

China is actively promoting gold purchase by its citizens.  Chinese Olympic athletes are especially controlled for state purposes.  This picture of the first Chinese athlete to win in London, Yi Siling, is no accident.




Since the USA economy is on the wrong side of the gold bet, you will not hear from our state you should buy gold.

Update:  Like I said, it is not accidental:



Another update:



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


Portland police don't recommend it.

A Portland Police Officer declines to get involved in a robbery in progress.  A pharmacist and his assistant chase down and safely arrest the robbers after they have left the store.  The pharmacist was armed.  As to making arrests, the article says:  Portland police don't recommend it.

Indeed, apparently so.  Not even civilians, let alone cops. It's time to rethink "let the police handle it."  It's time to replace city funded police departments.


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


The State Advances Necessarily Bad Ideas


Do all realize that this discussion was nearly three years ago…? 



Stiglitz calls absurd Hendry’s prediction (more of an assessment of the facts.) Go back in History, as far back as Mo Tze and Confucious, bad ideas are rewarded and good ideas are marginalized. States need bad ideas to flourish. The state itself is a bad idea, and there is no good form of it. Just less bad. Stiglitz was touting his book back then, and has another out now, just as delusional.
Hendry’s body language is delightful, a man who sees the wickedness for what it is, but also knows it is tradable. “What you are doing is wrong, I am making money off of it.” He and the shortsellers are necessary and sufficient regulation of the financial markets.


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


DaVinci on Intellectual Property

“Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else.” - Leonardo da Vinci

As to trademarks, they've become warning labels:



Click to enlarge...

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


Sunday, July 29, 2012

Unregulate Medicine Now!

Although everyone in the medical profession knows all about MRSA, and its chances of killing you in a hospital stay are very high, big pharma cannot make money off the cure so we are denied the cure.

You see, a widely known cure for MRSA is bacteriophages, something the Soviets packed in every soldiers kit in WWII, and is still widely used in the East.  I know a doctor who has used them in some dire circumstances, but only when he knows the patient will keep his mouth shut.  You can get in trouble in USA is you cure patients.

You see, bacteriophages are little bugs from pond scum so they cannot be patented.  And theya re cheap and plentiful.  MRSA and Anthrax and all these nasty diseases multiply so fast your immune system cannot deal with the bugs and you die.

Bacteriophages multiply faster than bacteria, and eat them all up before you get sick at all.  And since they only eat what they like, no more mrsa, the bateriophages die off.    We need to get back to unregulated medicine, and pharmacists growing bacteriophages in their shops for the community.  We could return to good health if we did.
Bacteriophage T4 prepares to infect host cell

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


Start-Up Business Plans


On Jul 28, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
You mention a business plan loosely in your book, but did you ever put a plan together?     

The first thing they mention in any "Starting your own business" class or if you talk to SCORE people at the SBA is, "Where is your business plan?,  Gotta have one."  

And in the FAQ of the Y Combinator site where AnyPic was getting help they ask...

Q: "Do we need to write a business plan?
YC A: Not for us. We make funding decisions based on our application form and personal interviews. We love demos, but we never read business plans."

Imagine that, they never read business plans, yet they have worked with over 400 business start ups!     I think business plans are a huge waste of time, time that can be better spent elsewhere.   You're already testing the market and refining your product, why do you need a complicated document with Executive Summaries and other business wienie hooha?     Am I wrong to feel this way?


Anthony,

Only customers can validate feelings, but as to my opinion, I say this:  I think in the book I make the point that the plan is an exercise in self- discipline... when you reduce your ideas to writing, contradictions and delusions jump out.  Then you can address those.  The business plan is for you, not anyone esle.

Parts of your plan, say your sales projections, can be shown to various players for their views.  Let’s say for the start-up to be worthwhile to you, you must have $300,000 in sales your first year, given the profit margins, etc.  So it is useful to share that with the sales reps to see if it passes the laugh test.

Along those lines, say the cost of goods is $100,000 in the same plan, sharing that with your supplier will allow them to guage whether they want to support your effort or not, and to what degree.  In this way the business plan helps you test all of your asumptions in the process of the classic role of entrepreneur eliminating any risk.

Keep in mind the usual stated purpose of a business plan is to gain financing, which is never necessary to start-up a business.   One does not need finance to start a business, one needs customers. To my mind the purpose of a businessplan is to figure out how to start -up without any financing.  Any fool can spend money pretending to start up a business, but properly executed a business start-up makes money serving others without needing financing, or anything beyond self-financing.

When banks arranged to be protected by the state, and were allowed to create credit out of thin air, necessarily they needed customers to borrow this credit. The banks desired to lend the credit and upon which to charge usury.  This scenario is inherently unstable, and risky for the banks and the borrowers.  As to the banks, the state promised to bail them out no matter what.  So all risk was transferred to the borrower, and if they failed, the taxpayer.  Therefore, with the introduction of state protection of fiat credit and usury, our economic system became ever more risky.  To lend this credit, the banks introduced the idea of business start up as “risky” when never before in history was “risk” in the mind of the merchant.  Risk as an element of business start-up is the result of social conditioning over the last century or so.

If we were to get the state out of banking, and completely unregulate the field, our economy would improve immensely.  Right now we suffer as the state creates trillion in credit which it gives to the bank who deposit it risk free at .25 points at the USTreasury, slowly recapitalizing the banks at taxpayers expense.  This would end with unregulating the banks and free market banking would emerge.

Also, there is no point in having SCORE or any other government program relating to business, small or otherwise.  It should be disbanded, the budget cut and taxes reduced, and the social security number of every person associated with SBA and SCORE noted so they may never find work or funding in Government again.  If they are so good at business, we need them badly starting up businesses and paying down the national debt through taxes.

I once went up against State of Washington "free" export consulting service (the consultant being paid $120k per year by taxpayers, not to mention his staff and office, etc) advising a grower on building export markets.  I charged the grower $10,000 for my services.  First I asked how come he was paying me when he could get "free" consulting from the state.  The farmer said I made sense while the state consultant seemed clueless.  In time, the state consultant provided nothing, while I worked through the process of landing paying customers. The state consultant was promoted in time, and no doubt is still working for the state, or enjoying a posh retirement fund.  End it.

So, whereas in some respects parts of the plan are for sharing with others, the business plan is for yourself.  I always write down a business plan, and have one for STC, which I am constantly changing...

John


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