Saturday, April 6, 2013

90 Million Not Working

One reason USA has 90 million people not working is that USA has some 30,000 patent attorneys who are working.


The patent act, the culmination of more than a decade of negotiations and lobbying, is putting a high premium on the best patent lawyers, Mr. Showalter said.
“It’s an exceedingly complex law now with a number of new procedures,” he said. “That puts a premium on highly technical-skilled patent lawyers.”

We all love a system that makes money for us.  When that system proves to be counterproductive, reform is indicated.  In 2011, the Patent Regime was rearranged, and as the article points out, no surprise, the situation is worse.  When the fox remodels the henhouse, well...

 Whatever the unemployment number is, it is big.  Given that there are some 350 million people total in this country, men women children, that number is too big.  People are focussing on numbers like 47 million on food stamps, that is USA citizens who apparently cannot feed themselves, or more to the point, use the safety net as a hammock.

What kind of system produces 90 million not working and 47 million needing free food?  The disaster here is what we do not see, the contributions of good these people would be making if they were not on the dole.  There is much to dissuade people from being productive, such as being burdened will ill-education, predatory "criminal-justice," regulatory madness, predatory banking, and intellectual property "rights" enforced while real property rights are denied. It is enough to dissuade anyone.

If we were to return to freedom a bit, like deregulate medicine or education or banking, we'd see another renaissance and those 90 million would be needed.  But there are enough people who benefit from this, and still a strong enough desire to be ruled, that the prospect is not rosy.  Eliminating the Intellectual Property regime would be a huge advance.

Time to prepare by starting up, I mean, developing a customer-centric business.

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


Industrial Revolution Without Intellectual Property Rights

One of the heroes of the industrial revolution, USA division, is Eli Whitney and the McCormicks who ran with his invention.  First, Eli Whitney:

If some people are born with the natural ability to invent, Eli Whitney certainly was one of them. From a young age, Whitney had an innate understanding of machinery. The Yale graduate would later use this talent to invent the Cotton Gin, a mechanical device that transformed the economy of the pre-civil-war South.

***Before Webster’s dictionary gained wide acceptance, people did their own thing on spelling.  Gin in this case is short for engine. The machine was a cotton engine.***

When inventor Eli Whitney arrived in the South in 1793, only green seed cotton could be grown inland. Problem was: the process of removing seeds from the cotton was extremely laborious. So Whitney devised a machine that automatically separated the seeds from cotton much faster than people could with their hands (in only one hour, Whitney's invention de-seeded a day's worth of cotton). When word got out about the Cotton Gin, plantation owners began planting as much green seed cotton as the land would allow.

***A good thing introduced in the wrong place at the wrong time.  See my other blog for a riff on this point.   http://shallnotkill.blogspot.com/ ***

Though Whitney received a patent for his cotton gin invention in 1794, by that time the invention was being pirated and used all over the country. Ultimately, Whitney left the South with very little to show for the invention that had made croppers millions. However, upon his return to the North, he reinvented American manufacturing with the idea of mass production.

***Now that would be patent number 72 for USA.  Notice the confused view: patent, pirated, nothing to show.  Croppers made millions because of a violent system that picked them as winners.  What have patents to do with that?  Does the writer here suggest had the patents been effectively enforced, Eli Whitney may have gotten a cut of the millions croppers earned by exploiting stolen lands and slavery?   is that to be regretted?

The Cotton Gin Patent

Next, note as in China today, USA had rules on patents but no means of enforcing them.  Yet the industrial revolution proceeded apace.  Indeed, where there was a lack of enforcement, there was industrial revolution.

Now enter Cyrus McCormick.  ***

Not long after Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin, Cyrus McCormick invented another significant agricultural invention that revolutionized farming: the mechanical reaper. Prior to this invention, reaping was a painstaking process (done by hand with a scythe) that limited a farm's harvest.

The initial idea and design for the reaper actually came from Cyrus McCormick's father, Robert, who worked on the invention for 16 years. In 1831, twenty-two-year-old Cyrus took over his father's project and, within six weeks, he had built, field-tested, remodeled and successfully demonstrated the world's first mechanical reaper. McCormick's invention automatically cut, threshed and bundled grain while being pulled through a field by horses.

In 1834, inventor Cyrus McCormick took out a patent on his invention and, soon after, began manufacturing the reaper himself. Despite the amazing potential of the invention, most farmers remained uninterested.

***Of course, as is the case of some 7.9876 million times out 8 million, the patent equals failure.***

McCormick spent years making improvements to the mechanical reaper invention and coming up with business innovations to boost sales (including credit for purchases, performance guarantees, replacement parts and advertising). All his work eventually paid off – by 1851, Cyrus McCormick's reaper invention was an international sensation.

***Again, USA writers cannot see reality.  There is no market for an invention that mechanizes reaping.  There is a market for vendor financed, performance guaranteed, service assured and reference rich mechanized reaper.  It is marketing of invention that matters, not invention.    A patent brings absolutely nothing to the economy.***

Cyrus McCormick filed patents for the invention, and his achievements were chiefly in the development of a company, marketing and sales force to market his products.

***It does not matter that “marketing and sales” as imperative is widely known, we are supposed to believe that patents matter.***

His son Cyrus took up the project.[3] He was aided by Jo Anderson (slave), an enslaved African American on the McCormick plantation at the time.[4] 

***This is a little remarked upon phenomena.  Under slavery, people of some African heritage were often valued for their creativity and productivity.  All slavery is profoundly evil, even the slavery enshrined in USA with the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, the version of slavery acceptable to the progressives and the law of the land in USA today.  But back under private chattel slavery there were architects, doctors, writers, ship captains, civil engineers, you name it.  If a slave showed aptitude, the slave master enjoyed a bonus.  Today, if it were not for the progressives and their agenda, we’d be enjoying the benefit of a wider range of contributions of Americans of some African heritage. But I digress...***

A few machines based on a design of Patrick Bell of Scotland (which had not been patented) were available in the United States in these years. The Bell machine was pushed by horses. The McCormick design was pulled by horses and cut the grain to one side of the team.

*** Ideas improved by other ideas... hegelian dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. As one of some Scottish heritage, I can well imagine an invention in which against all rational thought, a Scotsman insists the horses push, not pull, the reaper.  If patents were in effect, McCormick would have well have been obliged to pay Bell and limit himself to horse-pushed reaping.***

Using the endorsement of his father's first customer for a machine built by McPhetrich, the younger McCormick continuously attempted to improve the design. 

*** Fail fast, fail early.  Constant customer-based improvement.  What I teach is nothing new, it is just woefully unpresented.***

He finally sold seven reapers in 1842, 29 in 1843, and 50 in 1844. They were all built manually in the family farm shop. He received a second patent for reaper improvements on January 31, 1845.[5]

***Now notice: no finance.  The horror of lending credit at interest had not yet becomes widespread. Also, this is how businesses were once started. The introductory product was poorly designed, expensive, rare, and hard to acquire. Patents lock in a design.  That design is necessarily bad to start.  Why lock in what is necessarily bad? ***

As word spread about the reaper, McCormick noticed orders arriving from farther west, where farms tended to be larger. While he was in Washington, DC to get his 1845 patent, he heard about a factory in Brockport, New York, where he contracted to have the machines mass-produced.

***Notice how much time he wastes on patents.  Some people study art or write poetry in their spare time, apparently McCormick delighted in long meetings with expensive lawyers and filling out forms. All of the patent work did exactly zero for his company, just as time spent composing poetry would be irrelevant. ***

To obtain the money and credit necessary to begin operations, McCormick formed what was to be a short-lived partnership with the mayor and leading citizen of Chicago, William B. Ogden. With $25,000 given by Ogden for a half interest, McCormick built his first plant near Lake Michigan on the north bank of the Chicago River.

***Money for expansion came from partnership, not a bank loan.  Ogden risked his money by participating, not loaned money at interest.  There was still the idea that this was the way to do business, indeed Christianity taught it as an imperative then, as islam teaches it is an imperative today.***

When McCormick tried to renew his patent in 1848, the US Patent Office noted that a similar machine had already been patented by Obed Hussey a few months earlier. McCormick claimed he had really invented his machine in 1831, but the renewal was denied.[7] William Manning of Plainfield, New Jersey had received a patent for his reaper in May 1831, but at the time, Manning was evidently not defending his patent.[5]

***Oh.  So the patents never really mattered.  Never mind.
Read more on defending patents, mischief, time wasting and Abe Lincoln.***

The first year of mass production was 1848. It was also the year that the original patent ran out. An application for extension was hung up in litigation and eventually disapproved, probably due to the effective lobbying of competitors who finally realized the potential of the reaper. 

***Oh.  So the patents never really mattered.  Never mind. And in any event, it gets down to politics, not law.***

With his manufacturing plant set up, McCormick concentrated on sales and developed a system of company agents with machines on hand. He was one of the first manufacturers to offer his product at a fixed price with a written guarantee. The farmers were asked to pay $30 down and $90 later if the machine lived up to the claim of being able to cut 1 and 1/2 acres an hour. 

***Oh.  So the patents never really mattered.  Never mind.  What matters is marketing.  Also, this is also Shariah compliant payment terms.  The manufacturer participates in the risk of the farmer.***

Such a use of credit and guarantees was unusual at that time. 

*** No it wasn’t.  It is how new things were introduced for millennia: I invent, you share the profits of the improvement with me.  it is an ancient practice.  McCormick was not the first person to do this, he may have been the last though.  State enforcement of usury had become widespread, so bank credit was getting easier to obtain than industrial cooperation. And with banks acting as clearing houses for indusrial cooperation, the state could more easily tax business and industry.  Once they could effectively tax, they could in turn begin to fund war, bailout, famine, torture, prisons, in short, the progressive agenda.  A writer today can be forgiven for not knowing how mankind advanced previous to today, especially when one is so dazzled by what glitters presently.  But there are alternatives, which may come in handy in the not too distant future.

Next we see beginning then what we see happening today: those who “believe” in patents inevitably begin to game the system.  To game the system is an admission the system is corrupt.***

To help toward this end as speedily as possible, McCormick's agent, acting incognito, would purchase and ship to Chicago one of the machines which had been so successful in the harvest just closed. The inventors at the factory then studied it carefully for the purpose of discovering a way whereby the implements in their charge might attain a similar perfection of operation, without making their employer liable to a suit for an infringement of patent-rights. If this could be done, the law still required that the patent should be granted to the expert who had made the invention—but he immediately thereafter assigned all of his interest in the monopoly to his employer. Therefore, the latter gave him a new problem to master, and the process was repeated. In this fashion the inventor of machinery was himself mechanized. The patrons of this Renaissance overshadowed the artists.

***So, use the police power of the state to undermine competitors and deny inventors just compensation.  it is amazing that the biggest defenders of IPR are the very victims of it. C’est la vie!.***

McCormick also continued his practice of entering his machines in competition against the products of other companies. He ran full page advertisements with testimonials stating exactly when and where a feat had been accomplished. 

***Just like your website should do today.***

McCormick was careful to keep the loyalty and goodwill of the farmers. In 1848, he said, "I have never yet sued a farmer for the price of a Reaper." He was always quite liberal in cases of natural disaster such as the drought that hit Kansas and South Dakota early in the history of the company. 

***Now this is important.  Along with lending credit, the banks would foreclose on anyone who could not pay a loan, and then sell the small farmers land to the preferred huge farmers, bring collectivization to the USA.  With vendor financing, your suppliers want your success.  With bank financing, the bank wants your failure.  But to take loan at interest is to reject  the bible teaching on usury and bring down destruction on the yourself.  Can’t say they were not warned.  But the main lesson is we can have industrial revolution without banks and intellectual property rights.***

Invention of harvesting implements was not confined altogether to the machine-shop of the industrialist between 1855 and 1885. In fact, the half-dozen most significant of the hundreds of patents for improvements in self-raking reapers, harvesters, and binders during these years were granted to farmers or to small-town mechanics. Nevertheless, the control of these inventions tended quickly to gravitate to the big manufacturers. They, alone, had the capital to exploit a new mechanism. Their scouts, or "patent experts," searched the countryside for valuable devices. These might often be secured for a very small sum." [3]

***O that too...  Thos. Jefferson designed the unique USA patent system to benefit the small inventor.  Banks allowed to lend credit at usury enabled a crime in natural law: outsized production crowded out competition while enfeoffing the customers, and denying inventors just compensation.

With the USA civil war, a tension between freedom and fascism finally broke in favor of fascism, and empire followed.  IPR was strengthened.

Can we go back to where we go off track?  Close cooperation between inventors, manufacturers, customers, with no banks nor IPR?

No, but maybe we can carve out a part of USA where we go back to say just before the USA invasion of Mexico, with some improvements like sound money, no IPR, respect of property rights, non-enforcement of slavery.  I think the peninsula upon which Detroit sits would be a good candidate for such a nation/state.  One country, two systems, like Hong Kong.


***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.


Friday, April 5, 2013

India To Win Pharmaceutical Industry

The Indian Supreme Court denied a BigPharma patent, further solidfying India's move to become the worlds leader in medicine.

The court rejected the argument that patents are necessary for innovation, and the Hindu of India gets it exactly right when questioning whether it costs so much to develop a drug.

 It would naturally strengthen the case for grant of patents and consensus pricing, if the industry opens its books for verification. 

Exactly.  No independent analysis has ever been made of a medicine development costing.  So we have to take BigPharms word for it.

For India to take the #1 spot it needs a free market, and by denying this patent claim India took a step closer.

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


Thursday, April 4, 2013

You Want Success

You will fail if you try to compete on price, as a start-up.  I can guarantee that with 100% certainty.  If you cannot compete on price, what other basis is there?  The “secret” is to compete on design.  Your role and value at the small business level is to be a innovator, which means premium prices and unique designs. You make more money doing less.  You may be selling hats like anyone else, but they are upscale, specialty hats.  You may have a hole in the wall restaurant, but your Chow Mein is $22.50 a plate.  

If you plan to be a big business billionaire like Steve Jobs, you start here.  If you plan to be a small business billionaire like Ty Warner you start here.  If you plan to have your dream lifestyle, and don’t care about the money, you start here.

But how you make the money you need is to compete on design, bringing your passion, others' design talent, with the world’s best producer to demanding retailers.

As to success, well, let Iggy Pop school you:



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


Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Two Start-Up Fallacies

Boldrin and Levine have written an important book decrying intellectual property regimes, and yesterday's post on fail fast fail cheap has been an occasion to reflect further.  To wit, entrepreneurs take no risks (following Drucker.)



Let's look at two fundamentals of our system as taught in business schools - bank credit and intellectual property laws.

Borrowing money at interest to finance an enterprise was a criminal act, on both sides of the transaction, until a few hundred years ago, just about everywhere on planet earth.  Western states began to allow this, and then protect it, and then develop it to an art form.  We went from no loans at interest, to state protected bank loans of money at interest, to fractional reserve (with the non-money fraction being credit) to fractional reserve on credit, to a regime of credit lent at interest.

(Until the change all loans were charitable events.  Business was financed by participation in risk, not guarantee of interest.)

There is no rational limit to how much credit can be lent, only to how far people will accept promises to be paid in a currency.  The limit may be metaphysical: God said punishment is only to the third and fourth generation, so maybe God lays waste to societies who try to burden a fifth generation with debt formed today.  (Who knows, that explanation is superior to any other on offer as to the timing of fiat currency failure.)

But back to the creation of credit way beyond anything needed, beyond the necessary and sufficient credit created among merchants, something for which banks are not needed.  How to have this excess credit taken up?  Well, by inculturating an idea that businesses take risks, then people normally disinclined to borrow heavily begin to believe it is necessary to borrow heavily to succeed.  They begin to believe it is an article of faith, which of course it is in capitalism.  So the academy has obliged the bankers to spread the word: entrepreneurs take risks.  Eventually, society believes up is down, black is white, entrepreneurs take risks.

The second part is intellectual property laws. In the debate of Church vs King, the state won.  The state took over patents from the king and the church, and now uses it to control innovation.

Here again the academy has advanced an internal contradiction as an imperative: the entrepreneur must maintain innovation and secrecy at the same time.  The mind boggles!  We are to develop a product with no reference to the market in the process?  How can you develop something for a market while keeping it secret? Eventually, society believes up is down, black is white, innovation demands secrecy.

Of the some 8 million patents issued in USA since 1789, almost nothing patented has ever turned into a product.  Did you know that?  Any patent attorney can tell you that. And of the almost zero patents that have led to an actual profit, almost nothing among those examples ever turned a profit.  Did you know that a patent is almost a total assurance of failure?  Again, any patent attorney can tell you this.  My favorite patent attorney does.  And if true, would that be important?  Well, check it out.



The real path to success is not NDAs and NCAs and patent applications, but getting your ideas in front of your target customer as soon as possible.  For the feedback.  There is nothing riskier than keeping your idea secret....  and entrepreneurs do not take risks.  We eliminate risks, and one way is to fail fast fail cheap (and I just recall that it was Edison who codified this process after going bankrupt once).

So what are the fundamentals as taught by the business schools: borrow more money than you can pay back to finance a secret project that is guaranteed to fail something like  7.9999 million out of 8 million times.

No wonder our economy is a mess.

That would be bad enough, but the IPR regime allows losers to sell their patents to billionaires who then blackmail anyone who tries to innovate.

We have too little innovation and way too much delusional risk.

Our ratio between small innovative and huge price reducing is terminally out of whack.

So compete on design,  Advance along plan a or plan b.  Fail fast and early and often, but with negligible cost to yourself.

Two reforms:

1. Make interest a nonenforceable contract item, like gambling debts.  that will end predatory banking and oblige investors to actually put their money at risk in more local and rational initiatives.  More small business start-up.

2. Eliminate IPR laws.  This will save our economy.

Either one will buy us time, both will spur a renaissance.

***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


The New Team China Line-up

China has unveiled the team that will handle yet another critical phase of China modernization.  There is no doubt that the leaders are aware they have a stability problem to face, the the Communist Party believes this is the team to handle it.

China has gone its own way the last 100 years (ok, 5000 years, plus) and the results have been remarkable.  There are a couple of books you can read for background on this, Lazslo LaDany wrote only two books, but since they relate to Chinese law and the Communist party, they are good background.  Spence has written a dozen of books on China, each and every one valuable.



My mind runs to these books as I look at the line up, and see two things I wish I did not...

1. The top two guys are lawyers (or at least that is now on their resumes).  Lawyers should never be allowed in the executive branch, as Immanual Kant cautioned.  Look what it has done to USA.

2. Almost all of the soldiers are now wearing ribbons.  It's a symbol of decadence and decline in a military, and ought to be frowned upon.  I recall being in Chinese airports and train stations in the 1970s when every soldier dressed alike (heck, everyone dressed alike.)   Occasionally there would be someone in a uniform that got very special treatment.  Everyone (except me) knew who was who.

It seems to me it is being allowed for purposes of having Chinese generals look like western generals.  China today likely has the best military it had since the Tang Dynasty.  So it's too early to begin looking like generals who lose.

USA needs competition from China so people like me can compete.  If China just replaces USA, then what is the point?

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


Tuesday, April 2, 2013

The Lean Start-Up

In addition to the work of Mr. Doug Hall cited below, Yotam Ariel whose site I mentioned also sends along this lead.

http://theleanstartup.com/

Speaking for myself, nothing I teach is new.  I learned it from others,  for some reason I sensed things were changing back in the 1980s and a record needed to be made of how businesses are started up (international trade division).  The result was this book, selling continuously on Amazon.com for over a decade.



Eric Ries, Doug Hall, Yotam Ariel (and here) and I are not teaching anything new, and we are all teaching pretty much the same thing our own way.  And check out our repective websites for the different approaches to the same thing (mine here www.johnspiers.com )  I am delighted what I have been teaching for thirty years is now cutting edge.  It's about time!

What is different today is what we teach was once passed on from generation to generation, if not by father to a son then from business owner to bright young employees who went on their own after a kind of apprenticeship.

The Wall Street boom of the 1980's, the dotcom boom of the 1990s and the real estate boom of the 2000's  were disasters in terms of diverting countless people from innovation to working on the big score.  USA has lost 3 generations of entrepreneurs, and our economy shows it.  Furniture from Ikea, Clothes from H&M, food from Safeway, education on a credit card, drive through medicine, housing underwater and income from welfare check.

The four of us are not enough to meet the demand, or at least the need.  (I am sure there are others, but certainly not enough.) USA needs countless people teaching this.  The damage done during the economic booms in USA is worse than the Chinese experienced during the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution, since the USA had farther to fall.

We know two things about China's recovery: China had Hong Kong and Singapore to learn from (and Deng's consultation with both are well documented) and the Communist Party tried freedom.  USA has no Hong Kong to learn from, and there is nothing to suggest freedom will be allowed in USA.  All indications we are heading into far worse oppression, but then what goes around comes around.

USA's only defense against the welfare/warfare, bailouts, collectivization, gulag economy, gitmo lawlessness, torture, etc is small business innovation.  To move oneself from being part of the problem to part of the solution is best effected by business start up.  Instead we are totally consumed with 'gay marriage" and gun control as the most pressing conversations to address our woes.  We are quite ridiculous.

I'll say it again, none of us is teaching anything new.  What is new is people are teaching it.  Our educational system delivered the bright minds that have given us welfare/warfare, bailouts, drone diplomacy, industrial collectivization, gulag economy, gitmo lawlessness, torture, etc.  Innovation number one might be education.

Indeed, I wrote another book that shows how to become a teacher and an author (why go back to school as a student and end up in debt?  Go back as a teacher and make money and gain esteem!)  It uses the same process, but the topic is developing a teaching and authoring gig.




(There is a Kindle version too)

Let me summarize the process of business start-up from my point of view:

1. The customer is the most important thing, and you are the first customer.

2. Getting the product or service right is the hardest thing, and it is the only thing you do that you get paid for.

3. Compete on design, not price.

4. Entrepreneurs do not take risks.  Measure twice, cut once.

5. It's about the lifestyle, not about the money.  Profit is just another business expense.

That you'll find at least four out of five of the above surprising is surprising.  For most of human history, nothing on that list was surprising.  It goes to show how much work is yet to be done.

***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.


Cyprus As An Early Warning

I have been beating the drum that the best position to be in come the currency problems is to be running a business actually selling things.  It seems Cyprus is bearing this out:

When preferences for goods increase, as seems certain in Cyprus, the price effect could also be alarming, exacerbated by those capital controls on import payments. A price boom is created, rapidly driving up local prices against supply constraints.

But then comes the advice:

At stake is an eventual loss of confidence in the euro itself, as larger deposits flee for safety. In the short-term the US dollar and Swiss franc should benefit, but that doesn’t get your money out of the banks, because if the eurozone’s banks fail no bank and no paper currency is safe and their depositors might be raided. The only safety is in true money that has stood the test of time: gold and silver.

But hang on, what to do when the gold runs out.... then what?  Think you'll have enough to cover a 30 year recovery?  But the ability to trade and keep trading is worth more than gold which is an ability to buy for a limited time.

Better to start a business.

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


Monday, April 1, 2013

Mish On Cash on Hand

A debate rages among the Austrian school cognizanti as to whether the present state policies will bring hyperinflation or not.  Mish Shedlock has said no, so far, given how people are miscalculating credit.

Almost every single American citizen equates credit with money, and that is the heart of the scam, and subsequent bubble we are in.  Almost no one knows what we are looking at.  The stock market rises on this confusion.

Mish has an excellent little article graphing out the difference.  There are only large 3 or 4 companies in USA that will survive the next stock market crash.  Without another bailout anyway.  Check it out.

When calculating your odds in business, it is extremely important to know the difference between money and credit. (Currency is credit).

The sad thing is the worst run companies, like GE, whose CEO is advising President Obama, will get bailed out for their malfeasance.  Apple will have to compete against taxpayer-backed business.  It is astonishing madness.  But what can one do?

Start working now as though the system is going down.

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


Bitcoin Critique

Bitcoin is making the news.  It is a virtual currency that mimics state currencies.  And I use the word currency in its loosest sense.

With numerous financial companies already exchanging bitcoins into any of the world’s currencies, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, Rick Falkvinge, estimated that Bitcoin could capture between 1 and 10 percent of the global foreign exchange market. This implies that the price of each and every bitcoin would rise to between $100,000 and $1 million, Max Keiser explained.

Detailed, considerable debate runs on over bitcoins, but it has its true believers who see it as a threat to state control of currency, and an alternative to the predation and confiscation of the people's money by the state.

Issuance of the currency is completely automated, with 25 new bitcoins generated every 10 minutes; inflation is set to be halved every four years, until a total of 21 million bitcoins is reached. In theory, the currency would not lose its purchasing power unless individuals and businesses refused to use bitcoins.

And that is probably lesson number one, these are no revolutionaries who want to change the system, they merely want to run the system.  They have built-in inflation?

In essence Bitcoins is an opportunity for all-growed-up people to participate in an elaborate online video game.

Virtual economies are observed in MUDs and massively multi player online role-playing games (MMORPGs). The largest virtual economies are currently found in MMORPGs. Virtual economies also exist in life simulation games which may have taken the most radical steps toward linking a virtual economy with the real world. 

You can visit the Bitcoins website, and read up on the topic, but you very well may come away confused.  There are a couple of themes.  1. Bitcoins is good because it is outside of government oversite. 1. Bitcoins is bad because it is outside of government oversite.  Both premises are grounded in a presumption that bitcoins have some economic benefit commensurate with other currencies.  People take it very seriously, but it is only an online video game.  What si the game?

When ancient cities are excavated, it is not pots of gold they find everywhere, but tallies.  Elaborate systems of keeping track of who owns what.  With bitcoins, you can tally up what people owe you virtually.  And like the warcraft video games, you can buy and sell digital images of really cool things, and pay for them with real money.  Even though the thing you own is only an image.

But in Warcraft you have an actual image of something you can use in a game.  Bitcoin users require no such utility, it is the mere idea that they have something in a bank that is enough for them.  Like a Cypriot bank depositor.

It is said that the founders of Bitcoin have "moved on" and it is now self-perpetuating.  No doubt the people who designed it know its limitations well, and having seen all possible play out, are now bored.

It's not a ponzi scheme, it's not a scam, it's not a viable alternative to state malfeasance, it is just an online game like so many others.  Like all online games, it appeals to certain people, but not all.

In any event, it won't serve in international trade.

***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.


Sunday, March 31, 2013

Faith Hope and Love

We who attend to business know its limits.  We know the difference between economic events and market events, which is which.  We know the market can address many of man's problems, and we regret the markets are so constrained from doing so much more good.  But at the same time we are clear there are vast swaths of action, probably most of human experience, that cannot be addressed by markets.  That territory might be summarized as man's experience of faith, hope and love.

These are also theological virtues, and come to us from metaphysics.  Love is the most accessible of these experiences, and love points to hope.  Hope comes and goes a bit too much, but when it is present, hope points to faith, the toughest virtue.  That is a dicey foundation. Think of the true believers after the crucifixion: eleven were in hiding, afraid they were next, a twelfth had committed suicide.

We naturally judge God by ourselves, when, as a preacher man said on the radio the other day, the trick is to judge ourselves by God.  Easier to judge others by ourselves, like Judas, the one who handled the money, and judged Jesus.

Love is wanting the good for the other.  Being customer-employed necessarily means wanting the good for the other, loving thy neighbor as thyself, with goods and services developed initially to solve problems for oneself.  And then in turn improving them in order that they serve ever more people.

So on this Easter, like every Easter, Jesus arises and says, Be Not Afraid.  And then, in essence, Jesus said, "get to work" as He defines it.  Love one another.

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


Fail Fast Fail Cheap

I am always delighted to see when others are teaching the same thing I am, for it is critical the word gets out as far an wide as possible.

Here is an article sent to me on one Doug Hall, who has developed quite a franchise explicating the innovation process.

The classic mindset is to try to get a business plan or product 95% right before taking action. This is great in theory, but it rarely works. Why? Because as soon as you ship the product you immediately recognize its fatal flaws. By then, it's often too late to
change the packaging, the marketing, or the product itself.

Sound familiar?  My solution is more radical than his, but the point is we are teaching the same thing.  here is a quote from his website:

If you have any doubt if you should attend, I encourage you to keep in mind Doug's motto on why we should innovate:  "If you're not unique, you better be cheap."  

This is of course addressing the idea of competing on design vs. price, a fundamental point in my seminars and books.

Mr. Hall has a tag line "Fail Fast Fail Cheap" which summarizes nicely the idea I put forth in Plan A and Plan B market development.

It is pretty clear Mr. Hall is targeting big businesses, and he can have them.  To my mind helping Disney is uninteresting.  Helping the business that will replace Disney in a few years is far more interesting.  I want to help Apple circa 1977, not IBM circa 1977.

In both cases, mine and Hall, we are simply riffing off the phrase "entrepreneurs do not take risks" that Peter Drucker struck back in the 1980s, Hall with Fail Fast Fail Cheap and me with my Plan A and Plan B, both examples of entrepreneurs taking no risks.

Robert Kiyosaki has done great work in his Rich Dad Poor Dad franchise, with his especially insightful "Keep the assets, get rid of the liabilities."  This proves to be reliable consideration in helping make good decisions.

And along these lines, here is a most charming blog devoted to start-ups...

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