Virtual Worlds are Anarchic

Businesses are now fascinated with online games. It only took a couple decades, but as the big money begins to flow to the sector, it’s beginning to spark serious study.

Most are impressed with the ability of game designers to induce players to participate so passionately in imaginary worlds. World of Warcraft players devote months of time to solving complex tasks. Players organize, trade, and compete in stunning numbers throughout the developed world.

But I think many misunderstand why so many people devote such unusual amounts of time to mastering game worlds rather than bringing that kind of behavior into the real world.

Online games are effectively anarchist societies. There is relatively little regulation in an online world. While in the United States, you must file for incorporation if you want to start the simplest business, in a game world, there’s no such barrier to entry. At most, you may have to fill out a one-line form in the game world to incorporate or form a “guild.” If you want to trade with someone, there’s no tax form that you need to fill out.

Virtual worlds are societies with minimal friction and few of the onerous laws that regulate human behavior. If virtual worlds were to be subjected to regulations, they would go extinct almost immediately. For example, a miner in EVE will often extract ore from space rocks for far below the minimum wage when considering the value of in-game currency relative to the US Dollar. But they do it anyway, because they enjoy it, and it creates value for others.

These virtual worlds have become grey market havens for human societies. The “virtual” adjective only exists in the mind. Merely because the worlds exist only as markings on a server hard drive and electrons transmitted over the internet doesn’t mean that these societies aren’t real.

It would be simpler for businesses to apply the lessons of virtual worlds on how to motivate people, but the real world is kept under tight control. It’ll take a long time for that to change, if ever.

Posted in Business, Marketing | Leave a comment

Book Review: The Dying of Money by Jens O. Parsson

The Dying of Money: Lessons of the Great German and American Inflations, a sought-after book written in 1972 by Jens O. Parsson, was leaked onto the internet yesterday and spread widely.

As an aficionado of both economics, German history, and American history of the 20th century, I took most of my evening off to read the whole thing.

There wasn’t much new to learn there for a devoted student of Austrian economics, but I still found it valuable for the cultural perspective that it provides along with some color commentary on the differences in the American banking system relative to the German one under the Weimar republic.

To review the book briefly, the large part of the book is a highly accurate analysis of both the mechanics of inflation and the political and financial forces that brought it about. The author’s prescriptions for economic stability, however, are thoroughly statist and in part derived from the addled and over-idealized vision of Milton Friedman, who dreamed of a responsible central banking system in which the money supply would be expended by a fixed percentage every year.

That’s actually the stated goal of the Federal Reserve, but to actually accomplish it, the central bankers would need to be able to exercise total control over all banking activity and much of economic activity besides. My view of Milton Friedman and his ideas coincides with that of Murray Rothbard. Friedman is like the silly putty of free market economists. Even a hardcore socialist can find much to love about Friedman and his “public goods” arguments, which can be extended to fit anything.

The fact is that we live in Milton Friedman’s world today. Although Keynes gets much of the credit, it’s Friedman’s ideas that are promulgated throughout the upper strata of academia as a matter of dogma. It’s mistaken to call Friedman libertarian. He may have had pro-market sentiments, but the wishy-washy non-principles he used to underpin his arguments are statist in their application.

I spat out many of the choice quotes from the book on my Twitter feed throughout the day. Some of them stand out:

And the empire builders who contributed nothing of their own literally bought and sold the creators and managers of real-life businesses.

This sentence describes the late stages of the Weimar crack-up boom, but it could also apply to our current era, in which the Venture Capitalist is a celebrity – constantly surrounded by supplicants and fanboys. Just from anecdotal experience, I know that money comes much more easily from a venture-backed business than when the business must derive its cash flow from servicing real customers.

The modern VC is the social and fiscal conduit between the entrepreneur and inflationary Valhalla.

The successful venture capitalist of today derives income from the public equity markets, directly through IPO or indirectly through acquisition from another public company.

As per Parsson, ”Stock market speculation is a principal relief valve concealing latent inflation pressure.” And that has always been especially true in the United States. The US has the most sophisticated securities markets ever devised. One of the major functions that these markets perform is to quarantine inflation.

When the banking system creates new money by extending credit, much of this money flows into the securities markets – it’s paper chasing paper, rather than paper chasing real goods. This is convenient for the bureaucratic class, which measures inflation through a hedonically-adjusted basket of real goods – food, housing, and other physical stuff.

The securities markets are also ridiculously tax-advantaged relative to the real economy. Long term capital gains are taxed at a flat rate. The real economy is taxed at every level of transaction and highly regulated. When all you do is push paper, the government takes relatively little. It also endorses companies and individuals to toss money into the markets through IRA and 401(k) programs.

What I Liked

What I enjoyed the most about this book was how it explained that inflation is an asymetrical process that creates a stark divide between haves and have-nots. Those individuals that benefit from the inflation – bureaucrats, middle-men, members of large companies, successful speculators, and bankers – live like royalty. The marginal members of society fall into a hell-trap of deprivation, cut off from live-giving liquidity.

For example, the immigrant neighborhood where I live in Brooklyn might as well be in a different universe relative to TriBeCa.

Another major difference that the US has relative to Weimar Germany is that the dollar is widely traded internationally. Parsson notes

Vicious rates of price inflation, soaring profits, and rich incomes correlated with industries in which foreign competition was impossible – building construction, medical care, property ownership and rental, and all forms of services.

This doesn’t include education in that analysis, which was less reliant on credit expansion than it is today – although he does address the issue elsewhere in the book. Most of these sectors are highly inflated by the government or the banking system.

The US system extends internationally. It takes much longer for a dollar to circulate the world than it took a mark to go around the German economy.

Parsson describes how those Germans connected to credit-boosted sectors lived well throughout most of the inflation, while those on the outside suffered mightily.

I get the impression from the book that the author believed that he was in the end stages of the system, when in fact he wrote before its ultimate denouement, hey-day, and crack-up. Intellectuals of every persuasion are now acknowledging that the current course is unsustainable.

It never was. But it’s a testament to the much-maligned “financial innovation” that this society has managed to muddle through for such a long time. When reading this book, I feel awestruck by the evil ingenuity of modern statism, and how much more sophisticated it’s been in balancing and managing an inherently unstable and destructive method of organizing humanity than anyone could’ve conceived of earlier in the 20th century.

This has really been an impressive trick of public management and coordination, especially since the stock market super-inflation since the 1980s.

The Arrogance of Deflationistas

After reading this book, I felt a firmer conviction that economists and writers who argue that the global economy is going through “deflation” now are misguided and lack historical perspective. Merely because credit is contracting in a certain area due to government intervention doesn’t negate the overt and surreptitious expansions of credit in other areas. Following the 2008 crisis, the government essentially rolled up credit to real estate developers while simultaneously extending an infinite line of credit to investment banks through the discount window.

The way that inflation works, the Fed is essentially redistributing wealth from cash holders to major public companies and to the Federal government. Municipalities are weakened due to declining tax revenues, but government employees and contractors remain in bubble-land.

It’s only marginally important that the proles are no longer capable of contracting new debt or servicing their existing debt to the inflationary machine. The cash-funnel still pumps into securities of all varieties. The new currency chases paper while remaining largely dammed off from the world of people, places, and things.

Drowning in Liquidity

Few understand that the flow of money determines the shape of society. The fact of inflation is so poorly understood that many PhDs and finance professionals have no understanding of its mechanics. Political intellectuals and the politicians themselves also often fail to understand how inflation functions. It’s as if inflation were the water in the fishbowl, and the majority of people were the fish.

Also, inflation has the effect of keeping people reliant on supporting its continuance. So many people – professors, bankers, corporate employees, government workers, real estate people, construction workers, auto workers – very nearly the entire economy – is reliant on continuing inflation to sate the monetarist addiction.

It ends in horror. Always.

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Inflation creates the illusion of prosperity by generating short-term economic activity. It’s like taking amphetamines and re-organizing your underwear for sixteen hours. You could say that you were tremendously “productive” during that time, but in reality, it was just purposeless activity.

In the absence of accurate price signals and due to heavy regulation, it’s impossible for entrepreneurs, employees, and incumbent capitalists to know with any precision where to invest their efforts. The market runs on price signals. When inflation distorts price signals, economic calculation becomes impossible.

Due to the multi-decade inflation-driven run-up in land prices, there’s an entire class of unemployed workers that are mal-trained. That’s perhaps the most tragic aspect of malinvestment: the wasted lives. The people who become derivatives traders instead of doctors. Bureaucrats rather than entrepreneurs. Web app developers instead of railroad engineers.

No one knows what to do because price signals are so badly distorted by the manipulation of the flow of money.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Effects of a Free Media on Advertising

For the majority of American history, the media has been regulated.

The US Postal service – from the revolution onwards – once exercised control over newspapers. While the censorship was rarely severe, the ability of the postal service to revoke licenses was significant enough to have a chilling effect and restrict the number of periodicals in mass circulation.

Overt censorship also occurred during both World Wars through the postal system and through more overt methods of pressure, including jailing dissidents.

Naturally, the government controlled radio and television broadcasting through a heavy system of regulation that still lives on today. Media ownership was also greatly restricted, at least until the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The internet is the first global medium to operate without significant censorship. Even in China, methods to circumvent government censorship have spread sufficiently so as to make efforts to control the medium fruitless.

This had profound effects on the advertising industry. Not only were competitors discouraged by the high costs of capital equipment needed to print publications or broadcast a signal, all media companies had to submit to either hard or soft censorship regimes.

The Supply Restriction

The old order created an unusual amplifying effect for advertising. Because it was so difficult to get access to different types of media, advertisers controlled an unusual amount of the attention of their viewers. When there were three television channels, if you could get a commercial running during prime time, your message would be heard – and talked about.

Now, those same people watching prime time television and absorbing the advertisements are also sucking in ads from dozens of different sources. They may even be watching the show through an illicit download or a licit streaming service. That advertising message has less of an impact than it did before.

The New Advertising

Merriam-Webster defines advertising as “the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements.”

The much-ballyhooed “death of advertising” has yet to occur, obviously, and never will. Capital will always be able to privilege a certain kind of message. But the type of the message and the method in which it’s communicated will continue to evolve.

In 1935, interactive web advertisements would’ve been nearly inconceivable. Now, it’s becoming a standard play. Even Cheetos now has a sophisticated web advertising machine made up of viral videos, display ads, and games – targeted at all kinds of demographics.

During the height of the coverage of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP bought so much advertising space online that I found myself seeing bottom-rolling ads for their Youtube channel while I watched completely unrelated videos.

So, there’s no way that advertising is going away. The term is just a description of a human behavior.

The two minute television commercial or the $100,000 print advertisement?

Those are both going extinct.

Posted in Marketing | Leave a comment

More VC Anxieties Apparent

VC Paul Kederosky recently posted a prophesy that there’ll be a massive crash in VC.

His analysis seems sound, but I’d boil it down to a simpler point.

Interest rates are being held at a phenomenally low level. It’s been that way for years. Money that would otherwise seek out conservative investment has rushed into startups, seeking outsized speculative gains.

That’s just textbook Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT), and is totally unsurprising to anyone aware of that dynamic.

On a more local note, Nate Westheimer, leader of the NY Tech Meetup, posted some concerns about maintaining the NY “tech ecosystem.”

I’ve heard similar concerns from entrepreneurs in and out of NY – no one wants to go to Silicon Valley if they can help it. And I don’t blame them. NYC is more pleasant to live in than anywhere in CA.

My suggestion is still to go public overseas. As if on cue, the WSJ posted an item today entitled “The SEC’s Russian Roulette.”

It uses the example of a typical penny stock scam company with $100 in assets and no business model becoming a $200 million company.

That’s… impressive!

What’s stopping anyone – with a legitimate company – from following that lead? What are the legal hurdles, if any? There are more IPOs happening this year than in years previous, but… why not increase the rate by going overseas? You can’t tell me that it’s impossible to raise money if a penny-ante stock scammer could pump up a company to $200 million using  that method.

Why do I care? I like startups. I like new technology. I want to see more businesses succeed in offering products and services that transform the way we all live and do business.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

President Medvedev Makes Play for American Investment

President Medvedev has gone on a tour of technology companies in California, coinciding with a recent announcement that Russia is lowering the long term capital gains tax rate to 0%.

Apparently, Russian politicians are looking to attract high-tech companies and foreign investment.

This comes at a time during which many heavily indebted countries like the US and the United Kingdom are threatening to raise capital gains tax rates to extreme levels.

I know a great deal more about Russia and its recent history than I do most other countries.

Medvedev made a point of stating

Russia will continue to do its best to remain a predictable business partner for everyone – the Russian people and our foreign partners.

It seems that was a pointed barb to US policymakers and the Federal Reserve, which has become increasingly unpredictable in recent years.

The existence and level of political risk and taxation aren’t as important as the predictability of political risk and taxation.

If you know that taxes are coming, you can at least plan around them. If you know that the laws are going to change, you can plan around the event.

When politicians begin acting capriciously, it introduces risk to your investments that you can’t plan for. That risk extends to small and medium business  owners.

I’m curious to explore how exactly foreign entrepreneurs could start businesses and raise money in Russia. The capital gains advantage alone might be enough to attract venture capitalists. Seeing as the regulations in the US make it onerously difficult to make initial public offerings, Russia may provide a better alternative to the current American clusterfuck.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

More on the IPO Blockade

I’ve been writing about problems with the entrepreneurial system in the US for months now.

Some of that concern has come up in a recent post on TechCrunch and another by Fred Wilson.

Quoting one of my comments:

Thank you for this honest and transparent post on exits.

If people want to create a sustainable entrepreneurial community, the IPO problem has to be licked.

Many people are over-paying for legal services. I’m confident that costs can be slashed in that area with enough comparison shopping and intelligent outsourcing. The field of law in general is going through tremendous competitive pressures. Bid those prices down.

People have brought up the AIM market. I’ve also asked a couple VCs (no financial relationship, not pitching them) about going public overseas. Their response was a “lack of liquidity,” with specific reference to the AIM.

I’m also curious as to why you can’t just raise more money by going public overseas and issuing derivatives domestically. I may be totally off-base in that suggestion.

If there’s a lack of liquidity overseas, why not create it? The only way to encourage major overhauls in the legal system is through using the threat of capital flight. And not just talking about it, but actually doing it. There’s no reason to kill a fund or let a company waste away due to fear and inaction.

I’m confident that this problem can be solved without a doomed lobbying effort. Existing public companies with entrenched bases of influence in Washington LOVE the fact that it is so hard to create an effective IPO. It means that there’s more money going into their stocks than would be otherwise.

In effect, the regulatory system is running a blockade on fresh companies. You don’t try to rush head-first into that blockade, or you’ll get mowed down. Figure out a method to make that blockade irrelevant, and the rewards will be tremendous.

I’m trying to piece it out myself, but I’m really too out-of-the-loop, ignorant, and under-resourced to determine a solution.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Malinvestment: Avoid Wasting Your Life

Investors are primarily driven by price signals.

When a certain area of business shows unusually high profits, speculators flock to that sector in an attempt to exploit the opening. As the sector becomes saturated with capital, profits erode due to competition, until further investment in the area offers paltry or non-existent yields.

I’m not the person to teach a fresh student about the entire study of Austrian economics. What I do know is that the majority of major corporations rely on economists from the Chicago and Keynsian schools for advice. Orthodox economists harbor strange beliefs about the role of money in an economy. Broadly put, they believe that money is a separate class of commodity that’s largely unaffected by the laws of supply and demand.

This is untrue.

Central banks and governments often work to encourage credit to expand in a particular sector because it meets political purposes. For example, President George W. Bush famously encouraged the expansion of home mortgages, home equity loans, and home equity lines of credit throughout the 2000s. Construction companies, home improvement services, and real estate brokers thrived – until many of those loans became non-performing, eliminating much of the profit from the sector.

Venture capitalists since the 1990s have focused on promoting businesses online.

Online businesses have a number of tax-related advantages compared to traditional ones. Hosting and domain name registration are much less expensive than renting a shop. When you sell something online, it’s usually not subject to sales tax and other state duties. You can sell obscure, niche products at greater profit online. Online advertising is inexpensive and easier to measure in terms of effectiveness than conventional ads.

The Equity Bust

It’s no secret that the future of venture-backed startups is questionable. The market for acquisitions is frankly quite confusing to me. The results of the AOL acquisition of Bebo seems to me to be more the norm than an exception. Before you blame AOL’s management for the destruction, Google failed to make Dodgeball profitable after a similar big-ticket acquisition.

These companies aren’t run by idiots. Despite founder complaints to the contrary, I doubt that the “corporate culture” was the real problem.

The issue is fundamental. These social networking and data collection services are not capital-intensive. People can and do create these services for less than $1,000. It only takes time, some programming know-how, and inexpensive methods to promote them sans advertising.

Capital is necessary to develop complex technical services, pay for servers, and to keep high-grade experts on the payroll.

Social networking and anything involved in it requires none of these things. It makes very little sense as a target for capital investment.

That’s partly why returns have been so garbage.

Facebook is, of course, the most famous example of this issue. Although they’re earning substantial revenue, the company needs to go public to repay all the shareholders adequately. It’s possible that they’ll be able to accomplish it, but lackluster market performance probably means that many of the investors will be less wealthy than they hoped.

It’s actually kind of pathetic that despite hundreds of millions of users, each user is worth a few dollars at most. In a company that raised less money and had a smaller staff, it’d be in a beautiful position. But now it’s required by shareholders to contort its business model severely in order to ensure adequate returns for investors.

Political Risk in the United States

Political risk is anathema to long-term business planning. Ordinary sorts of risk can be hedged against. But with politics, your business can take a bullet in the head without warning. The classic type of political risk is outright nationalization. But there are other kinds of risk.

For example, Senator Schumer wrote a threatening letter to Facebook about its privacy policies. The government, of course, has the power to impede Facebook’s IPO or to convene some kind of regulatory agency that can dictate how Facebook services its customers.

Internet businesses have enjoyed relative freedom from regulation. The sector came to maturity under a government with a relatively laissez-faire orientation to this new sector.

The overall philosophy of the 1990s – that evaporated after the 9/11 attacks – was to gradually dismantle the 20th century regulatory apparatus to encourage economic growth. While support for the mixed economy remained firm among the political classes, there was a general understanding that freedom from regulation would encourage economic growth in the long run.

This deregulation process ultimately failed, with explosions like Enron and even the acquisition of Broadcast.com by Yahoo scarring the public mind. The Federal government made too many promises about being capable of cracking down on state-level regulations than could be fulfilled. The multi-billion dollar giveaway to telecommunications companies intended to induce broadband internet expansion was a colossal failure. The companies either sat on the money or were stymied in their attempts to expand by the demands of municipal governments.

And in any event, the deregulation was asymetric. While internet companies like Amazon enjoyed a largely regulation-free existence, manufacturers, utilities, and others were kept frozen in the past by the regulatory regime.

In that manner, innovation was allowed in a small sector – and provided with massive tax and regulatory advantages – that allowed it to dominate in terms of growth.

Now, as the FCC and other agencies demand more regulatory authority over online business, entrepreneurs and investors are at a crossroads.

Hedging Political Risk

The dominant philosophy in tech-related business is to be numbers-driven.

This, I believe, is in part misguided and based on epistemological error. Venture capitalists and other investors are not stupid people. They’re generally among the most intelligent, best-connected, most knowledgeable, and honest people around.

The trouble is extrapolating a trend into the future based on past averages. It’s also in mistaking meaningless “metrics” for profit potential. Myspace had metrics out the wazoo. So did Geocities. Both were horrific malinvestments.

The reliance on metrics over profits to make investing decisions is fading away as more intelligent investors recognize that nothing will replace basic economics.

There are few exits these days for conventional venture-backed startups because the failure rate is too high. Unless you’re an investment bank that can borrow from the discount window, blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on a startup with questionable profit potential seems rather stupid.

It makes no sense to me as to why a company would spend $500 million or more on a startup if they could just send several employees into a corner office to develop the new technology in a skunk-works or other kind of incubator.

There are always anomolies – like Gilt Groupe and Groupon – but those are both businesses that sell real products. They’re not just nebulous web toys that have a vague promise of someday making money. They use the web to sell real products and services. They’re bread-and-butter businesses that use technology to sell stuff.

If Bebo couldn’t turn a profit after being acquired for $850 million, it’s unlikely that similar services like Ning will be capable of doing one better.

The venture-backed world is littered with the corpses of social networking sites. Because any teenager can set up a social networking website.

It’s a commodity in nearly limitless supply.

And anyway, most of what gets attention these days are retreads from the 90s.

There’s not much that differentiates Chatroulette from various webcam prostitution services that popped up during the 1990s. It even features plenty of dicks.

Technology on the web has developed relatively little. The scale has increased and aesthetic sensibilities have become more refined, but the growth in the sector has been driven primarily by getting more people on the internet rather than actual technological change.

My favorite example is the cell phone network. The United States was one of the last developed countries to get 3G connections. The populace in the US was years behind the rest of the world in mobile technology until the FCC and the state-managed telecoms finally got around to opening up the spectrum.

Another example is Twitter. Fundamentally, Twitter is little different from an instant messaging service or chat room. It’s organized in a different manner than previous direct communications technologies, and the company managed to market the service to a mainstream audience.

It’s unprofitable, and will probably only become profitable if it finds a spendthrift suitor willing to pay a price exponentially higher than its earnings.

Concerns About Fraud

Many venture capitalists are partly compensated as a percentage of assets under management. This means that their primary short-term incentive is to raise as much money as possible. Even if they endure catastrophic failures, they still collect a substantial paycheck. Of course, if they want to survive in the business for decades, they have to provide returns to their investors to build a reputation.

I strongly doubt that the majority of venture capitalists are actually out there to defraud investors. However, whenever there’s “other people’s money” involved, the true believer syndrome follows closely. People can do amazing amounts of mental gymnastics to justify fraudulent behavior.

Plenty of people that would have otherwise invested their money in conventional instruments are apparently rushing into entrepreneurial funds.

I hesitate to start moralizing about investors, because persistent low interest rates make this kind of doomed bubble inevitable.

Lest I be accused of undue projection, my very first entrepreneurial ventures were somewhat fraudulent. In High School, I would write people’s papers for them and recruit people into my ‘groups’ for a $50 fee – after which I would do all the work for them.

I’ve never plagiarized anything myself – I write original material faster than I could copy and adapt it – I did aid and abet unethical behavior as a matter of course. I continued this practice to a lesser extent in college, writing midterms and final exams at $500 a pop. I would skim the entire semester of reading in a few hours and then manufacture a paper with the proper quotes.

Those were relatively minor transgressions, but it made up a pattern of unethical behavior. I decided to make a firm break with the past when I left college, and decided to live as honestly as I possibly could.

In the long run, integrity is the only policy that works.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

From the Archives: Perestroika! (9/26/2008)

Rape of the Sabine Women - Nicholas Poussin, 1633-34

Rape of the Sabine Women - Nicholas Poussin, 1633-34

I get the sense reading the papers that people actually want this society to fall to pieces, that it would be a dreadful disappointment to everyone involved if they never saw a bread line, or if the dreaded FEMA detention camps are never actually used. The ever-escalating bailout plans are being sold on the argument that they are the only thing that can prevent a total economic collapse that will create “double-digit unemployment” and other well-worn doomsayer bugaboos.

Of course, interventions like these – which extract money through violence from the populace at large to redistribute to the politically connected – are just the sort of move that will further damage the economic health of the country.

It’s difficult for most to understand the simple fact that the men in the government are parasites that live to extract as much money as possible from public funds.

The reason why no one is able to articulate the productive purpose of the $700 billion heroic plan to rescue America is because there isn’t one.

It’s exactly what it looks like. The executive branch is using this manufactured panic as a cover to transfer hundreds of billions to the banking sector, because they understand on an unconscious level that this government will collapse before their careers are over.

Politicians, understanding that they will need to find some way to secure their future, know that they will need to make friends in the private sector so that they can ensure that they have a comfortable retirement.

The clearest historical precedent is the recent Soviet Collapse. Contrary to common expectations, the USSR did not deploy the Red Army to prevent the collapse of the state. The Soviet system had been thoroughly discredited – the leaders themselves no longer believed in it any longer.

Tanks won’t roll through Times Square, although it would be amusing to watch them try. There will still be plenty to eat. After the chaos involved in the looting of state assets and the dissolution of the state fades, something new will emerge. Socialism, despite the fear-mongering of some libertarians, is not making a comeback. The government lacks both the funds and the moral strength to implement a sequel to the New Deal – and if they do, it’ll be like a straight-to-DVD version that fizzles within a few weeks.

The greatest threat to our livelihood is not the government, but widespread despair. In the early days of the Russian Federation, literally hundreds of thousands of middle aged people simply drank themselves to death, unwilling to make the challenging adjustments necessary to thrive on the free market. In the post-Soviet era, the more educated classes were less likely to maintain employment, as they had become too accustomed to the unjust privileges granted to them by Communism.

Mikhail Gorbachev

Mikhail Gorbachev

Perestroika is upon us – the state shall dismantle, in part or in full.

It will fall apart slowly, and then all at once.

Fortunes will be made and lost.

I hesitate to call this a good thing, but it is a time of great opportunity for both heroes and charlatans. I doubt that it will be easy for workers accustomed to the ease and inefficiency of the public sector to adjust to the rigors of a market under the strain of massive debt and potentially punishing taxes and inflation, but it will help to rejuvenate an economy hobbled by decades of the statist disease.

Of course, I might be wrong, but I doubt it. There might be a continuation of the government, but it will be a pale reflection of what it is currently. Keep in mind that the United States has the oldest major government in the world; it’s a gross historical outlier.

Our fourth-rate public intellectuals will try to build rickety castles from the wreckage, most of which are likely to collapse within hours or weeks. Let’s see them try!

Orchard with Blossoming Apricot Trees - Vincent Van Gogh, 1888

Orchard with Blossoming Apricot Trees - Vincent Van Gogh, 1888

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Business Plot #1: Exporting Human Capital

This is a first draft. It’s not intended as a pitch or an application for a loan.

Summary: This company will assist underemployed MBA graduates from Ivy League institutions to find work in China.

The Problem: I believe that many (if not most) recent graduates from elite business schools are underemployed.

Traditional US-only employment agencies, recruiters, and head-hunters have largely given up on hiring recent graduates, as there’s an excess of experienced workers on the market.

Many of these graduates are counting on a corporate recovery that may never occur. It’s unclear to me as to how US-based companies are supposed to compete with investment banking concerns that can borrow from the Federal Reserve at below 1% through the discount window. The political environment in the Western world indicates that huge amounts of money will be distributed to various state governments.

This means that most companies will find that the money flowing from the Federal Reserve directly into government and investment banking coffers will crowd out most ordinary investment.

Few are serving the vast quantities of underemployed and highly educated young people in the US. While many of them can do quite well as contractors, freelancers, and entrepreneurs, not everyone is quite so independently minded.

Western governments are focusing on bailouts for indebted governments while simultaneously cutting jobs and welfare rolls. The prospects for domestic recovery are weak due to political and monetary factors. Many of these graduates are sitting around waiting for conventional domestic jobs that are unlikely to ever appear.

The Solution: I intend to build the business in stages, with the intention of creating a model employment agency and immigration facilitation service that will be widely emulated.

Limiting the market to Ivy League MBAs makes it simpler to develop a high-quality service. Creating a general-service employment agency would overwhelm limited resources with applications and generate brand confusion.

Ideally, this service will create a steady flow of human capital to China, generating new opportunities for other businesses. Other entrepreneurs may be willing to wait for political solutions to the deep structural flaws in the US business environment, but long experience and historical knowledge leaves me skeptical of that possibility.

Stages of Development

1. Research. I will self-fund this stage, seek investment from friends & family, and may raise further seed funds through Kickstarter and other sources.

2. Seminar I’ll develop a seminar course either alone or with the assistance of others for the target market to walk prospects through the process of emigrating to China.

3. Learning Products Instructional DVDs and other learning material are the natural progression from the seminar. This develops customer interest while providing additional revenue streams.

4. Employment Firm The seminar and line of learning products leads to the development of a job placement firm with relentless customer service.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

One Question For Your Investors: “What’s Our Exit Strategy?”

I’m reminded by the 1990s when I see a lot of the technology companies receiving press (and funding) these days.

I’m uncertain what many of the most public venture capitalists really intend to do with their portfolios. Companies that have a lot of “users” but no revenue aren’t really corporations – they’re just hobbies funded by shareholders.

The older generation of entrepreneurs and contractors are jaded about venture capitalists and corporate management in general. Veterans remember how many companies were destroyed by VC malfeasance during the boom years. The funds are structured in such a way as to use entrepreneurs like soldiers in a war. You send your workers up against the hill, most of them get blown to smithereens, and you hope to secure some territory by the end.

Investment bankers (the gatekeepers to a significant IPO) are also weary of fraud on the part of VCs in accounting and revenue projections.

It’s odd that VCs would continue that approach even during this era.

I don’t see much demand for web applications. It’s too easy for developers to create them for free. It’s also too easy for cash-rich public companies to replicate features and roll them out to the market at a faster rate.

If you have an intention to sell your company, it’s best to keep that the primary goal. If your technology has already been replicated elsewhere, there’s no purpose to raising huge amounts of money to pay engineers and programmers to work in fancy commercial offices for years on end drawing down salaries.

Product developers like to feel important. They want to “innovate.” Innovation pisses off customers.

Customers hate change.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, even tiny alterations to an entrenched service spikes customer service costs and can hand your business to a competitor.

My ideal business these days is something that uses tested technology to drive in revenue from the first moment. I’m disinterested in innovation-for-innvation’s sake.

You can’t build a cradle for your baby with “innovation.” You can’t take your girlfriend out to dinner with “users” or “metrics.” You can do all of those things with profit, which is the entire point of being in business in the first place.

Only the deluded (and those interested in quashing competition) will buy out companies with no revenue. I enjoy services like Twitter in that it has successfully marketed the IRC experience to more people, but the valuation it commands is absurd. The staff seems bloated. And I have no clue what their exit strategy could be.

The specialized press seems only happy to fuel the craze.

Always know where you’re headed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment