Moving on

As you can see, I have not blogged here in a long time now. Like any fad, the personal blog has come and gone (plus, .blogspot.com has become a decidedly low-rent address.) Sharing your life online has become simpler—and a lot less verbose—with social networks. Never the less, I have been writing from time to time at other sites.

• Most recently at Medium, a more modern storytelling/blogging service
• I’ve also written several articles for my friend's travel site, The Hostel Life

There are also a smattering of more technical and niche articles around that I will not link to here. I would say ‘find me on FB,’ but I’ve recently given that up too, so I'll just leave you with my Twitter @froese and LinkedIn.

Amazon I N C E P T I O N

Although this is a local issue, it demonstrates some universal issues in economic development. Amazon.com had started building a distribution center in Lexington County, South Carolina with the understanding that they would be exempt from collecting SC state sales tax (international readers, see sales tax primer at end), but a recent vote in the South Carolina House of Representatives quashed that implied promise, and now Amazon.com says it is pulling out of South Carolina...leaving behind a massive, half-built warehouse and an unfulfilled promise of 1200 jobs. I've given this a lot of thought and therefore am somewhat conflicted about the issue on a number Inception-like levels:

LEVEL 1

Since you are reading this on the Internet, you—like I—probably order stuff from online merchants on a regular basis. As such, we probably appreciate that nearly everything we order comes from another state, and therefore is free of sales tax. (Yes, I know I'm supposed to pay “use tax” on out-of-state purchases, but—really—who does that?) So, if Amazon.com came to South Carolina without this concession, everything I buy from Amazon (regardless of which distribution center it came from) would cost an additional 6%. Of course, I would not like that.

LEVEL 2

South Carolina, like every state (and nearly every government in the world) is suffering from budget shortfalls due in part to the recent economic upheaval. As a resident and tax payer, I would like to see more money joining my contribution to the states coffers so we can have “nice things” like other industrious states and countries have such as high-quality schools & universities, roads & other infrastructure, law enforcement, parks, etc. Therefore, at this level, I cringe that we were ready to forfeit this much needed revenue stream. (Granted, Amazon is never going collect or pay sales tax for any state.)

LEVEL 3

This distribution center would employ some 1,250 people in my area, undoubtedly there would also be multiplier effects as allied firms and other online retailers would consider this site, which—admittedly—is a great place for this type of business: minutes away from 3 interstate highways, regional postal, UPS, and FedEx hubs (who would probably also need to beef up their staff) within 5 miles, and plenty land for such expansion. Additionally, real estate values would go up in the area and new housing would probably be built. This would certainly benefit the economy of Columbia and of Lexington County. So, like many of my friends on Facebook and Twitter, I've got to be for that! However, I am not naive enough to think that 1,250 people will remain unemployed now; that's not the way a market economy works—there is no “lump of labor” that you just break a piece off. Lexington County already has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state and is even lower than the national average.

LEVEL 4

Finally, there is the issue of fairness. Why should Amazon.com be exempt from collecting sales tax from South Carolina customers when all other retail businesses located in the state must do so? This is the argument of the business lobby that defeated this bill, and it is quite understandable. By not collecting SC sales tax, Amazon.com has an unfair competitive advantage.

While small business struggle to get established, nearly all states fight each other to land big businesses that promise to employ hundreds or thousands of its residents with generous concessions. They happily promise to forgo years of tax income, make commitments to upgrade infrastructure, create job training programs, and even loan or grant money and real estate to some firms. This is a legitimate economic development strategy that can create a successful technology cluster such as the one built around the BMW plant in Greenville, South Carolina. However, there is no guarantee of success, as seen by the now abandoned Mac Truck plant in Winnsboro, SC. So the question is, who should evaluate these opportunities? It seems to me that too often the big business draws up its own demands, and the local politicians immediately become cheerleaders regardless of how appropriate the project is for the long-term development of the region.

More importantly, I am interested in why underdeveloped states, regions, countries, or whatever need to prostitute themselves in front of industry in the first place. What disadvantages are otherwise turning away these industries, and what are the root causes of these negative aspects? I don't think that San Mateo and Santa Clara counties in California need to offer any special incentives to get technology firms to locate in Silicon Valley, nor does New York City have to do anything to keep the financial industry from leaving. Regardless of how sweet the incentives, the bulk of professionals in these industries would never move to some stiflingly boring Midwestern or southern state. I have written more about this previously in Promoting Innovation.

So, as I've said, I am conflicted about this; I wish states would collectively agree not to undercut each other, but I know this will never happen, so I guess I've got to pull for the home team and hope that some day in the future we will grow to the point where we don't need to introduce these market distortions.

Sales tax primer: In the United States, each state (and occasionally local governments as well) determines and collects a sales tax from 0% to 10% on all retail purchases (with some exceptions.) Unlike a value-added tax (VAT), this applies only to the final, end-user sale; manufactures don't pay this for raw material, and wholesalers don't collect it for sales to retailers. Also, this tax is only due from residents of the state in which the seller is located. While it is difficult to claim this exemption for small purchases you make when traveling to another state, mail order and e-commerce businesses simply don't charge it when shipping goods to an address outside of their state. (Oh, and to the consternation of foreign visitors, sales tax is almost never included in the posted price.)

Inception primer: The brilliant 2010 film Inception has spawned an Internet meme similar to “mind=blown” or “[insert strange twist], by M. Night Shyamalan” in which—to express how mind-blowing a concept is—you take almost any word that ends in “-ion”, put spaces between the letters, and make it bold. (e.g. Sales tax C O L L E C T I O N )

The film itself only makes sense when you realize [and this is not a spoiler] that the team has successive dreams within dreams, in which time exponentially slows down for each level, and if someone gets killed in a dream this person’s [un]consciousness goes to limbo, where time stretches out even more, such that DiCaprio’s character and wife spend a lifetime there one night many years ago. Also, since his wife has been dead for years, her appearance is merely a figment of his imagination, and thus her sabotage must be his self-flagellation.



UPDATE 5/21/2011: The South Carolina legislature relented and gave Amazon.com their sales tax exemption. Construction of their enormous warehouse (above) is moving along at a brisk pace. I'm happy that this major industry has located here, and I hope this area will become a distribution/logistics cluster. However I'm still uncomfortable that certain companies are allowed to ignore the obligation to collect sales tax from retail sales.

This American Life just had a brilliant show with the Planet Money team titled “How to Create a Job”; the main premise is that despite the big talk from politician and the economic development industry, they almost never create a job, they just shuffle them around from state to state. If you have a free hour, it's certainly worth the listen: (click here)

Freedom

I find the word “freedom” is thrown around a lot lately by people who apparently do not understand its actual meaning at best, or possibly use it in an intellectually dishonest manner. Ironically, it is usually coming from traditionalists, who—by definition—are not interested in dissent (which is, of course, what freedom protects.)

If we step back for a moment and examine the issue, it is obvious that the protection of freedom (be it freedom of speech, religion, assembly, association, or whatever) really matters most for dissenters. Even the most repressive regimes in the world do not attempt to silence anyone who says “our nation (or country or government) is the greatest in the world” or “the government and business leaders of our country have our best interests at heart” or “we seek to restore the traditional social order of our nation.” In all countries, those in the majority—especially the rich and powerful—rarely run into problems expressing their opinions. A wealthy businessman in Singapore, Hong Kong, or even mainland China is likely to be satisfied with the freedoms he has in these countries, which are normally considered repressive. It is the minority (ethnic, political, religious, intellectuals, etc.) who really value true freedom.

Before I go on, let me be clear that I am certainly no fan of Islam. It is indeed a dangerous and sometimes violent religion (but waning in power, as I have previously discussed.) However, I am shocked to see the reaction of Americans who are willing to give up cherished freedoms that are enshrined the US Constitution to address real, and—in many cases—imagined, threats to our country. Growing up in the US, we are taught that the earliest settlers were Puritans and Pilgrims who were not allowed to worship God as they saw fit in England, and thus came to New England for religious freedom. Thus it more than ironic that conservative elements of American society (who see themselves as spiritual heirs of these first religious dissenters) are the most willing to become the new oppressors.

Cordoba House
The right-wing demagoguery of the planned Islamic center to be built in lower Manhattan is the clearest and most chilling demonstration of the willingness of a significant portion of American population to roll back our much-cherished religious freedoms. (And the extent of our commitment to religious freedom in America is indeed unique, as evident in the fact that we allow such obvious cults as Scientology to exist—something that otherwise more progressive European countries such as Germany do not.) It is clear that certain conservative, “Christian,” patriotic activists care less for the actual freedom of religion enshrined in their supposedly beloved Constitution, than they care for fanning the flames intolerance. The evidence, in this case, is their deliberate misrepresentations and falsifications. First of all, the site is not at “Ground Zero”; it is an 8-block walk from the Liberty Street observation point, meaning practically no one visiting Ground Zero will ever see it! Second, it is not really a mosque; it is a multi-purpose building that will include a mosque in the same way that many public and private building may include a Christian chapel. Certainly there will no minaret blaring a call to pray five times a day. Even the name Cordoba has been subject to demagoguery, forcing supporters to rename it simply Park51. Despite what Newt Ginrich says, any student of history knows that the story of 8th to 11th century Cordoba, Spain is about a vibrant, multi-cultural center of trade and learning in an otherwise dark, medieval period, and not just about Muslim conquest. (And, of course, Catholic Spain eventually did re-conquer this territory, and the centerpiece mosque once again became a cathedral.) Furthermore, the leader of this project, Iman Rauf, is hardly some extremist Shiite or even Sunni Muslim. He is of the touchy-feely, mystical branch of Islam: Sufism (of whirling dervish fame.)

But all this doesn’t even matter, because—again—we have this pesky first amendment in our beloved Constitution that guarantees the freedom to practice even unpopular religions (within the limits of criminal law, building and safety regulations, etc.) If indeed the Muslim extremists hate us for our freedoms, as former president Bush said, then are we not playing right into their hands?

Koran Burning
The only thing that can be said about this pastor in Florida (who, as an attention whore, shall remain nameless) is that he is quite stupid: by burning a books, you are taking them out of circulation, and thus increasing their demand. Then, of course, there is the company you find yourself in (historically) as a book-burner (Hitler, et al.) Thankfully cooler heads were able to talk him out of this stunt, which would have certainly resulted in a number of directly attributable deaths around the world.

The real issue here is the media’s reaction. At most, this story was only worthy of a mention in the local media outlets of Gainesville, Florida; after all, his congregation numbered only 35 to 50. Responsibility for the spectacle that followed instead lays squarely on the shoulders of national and international media outlets that brought this to the attention of the world (and real Muslim extremists who might actually kill people over this issue.) The media often has to balance the public’s right to know with the potential harm a story may cause, and this was a clear case for staying quiet: no civic benefit, but definite harm to international relations, and a real potential for deaths.

Immigration
Although not related to religion, this issue again shows the true colors of supposedly Constitution-loving conservatives. In 1868, the fourteenth amendment was added to the Constitution, forever solidifying the concept of Jus soli, which we had inherited from English Common Law; it made it clear that any child born within the borders of the United States automatically becomes a US citizen (except children of diplomats.) But now, certain right-wing groups actually want to roll back this right because a number of Latin American immigrants (especially undocumented ones) are—horror of horrors—having children here! Despite the fact we are a country of immigrants, they insist on painting our most recent immigrants as criminals (this is nothing new, throughout our short history newcomers have often been labeled as trouble, be they Italian, Irish, Jewish, Asian, or Eastern European.) Today calling undocumented immigrants “illegal aliens” is apparently not strong enough; some people actually want to use the term “criminal immigrant” for people whose only crime is “not having their paperwork in order.” To which I always counter with “he who is without sin, cast the first stone,” and ask if their paperwork such as tax filings are entirely complete and accurate.

Constitution
In all these cases, what I am trying to point out is the incredible hypocrisy found in so much right-wing ideology. When I hear conservatives talk about the Constitution, it seems they regard it as an infallible document, somehow handed down from God on an American Mount Sinai to our founding fathers (who were Deists, by the way.) According to them, President Obama and liberals in general are trying to weaken or re-write this “holy” Constitution, stealing their rights. But what in fact has happened in the last several years is that the Republican, George Bush, rode roughshod over the Constitution, habeas corpus, and privacy rights. Now right-wing leaders want to further erode the constitutional freedoms of religion, association, and due process …all because they misunderstand what freedom is all about: namely guaranteeing rights for the weak, downtrodden and oppressed.

Europe
Before any of European readers start feeling too smug in this regard, let me remind them of a few recent items in the news: the French ban on head coverings, the Swiss referendum banning of minarets, the deportation of Romanian and Bulgarian (EU Citizen) Gypsies from France in direct contradiction to the founding EU concept of freedom of movement for goods, capital, services, and people; and recent election of far-right, anti-immigrant candidates in Sweden and the Netherlands.

Promoting Innovation

So, in the previous post, I proposed that the only entrepreneurial enterprises worth pursuing are in innovation; more specifically my advice was to not pursue market-share (large, efficient business will beat you at that game every time) and actually do not pursue a market-enlarging strategy either...because you shouldn't have any noteworthy competitors. If you want to start a successful business, you've got to create a market from scratch (or at least revolutionize an existing one.)

Consider for a moment what Apple did in the last decade: although they were already a fairly large computer maker, they turned the nascent marketplace of MP3 players on its head when they created the iPod (and all the subsequent variations.) As early as the mid-1990s, companies like Rio had introduced similar devices that allow cutting-edge young people who already were storing their music collection on their computers to take at least a part of this collection with them without burning a CD. Granted, the Apple brand and marketing machine had a lot to do with its success, but the iPod really was a revolutionary device with its intuitive and even alluring interface, and an equally slick synchronization application, iTunes. This software, in turn, created the first viable, legitimate digital music sales channel. Today it seems that every young person has (or at least covets) an iPod-like device; 10 years ago, hardly anyone would have imagined they need something like this—Apple created a worldwide market out of thin air!

Nearly everyone agrees this type of business (and the type of jobs that go with it—high tech and knowledge-oriented) is what we want for our community, our state, and our country. So, the question is: how do we encourage this as governments and business communities? This is an important questions by virtue of the fact that nearly every state is trying to create at least one “innovation center” to do just that.

The traditional answer to facilitate job and economic growth has always been to lower taxes and reduce regulations. I recently received a campaign letter from Jim Harrison, who is running for a seat in the South Carolina state house; in this letter he follows the standard Republican line: “The only way our state can recover from the recession is to show the world that we are open for business. To do that, we must create a business-friendly tax environment with smaller, less intrusive state government that allows businesses new and old to flourish.” However, it seems that the most innovative industries have located in the least business-friendly, and in fact the most left-leaning communities in the country such as the San Francisco Bay Area, the Pacific Northwest, New York, Boston, etc. Why the incongruity? Simple: the most innovative organizations are small start-ups who—quite frankly—don’t care about these big business issues; they aren't yet making any real money for authorities to tax, and they generally aren't affected by many regulations. Innovators flock to these decidedly blue innovation centers because that's where the talent (both technical and creative) is, that's where capital sources (VC and angel investors) are, that’s where the infrastructure is, and—just as importantly—these locations are just cool places to live: abundant recreation opportunities, vibrant nightlife, etc.

But this all sounds tautological: innovators come to these innovation centers where all the cool people are to innovate. So the real question is: what is the underlying reason that these natural innovation centers exist? I think that what you will find at the heart of each is one or more world-class university. Not the kind with a undefeated football team, but the kind that draws the best and brightest young people from all over the country and even all over the world (note the numerous the foreign names in any list of high-tech startup founders.)

A tale of two states
Let me tell you a tale of two states; California and South Dakota. As you probably know, California is on the brink of bankruptcy due to overspending (in large part on education.) South Dakota, on the other hand, has written in their constitution that the state government simply is not allowed to go into deficit spending. In a traditional view, South Dakota is the good, responsible government, and California is completely irresponsible. However, I ask you: what has South Dakota done recently (and I am not picking on SD, you can ask this of most mid-western and southern states.) Can you name one scientific breakthrough or one high-tech startup that has become a household name from there?

In this regard, California has too numerous examples to list; nearly every major computer hardware, software, and accessories company is based in or started in “Silicon Valley.” Then think of the entertainment industry: despite the fact that many movies and TV shows are now filmed elsewhere, Hollywood is still the undisputed global nexus of the motion picture industry. For all the half-serious kidding from southerners and mid-westerners about how we'd be better off it an earthquake would just set California adrift in the Pacific Ocean, the United States of America would be a pale shadow of itself without California; just in strictly monetary terms, if it were an independent country, California would be the 8th largest economy in the world!

So, in an incongruous, “parable of the talents” manner, I say we should actually underwrite the supposedly irresponsible spending of these liberal states (who actually fuel these powerhouses of innovation) at the expense of the “good son” states that have their financial affairs in order, but due to their conservative policies, do not foster innovation! At the federal level, we actually do the opposite: southern and mid-western states generally receive more federal funding than the federal tax revenues collected from the state’s citizens and companies.

Again, I am not denigrating southerns or mid-westerners; I truly believe there are just as many creative and intelligent people (per capita) born in each state, but as they grow to be adults they feel unfulfilled/unchallenged and chafe under the traditional strictures of these states, and move (often for university studies) to a more inviting locales. So, much like the brain drain experienced by under-developed countries, many states and localities are actually shooting themselves in the foot by being financially responsible!

Now, I am not saying that, to become a center of innovation, state and local governments just have to loosen the purse-strings. In fact I don't have the answer to the question how does one foster the creation of innovative companies. Many communities have built business incubators, technology centers, etc. and may have even filled those offices with mediocre startups, but failed to see standout successes that actually leave those "incubators." Again, a large part of attracting creative and intelligent people is being "a cool place to live." As such, no matter what you do, you're never going to attract the best and brightest to Sioux Falls, SD or Cleveland, Ohio, or any number of ordinary cities across this land. Part of the appeal is geographic, and unless you can build mountains and seas, your community is out of luck. (I suppose things like parks, nature reserves, multi-use trails would help somewhat.) The other major contributor is a harder to define characteristic and again somewhat tautological: a community where the "cool kids" already live. This means things like a vibrant music scene and a range of international restaurants (staffed by actual immigrants, of course.) These are the type of things that can't be created in a top-down fashion, but certainly can be quashed by ill-conceived planning policies and various incentives & disincentives.

[UPDATE April 2017] At the moment, I live in Silicon Valley and—in reviewing this post 6+ years later—have to agree with my past self’s assessment. One very important ingredient, which I only mentioned briefly, is money—specifically the venture capitalists (VCs) who make generous bets (6-7 figures) on startups, hoping to hit it big on a very successful one. Along with this goes the valuable advice and encouragement this place is oozing with; everyone has FOMO (fear of missing out) and therefore don't easily dismiss ideas.

I just heard an excellent and relevant story on the public radio show Marketplace called “Will your city be the next tech hub?” that I recommend listening to.

There is no easy Money

It's the universal American dream: to strike out on your own, become your own boss, and—of course—become fabulously wealthy. It is a dream shared by men and women at all levels of society from janitors to executives. I'm convinced it is the reason why many middle income and even lower-middle income people are diehard political conservatives; they truly believe that they are a few steps away from becoming a business owners who, by definition, would be adversely affected by high taxes and burdensome health/safety/labor/environmental regulations.

Certainly there are possibilities for the meteoric rises from “rags to riches” that we all celebrate, such as the orphaned, high-school dropout Dave Thomas, who went on to create a world-wide restaurant chain: Wendy's. However, we must remember these are exceptions; we can't base policy decisions on a few outliers. Without outside influence, people generally stay in the socio-economic class that they were born in, which—at best—is a little better than their parents. These non-contiguous jumps in success that we all dream of, whether in business, sports, or entertainment, are actually extremely rare. When it comes to small business, we must acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of them fail within the first few years, and not only dwell on a few success stories.

This is why I've become convinced that—just as it is foolhardy (and cruel) to pump up poor, inner-city youths with dreams of becoming basketball or rap stars—it is cruel to even tacitly encourage a friend who, with little more than contempt for his employer, wants to strike out on his own. A friend should be the voice of reason in these circumstances, and test the budding entrepreneur’s commitment, knowledge, discipline, and capabilities in this area. Someone who is really intelligent and capable enough to succeed in this respect will have no problem answering the tough questions, starting with how he (or she) is going to support himself, and what evidence there is that this will actually attract customers and make money.

Although there are thousands of self-described independent business people and even more business licenses & incorporation filings, most are not successful—even if they do show some kind of profit. To be a successful entrepreneur, first of all you have to make enough from your salary and/or profit to at least equal your previous job. Too often I hear self-employed friends talk about how much they made in that one good week or month, but are silent about their yearly income. Later, when they run out of money, I often hear they went back to their old job…apparently their business wasn’t as successful as they made it out to be.

The next measure of success is return on investment (ROI) or return on assets; if you already have (or inherited) buildings/facilities/real estate, vehicles, and equipment, you must consider the value of these in any calculation. There is an opportunity cost for these items; could these items could be sold or leased if you were not utilizing them? If so, then this must be determined and subtracted from your profit statement.

There are many other ways of measuring financial success, but my final question would be: how much would someone buy your business for? Obviously part of the equation is the value of cash, inventory, and assets (minus depreciation, of course), but a successful business is really measured by how much money it makes (and is expected to make in the future), and this is where it often becomes sticky for sole proprietors who do not recognize all their cash income and mix business and personal expenses. If I want to buy your business, and you say, “Well, I receive a lot more income than I report on my taxes” then I must trust your word on how much you actually make, since you certainly wouldn’t risk keeping separate books reflecting this additional income (because that would guarantee a conviction in a tax evasion case.)

Too often entrepreneurs end up buying themselves a low-paying job (especially considering the long hours involved) for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and only seem to be successful because they own or control significant assets, while their spouse is actually earning the family’s income from a conventional job.

Corporate rip-off
I will come back to possibly successful entrepreneurial business ideas, but first I want to address why you can’t beat the big guys in the consumer retail sector by defending supposedly evil corporate bad guys against incessant criticism from consumers and small businessmen. I am blown away when I hear local would-be entrepreneurs declare how they could bring goods and service to customers at a lower price than large corporations…who, then by definition, are ripping us off. Their unsophisticated analysis show they do not understand the efficiencies, especially in supply chains, that large corporations have, and ignore the overhead costs in delivering goods & services (I’ve even heard redneck business owners claim to have “low overhead” without realizing that they actually have higher overhead per unit!)

Likewise nearly everyone complains about how cable TV, satellite, and mobile phone companies are ripping them off. The assumptions is that, as an intangible good, data must have a marginal cost near zero, so why should they be getting dinged tens of additional dollars every months for overages and arcane fees for using these services? What is forgotten is the capital tied up in infrastructure and ongoing expenses in maintenance of these massive networks. This reality is divorced from what the advertising/marketing department must do to increase market share: namely get customers to sign contracts for $x9.95/month with—of course—an asterisk at the end! Recently I’ve watched a nearby AT&T tower go up (easily a 7-figure project) and watched dozens to hundreds of UTMS cabinets being assembled for installation around the state as AT&T upgrades their network for 3G. Now I understand why they need $70 a month for the unlimited iPhone data plan.

On the left/green front, some assert that the local & organic food movement stands to gain efficiencies (and reduce carbon footprint) by not transporting food hundreds (or even thousands) of miles across the country or world as the incumbent, industrial food/agriculture industry does. Their childish logic implies that these giants are transporting goods over long distance for no good reason. In fact, large concerns such as Wal-Mart are very careful to minimize the carbon footprint of each product; they just don’t call it that, but use a perfect proxy: money! The less money they spend on diesel fuel, the more profit they make; this is why they pack their 18-wheelers to the roof and use all kinds of logistics experts and computer software to minimize transportation cost (and therefore carbon footprint as well.) Although your local organic farmer doesn’t move his produce as far, it is likely that, on a per pound or kilogram basis, it could actually have a bigger carbon footprint!

Finally, corporations exist in a marketplace of competitors and potential competitors, which—in the long term—make any advantage temporary. Regardless of how much or little they pay their executives, large corporations—across the board—generally make single-digit (percentage) profits. In industries/niches where profits are higher, more players naturally enter the market and dilute any above-average profits.

Send $199.95 for my unique system for making easy money
I don’t necessary disbelieve the get-rich-quick crowd’s claims of how much money they have made; however, what each one fails to disclose is that they now have a new money-making scheme: selling get-rich-quick books, recordings, and training. They may have very well discovered a lucrative arbitrage opportunity some years ago, but it has since dried up or been diluted by new entrants. Now they are essentially selling nothing more than their life’s story to suckers whom they have convinced can repeat their success. Now, this view is only the most charitable possibility; actually I do believe that most of these charlatans go way beyond exaggeration and embellishment to outright deceit.

Innovative niche entrepreneurship
So, in what field is it prudent to become an entrepreneur? First of all, it has to be a niche that is not adequately served now. Even in the mature economies of the west, there are products and services that a small businessperson can provide other businesses (generally never to consumers) that provide such a great value, they practically sell themselves. With the application and integration of modern technology, it is possible to revolutionize tedious business processes that organizations would like to outsource anyhow. A startup based on the founder(s) competencies/expertise in a given field, and the development of innovative software and/or other systems for several client businesses is a great start. However, notice it must be in your field of expertise. If you haven’t already been working in a particular business or sector for many years, you are simply not qualified to start a business in that area. You can’t just dive in the deep end and expect to learn as you go. If, for example you a machinist who is tired of getting oil under your fingernails, and decide you’re going to change directions and teach yourself computer programming in order to start a business, then you are certainly doomed to fail. (Incidentally, it should go without saying that unless you’ve been a general manager of a restaurant for several years, you should never consider opening a restaurant—even if you have this experience, the odd are against you as an independent restaurant, bar, cafe, etc.) If you really want to make a big change in your professional life, you’re better off going back to school to learn a new profession, work in this new profession for a few years and only then think about starting a business in that area. [UPDATE 7-29-2010] Two researchers from the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, Pino Audia and Chris Rider published a paper debunking the "myth of the garage", that is, the humble & isolated beginnings of many tech startups. It turns out that most successful startups leaned heavily on information, skills, and networks established while working with their previous employers. (FastCompany article)

I am sorry for sounding so negative, especially now that I am considering starting my own business, but I’ve written this in part to sharpen my own view on the issue. I’m just tired of conversations about entrepreneurship focusing only on the best-case scenarios, while ignoring the significant costs involved that often are never recouped. Whenever someone whispers, “you know, there’s good money in x” I reply, “yes, there is good money in everything.” Every potential investment or business idea requires a comparable mix of capital, risk, and plain old hard work to produce a comparable income. For example, being a landlord is an excellent way of building wealth, since your tenants are paying the mortgage—building your equity in the property. However, it also means you’ve got to deal with collecting rent, fixing broken plumbing, etc. If you decide to hire a management company so that you don’t have to worry about these things, you will find (with the management fee deducted) your investment now returns about the same as if you just bought stock in a REIT (real estate investment trust.) This is how a capitalist system works; the market determines the value of all inputs through their reward. If an opportunity temporarily returns better than expected returns, then more people will flock to it and dilute the returns.

Authentic Tourism

Two weeks ago, Mirena and I spent a few days soaking up Aegean sun, sand, and surf on the Kassandra Peninsula in northern Greece. Our first night was in Fourka Beach, and while looking for an authentic Greek dinner we were disappointed to find only gyros (fast food) and pizza—in fact, most restaurants were “Italian.” We discovered the reason for this incongruity lies in the demographics of the vacationers (holiday-makers): except for a smattering of Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian tourists, this was an overwhelmingly domestic vacation destination (although it will probably become more and more multinational with easier border crossings—see my previous post.) This means these people eat Greek food everyday! When on vacation, they want something different—in this case: Italian.

Three years ago, during my project in Bulgaria, I was tangentially involved in thinking about “authentic” tourism. Specifically, the projects were intended to promote rural and cultural tourism instead of the already over-developed beach and ski destinations. I was skeptical at the time; outside of a tiny, scholarly minority, who really wants to go to a village to experience authentic Bulgarian (or Romanian, or any other) culture? This skepticism was reinforced when, wherever I went in the region, I found myself a minority in a crowd of domestic tourists. I came to the conclusion that instead of tourism being the path to development, it was actually a sign of the progress these countries had already made internally.

Furthermore, I found that these domestic tourists (who, in a developing/transitioning economies we assume to be poor) want luxury accommodations and attractions as well; for the most part they are not interested in staying in a farmhouse, sharing a bathroom down the hall, no matter how idyllic the setting. Sometimes these local tourist do need some help, and this is why I am in favor of price discrimination. (See my contribution to this discussion in Bulgaria's expat newspaper, Sofia Echoes.)

Tourism promoters of any given country often earnestly speak of the majestic mountains, untouched forests and natural areas, beautiful beaches, and rich cultural history of their country as potential destinations for foreign tourists without realizing that nearly every country has magnificent mountains, verdant forests, some kind of sun/sand/water combination, and a proud history. Unless your beaches are better than the sun-drenched, perfect white sand and clear-water beaches of the South Pacific, Mediterranean, or Caribbean, then it is unlikely you will capture the interest of the proverbial rich, international tourist. (The same goes for mountains—compared to the Alps; history/art/culture—compared to France, Italy, or Greece.)

Despite hand-wringing by environmentalist and cultural preservationists in response to the sometimes ugly developments found at the sea coasts, ski resorts, and other such mass-audience tourist destination—with their tacky gift shops selling the same souvenirs, made in China just stamped with a different name, and associated troika—this is apparently what the masses want wherever they go: Myrtle Beach, Cancun, Barcelona, or Tahiti. They actually prefer to collect a t-shirt from the “local” Hard Rock Cafe instead of authentic, local goods; and who am I to tell them they must not do this?

Coincidentally, a few days after starting to write this post, I watched My Life in Ruins (in which Nia Vardalos sort of reprieves her role from My Big Fat Greek Wedding as the sometimes beautiful Greek-American woman looking for love.) Her character bemoans the simple-minded tourist she is guiding around Athens, who only seem interested in buying souvenirs and ice cream, but eventually learns to loosen up and just have fun—which, I suppose is my conclusion as well: don't beat your self up about not fully immersing yourself in the “rich cultural heritage” of the county you are visiting, and certainly don't be so pretentious call those that enjoy the crasser side of tourism as boors.

United States of Europe

Recently, Mirena and I took a road trip from Sofia, Bulgaria to Thessaloniki, Greece to visit the IKEA store there, and then spend a few days enjoying the sun and sea a little bit further south. We had made nearly the same trip in 2006—before Bulgaria entered the EU—and were pleasantly surprised at how quick and easy the border crossing procedures had become. Three years ago, a line of cars and trucks stretched back at least one kilometer from the border, and the whole experience added over an hour to the trip. Each country still has an exit control as well as immigration/customs, but the whole thing—including waiting in a short line—took less than 15 minutes.

Although they are the newest EU members, Bulgaria and Romania will eventually join Schengen, meaning these border controls will be totally eliminated, as they already have been throughout most of the rest of Europe. Then a trip to a neighboring country will be little more than us driving to another state for some shopping and/or a weekend getaway. Now, I realize that language and cultural differences make this a bigger deal both in practice and psychologically, and nationalism runs deep in the Balkans—so a significant percentage of people will be more than happy to stay in their own country regardless of the benefits of this easier international travel. Never the less, this openness: namely the free flow of goods, people, and money—the very pillars of the European Union—is inexorably binding EU member nations together into something that is starting to look more and more like a super-nation. While this causes concern for some, I see it as a hopeful future—especially for the Balkans, which has been beset with petty infighting, fragmented markets, and most troubling—systemic corruption. In this new, friction-free super-nation countries will be forced to compete on a more or less level playing field: for investments, for shoppers, for weekend tourist, and even permanent residents.

Racism, Tribalism, Nationalism, Patriotism

The United States of America has often been characterized as a virulently racist country. In many cases this characterization exists because of our own depiction in our own popular media (which much of the world watches) of our shameful past. Certainly some of this hand-wringing is justified, but I posit that, at least for youngest generation—Generation Y, we have really moved past this and, while electing a black president doesn't heal all wrongs, I think most of the rest of the world does recognize that we have truly turned a corner in race relations.

With this said, I think it is fair to examine the issue of racism in other countries, more specifically the problem of nationalism. Granted, Americans are very patriotic, to the point that many Americans naively consider all other countries vastly inferior in most regards, but it is not the same kind of nationalism or even tribalism seen elsewhere in the world. For one thing, we are not really a nation! We are a country made up of various nationalities and ethnicities to the point that we consider the word “nationally” synonymous with “citizenship.” I have been surprised to learn that in many countries, ethnic minorities are never considered “(country)-ians” regardless of how long their forefathers have shared the same territory with the “true” citizens of said country. By definition, anyone born inside to borders of the United States is automatically granted citizenship and—certainly by the second generation—no one would not consider their children as full-fledged Americans.

Nearly every ethic/national group in the world says something to the effect of: “we are the proud (blank) people, the ancient and noble race that once ruled over this entire area (insert greatest extent of borders) in a large, prosperous, and peaceful kingdom/empire, but then at another time were brutally oppressed by our evil neighbors, yet managed maintain our special cultural practices and identity.” Then they go on to list all kinds discoveries and inventions regardless of how tangential their countrymen’s contributions were. I trust that I don't have to try to explain how ridiculous this concept is, since you have to agree there is no people group in the world that is not proud of its progenitors and therefore does not say something like this!

This “us vs. them” rivalry is seen between similarly sized and advanced people groups—each of them claiming a certain measure of superiority. It is often rooted in language; the endonym of many nations in their language are derived from a word meaning “the true/real people.” This is not only the case of small tribes in remote jungles, but even the word “German”—for example—suggests that the old Germans (soft G) considered themselves as descendants of the true seed or germ of humanity. Likewise, exonyms are often derogatory; for example, in most Slavic languages the German language and people are referred to as some variant of “Nemski,” suggestive of someone who is mute (unable to speak or use words) as opposed to “Slavo” meaning “word” (please note, this happened many centuries ago, I am not saying modern nationals believe or even know this.) My point is that these cultural mythologies are so deeply ingrained that all but the most cosmopolitan consider them as fact.

Vicious Cycle
The more harmful nationalism/racism is that which oppresses already downtrodden minorities. In the USA this generally means blacks (who, actually, often have a longer history in this country) and Hispanic; in Western Europe it is immigrants (especially non-European); and in Eastern Europe it is the Roma (Gypsy) population that has lived among their countrymen for centuries without assimilating. I was surprised to discover that—even in as homogeneous place such as Japan—there is a minority group called the Burakumin, members of which are still discriminated against to this day based solely on their family names (and the lowly occupations their ancestors held.)

For most of my life, I have been against affirmative action, or any other policies that favors any group over another. Growing up, I naively thought that since I was presented with the same opportunities in school that many of my black classmates (and in many cases, their parents as well) seemingly purposefully rejected, that—collectively as the majority—I was no longer responsible for the well-being of this population. Even today, I am surrounded be people who believe we should immediately end (or, at least, drastically cut) all welfare and affirmative action programs. While this attitude is understandable in the proverbial (Aesop's Fable) “ant and grasshopper” context, I remind people that I have lived in such a country—where minorities are simply ignored—and it is not pretty: Roma villages and ghettos across eastern Europe are third-world communities within developing countries that benefit no one as they spiral downward into ever-worsening conditions.

The problem with this “it’s not my fault” attitude is that, without external assistance, these communities are never going to pull themselves out of the mire…by virtue of the fact they are already in this desperate situation. Then, due to the inherit hopelessness of this kind of situation, the logic of some follows a most disturbing conclusion: genocide.

What we often forget is the advantages we have from the family and community we grew up in. These advantages came from our parents, who read to us from an early age, imbibed us with a strong work ethic, and insisted we do well in school, the peers who challenged us academically, the older siblings and cousins who showed us the ropes to succeeding in high school and college, the friends with whom we competed for success throughout our educational and professional careers, and—most importantly—an expectation of success from nearly everyone, based solely on our background. Certainly we do see highly successful individuals come out of the most neglected communities, but these are rare exceptions. Just as most of us come from an average, middle class background that led us to become middle to upper-middle class citizens; the average, lower-class minority has little hope of moving up in society—there is simply no expectation of this happening, so it doesn’t happen. While this is sometimes manifest in actual prejudice/discrimination, more often the problem is just lowered expectation, even from within this disenfranchised community.

Certainly the most effective solutions could come from within these communities, members of which know best the intricacies and thinking of their own community and therefore are more influential than an outsider. Unfortunately, this rarely happens; there are just not enough of these people, and they are often not esteemed in their own community—they are frequently seen as having abandoned their culture by virtue of their discipline and success.

Another option to address these inequities is through private and religious-based charities. These are generally effective, but are so small that they are only able to help a very few people in a few, select communities. Therefore—despite a general dislike of large and wasteful government programs—I must admit that the only solution for under-performing minority populations is the costly government and inter-governmental programs that just “keep their heads above water” with the hope of an eventual assimilation into the middle class.

Win-win
I don’t want sound like the proverbial naïve liberal who thinks we just need to hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the campfire to make everything better. No, I am the cold, calculating MBA that is simply looking for the most beneficial outcome for all parties involved, because if my neighbors (both near and far) are richer and more educated, it benefits me as well (more consumers for my employer’s/industry’s products and less crime due to desperate situations.) Certainly countries, nationalities, and regions have various competitive advantages (meaning some are indeed more educated, some better at manufacturing, some at agriculture…and, of course, these advantages change as a nation develops), and this is exactly what makes global trade so successful (the old zero-sum game thinking has long ago been discredited.) This is why I am in favor of any policy that encourages free trade, free movement of people, intercultural exchange, and effective international development/aid.

I do not purport to have all the answers; I only write this—dear reader—to ask you to consider the following: why do you find pride in the accomplishments of your ancestors and countrymen, and what does it really matter; aren’t others just as proud of their heritage? Are you just a pawn being played by the propaganda of your country or ethnicity? What benefit do you derive from the suffering of other people? Even in this self-examination, don’t get lulled into the trap of thinking “I’m not as bad as those people; they are really prejudiced!” I readily admit that I also pre-judge strangers based solely on outward appearance—this is human nature, so let’s at least be aware of it. Despite my German ethnicity and American citizenship, I will only boast that I am Joel Froese, human being; resident of planet Earth.

Islam's Last Gasp

As witnessed by my post of June 2008, I have been intending to write about this subject for some time now. The recent events in Iran makes this issue more pressing, but I am under no illusion that this is the start of a Muslim version of the fall of the iron curtain (although that would certainly be welcomed!) I am just reminded of a disappointing time exactly 20 years ago this month that I thought we were seeing the beginning of a revolution in China. Although the Tiananmen Square protests did not result in the toppling of a repressive regime as we hoped then, China has certainly changed in the intervening years, so a gradual liberalization is hopefully possible in the Muslim world as well.

The other preliminary issue that must be addressed is the frenetic Internet activity regarding Iran’s recent elections, which—by too many people—is being used as evidence that the protests in Tehran represent the majority of Iranian public opinion. While “citizen journalism” (blogging, twittering, posting pictures & video) is a valuable supplement to traditional media and intelligence sources, especially when those are restricted, we must remember that we are hearing from a self-selected group. By virtue of the fact that these people speak English, have Internet access, Twitter accounts, camera phones, etc. we must assume that they are richer, better educated, and more western-oriented than the average Iranian. I don’t want to discount the suffering evident from some of the gruesome photos and videos we have recently seen from Tehran, but there seems too much incestuous (think “re-tweeting”) and unverifiable hysteria circulating around the Internet lately, contributing nothing, just decreasing the “signal-to-noise ratio” of any intelligent discussion. And don't get me started on the useless, feel-good actions of changing your avatar to green and setting your time zone to GMT +3.5. Jack Shafer of Slate agrees.

Bogeymen
I must first address America’s perception of the Muslim world. Especially since 2001, we have been led to believe that radical Islam is a cancer spreading over the world much in the same way as the supposed scourge of Soviet-style communism was in the previous century. It seems we must always have a bogeyman—an enemy to unite us. With the fall of the iron curtain in 1989, we—especially as Americans—were somewhat confused regarding our place in the world; we were the proverbial dog who finally caught the automobile he had always been barking at. There was no longer the clear division between countries, leaders, and movements that were pro-communism (our enemies) and those that were anti-communist and therefore our friends (which had, incidentally made us strange bedfellows with some really questionable characters!) Thankfully—and of course I say this tongue in cheek—a new enemy arrived just in time: Islamo-fascism. Ironically our first major enemy, Saddam Hussein, was actually quite secular and we actually climbed in bed with the strictest Muslims around—Saudi Arabia—to fight him. But our worldview was not sufficiently polarized until that fateful day in September 2001. Then we were bombarded from all sides: political leaders, religious leaders, military friends and elderly aunts were all wringing their hands over the danger posed by radical Islam. Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, refugee unrest in and around Israel, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the rise of Islamic parties in Egypt and Turkey, and even riots in France and England all seemed to be conclusive proof of the grave threat we were under (besides, of course, the 3000 countrymen we lost on American soil that day.) A population already growing faster through natural means (greater birthrate) now was proselytizing and radicalizing moderate/cultural Muslims from Europe to Africa and even Southeast Asia! And best of all, we now had a man—with a very distinctive visage—to pin our fears and anger on: Osama Bin Laden.

A Power Shift
Despite the fact there are some young men falling under the influence of radical clerics and running off to madrasas and training camps to become terrorists—a few of which then actually will commit acts of terrorism—they represent a minuscule percentage of young Muslims in the world. In fact, I predict that the saber rattling and actual terrorist attacks we have witnessed in the last decade or so, are in fact the death-throes fundamentalist Islam. We generally don’t hear much about the vast majority of young people—and this is important because the median age of most predominately Muslim countries is in the teens to twenties—who actually yearn for, if not devour, western pop culture and all its accoutrements. It seems only natural then that as older religious and political leaders die off, we will see liberalism sweep over—or at least creep into—these young nations. Of course power being what it is, I am not naïve enough to think that anyone is going to willingly give up their control regardless of their age; these leaders still want to groom their young, like-minded lieutenants to eventually take the reigns of power and carry on the status quo. But with the advent of modern communications, health care, and education, combined with family structure intended for a bygone era (i.e. numerous children,) it will continuously become more difficult for them to retain this power. I really do believe that we will see a change in our lifetime…and certainly this not limited to the Muslim world; it has happened and will continue to happen all over the world; young people in even the remotest corners of the world are being exposed to most exciting aspects of what the west has to offer via satellite TV and the Internet (granted, often an unrealistic view.) The grip of their elders and their culture/traditions naturally weakens in this onslaught.

Response
I trust that I have stated my case sufficiently to demonstrate that we don’t need to send troops to instill freedom and democracy in these lands; in fact, it is quite evident from our failures over the last seven years in Iraq and Afghanistan that this cannot work, and is a terrible waste of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. It should be obvious that we needn’t do anything but foster social engagement; if we really want to spend billions to conquer al-Qaeda, the Taliban, et. al, let’s just distribute free satellite dishes, TVs, Internet routers, computers, and license MTV programming for Voice of America and similar propaganda outlets—we can just let Hollywood “degenerate” the young people of the Muslim world to our liking! I say this half-jokingly, but also half-serious; we really need to look at the long-term cost/benefit of any strategy. In the July 19-25, 2008 of The Economist, I found a perceptive article titled “How to win the war within Islam” that summarized the situation thusly: “In the long run, al-Qaeda will be defeated by Muslims, not foreigners.”

References
Below is a chart listing the median age (meaning half of the population is younger than this age) in selected, predominately Muslim countries (by comparison, the US is 36.7 and EU countries are all within a couple of years of 40!)

Country	Median Age
Afghanistan	17.6
Egypt	24.8
Gaza Strip	17.4
Iran	27.0
Iraq	20.4
Jordan	24.3
Libya	23.9
Morocco	25.0
Pakistan	20.8
Saudi Arabia	21.6
Syria	21.7
Turkey	27.7

- CIA factbook accessed 24 June 2009

Further Reading
Interesting books about young Muslims:

• Muhajababes 25-year old author Allegra Stratton talks to other her age across Middle East
• Heavy Metal Islam by Mark LeVine; youth embracing western music in failed societies
• Lipstick Jihad by Azadeh Moaveni; teenagers being teenagers even under the watchful eye of morality police

A Tale of Two Tragedies

This might just get me in more trouble, but here goes...

A few days ago two young Bulgarki, in effect, chided me for being an insensitive boor in the face of tragedies affecting people I don’t personally know. I will argue that—at least when it comes to discussions of policy—we absolutely need the cold, hard calculation that only a disinterested third party can make.

This past week we witnessed two transportation-related catastrophes: on May 28th an old bus likely suffering from faulty brakes, plowed through a crowd of pedestrians near Yambol, Bulgaria killing 17 and injuring another 20. Then—of course—on the first of June, Air France 447 went down over the South Atlantic Ocean taking all 228 people aboard to a watery grave. While the numbers differ by an order of magnitude, the tragic loss is the same for the surviving friends and family whose lives were lost. Besides the grief they share, there must certainly be some anger and outrage over the fact that their loved ones’ lives were cut short. Everyone realizes that nothing can bring these people back, but I am sure each one of the victims' families would love to see measures taken to prevent another such incidents in the future, so at least their loved one did not die in vain…and certainly we should thoroughly investigate these accidents to determine the cause and possible changes in equipment or procedures that would prevent such an accident in the future. However—and this is where the cold, calculating third party comes in—it is necessary to determine the cost/benefit of any changes. For example, a $100,000 per plane retrofit may actually not be justified for an issue that occurs once in a million flights. This may sound callous, but in the larger scheme of things, it might be justified since this kind of money could be spent elsewhere, potentially save many more lives per dollar/euro or whatever metric you wish to use.

What is really ironic in this past week's accidents is the (probable) response: French and international officials will spend a million plus Euros on an extremely thorough investigation resulting in recommendations that will likely cost even more to implement, for what is likely a very rare confluence of event that caused this airliner to crash into the ocean. (Already they have issued a warning about the possible faulty airspeed indicators.) On the other hand, Bulgarian officials will likely go through the motions of a cursory investigation, whose results will be rubber-stamped and forever filed away in some obscure archive. Just like in the rest of Eastern Europe, auto, tuck, and bus drivers will continue to obtain their drivers licenses through bribes, vehicle inspections will continue to be a joke, and Bulgaria will continue to be one of the EU’s leader in highway deaths.

What really irks me though, is that all this seems acceptable to the general public! While air travel continues to be the safest method of travel (per passenger mile/km)—because we feel in control behind the wheel of our own vehicles—we accept and even insist on onerous restrictions and other measures to ostensibly make air travel safer [seriously, how am I going to make a bomb with a full-sized container of toothpaste or shampoo?!], yet we balk at any invasion of the supposed sanctity of our own vehicles, such as the reasonable expectation that you shouldn't use your mobile phone while driving. Probably the wisest use of any transportation safety budget would be to retrofit all automobiles with 5-point, racing-style seatbelts and issuing (and insisting on the use of) helmets for all auto passengers; just in the US, this would dramatically cut into the 40,000 plus deaths that occur on the roads every year! Of course the public would never accept this, so we spend more money on other issues that—in the end—save fewer lives.

Likewise, our opinion of the importance of any heath or safety issue is directly proportional to how “closed to home” the issue or incident hits. We are much more concerned if someone has been in affected in: our family, among our friends, then friends of friends, and finally the celebrities’ lives we follow. Instead we should look at the broad picture: what are the biggest killers and what are the most cost effective methods our governments can effectively implement to save live regardless familiarity, race, nationality, etc.

Mark Twain's War Prayer

I think it is appropriate, on this Sunday before Memorial Day, when—in churches all across the United States—living and fallen soldiers are venerated for their actions in "fighting for our freedom," that I republish this often overlooked short story by America's favorite author.

The War Prayer

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came—next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams—visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation: God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory...

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside—which the startled minister did—and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne—bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import—that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of—except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two—one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this—keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer—the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it—that part which the pastor...and also you in your hearts—fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle—be Thou near them! With them—in spirit—we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it—for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

-Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910)

Incidentally, this pervasive militaristic (and, quite frankly—heretical) patriotism is why I generally avoid church on Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Veteran's Day.

Devil's Advocate

As our economic woes deepen, everyone is eager to place blame at the feet of whatever nemesis his or her ideology deems fit. On the right, this entire downturn was precipitated by undisciplined and untrustworthy individuals getting sub-prime mortgages to buy homes outrageously out of their price range and then defaulting on said mortgages…triggering an avalanche that eventually lead us into the current credit crunch. Furthermore, many will claim that lenders were forced to do this because of federal “fair housing/lending” and “anti-redlining” regulations.

On the left, there is an agreement that sub-prime mortgages are at the heart of this mess, but blame is placed on the unscrupulous brokers who apparently tricked unsuspecting (and admittedly unsophisticated) homebuyers into taking risky loans just to make a quick commission, and on the “financial geniuses” who devised the now toxic “collateralized debt obligations” as well as other exotic derivatives. From this view, the whole of the rest of the cascade of events that has brought us to this point is entirely the fault of greedy (and by virtue of this unraveling—incompetent) executives, brokers, and associated “money-men.”

My view
I say there is enough blame to go around; we ALL contributed to this mess! Collectively and individually, as corporations, and governments—almost as a rule—we overextended ourselves in respect to debt; and from the most unsophisticated wage earner to the brightest minds working in the most prestigious investment firms, we all assumed that asset values, growth, and incomes would only go up. This crisis is finally the slap in the face that we all needed: we cannot borrow our way into prosperity! As the offspring of depression-era, immigrant parents, financial discipline and thriftiness was ground into me from an early age, so I have been aware of—and avoided at all costs—the trap of living beyond ones means. Never the less, I will not even hold myself blameless; I truly believe that all of us in the materialistic west have some culpability in this mess.

Reaction
No doubt, new government regulations addressing the problems that got us into this mess will be soon be put into effect; unfortunately, as backward-looking legislation, they will generally not address those issue that will eventually precipitate the next economic crisis. In fact, it is almost impossible to predict the future in this respect. The only thing we can hope for is that the laws our governments are creating will make the financial world a little more transparent; the bright light of transparency in the murky world of finance is the only reform that, in the long term, really ever works.

What I find disturbing though, is this “eat the rich” sentiment that lumps all executives and everyone in the financial industry together as greedy, incompetent, and useless. There is a disconcerting air of bolshevism in a lot of the rhetoric I’ve been hearing lately. Yes, a lot of the financial middlemen will rightly lose their jobs, and I admit that I feel a certain schadenfreude in seeing the business school colleagues who went into the finance specialty losing their lucrative positions. However it is naive to think that these functions are unnecessary and that “workers can control the means of production,” as the communist experiment of the last century disproved. We will always have executives and financiers who—by virtue of their extraordinary skills and intelligence—will demand and receive compensation commensurate with their abilities, just as highly skilled entertainers and athletes do without question.

The worst possible outcome would be the introduction of salary caps; they would most certainly be circumvented, further muddying the waters of the business and financial worlds—the opposite of what we want: transparency! Likewise, a ban on derivatives (which given the simplest definition—a bet on an underlying security—sounds like a good idea,) but would contribute more opaqueness, as these instruments would be reinvented in other forms. These exotic vehicles actually have a legitimate use: they hedge and balance other business transactions.

Bailouts
I am generally not in favour of “rescue packages” for private businesses, even large ones like General Motors that will effect dozens or hundreds of partners, thousands of employees, and maybe hundreds of thousands of others not directly employed by the company. I just have an aversion to anything that creates a distortion in the marketplace, be it subsidies, regulations, or taxes that affect one company or industry more severely than another (or, more perversely, prevents a business from entering a certain field/industry or—in the current situation—prevents it from failing/dissolving.)

That being said, I do understand why large financial institutions cannot be allowed to fail, as the resulting banking and credit crisis the would cause the entire economy grind to a screeching halt. Therefore the questions are: “how are bailout funds to be used” and “who decides how the money is used.” Specifically, whom do you trust more to “save” these firms: corporate executives—the rascals that caused (or at least contributed) the failure, or the rascals in Washington (or where ever your lawmakers/bureaucrats reside.) Quite frankly, I’m not sure of the answer myself.

Where does the money go?
On the most basic level, the problem with these troubled institutions is that their balance sheets were out of whack: their assets no longer equaled their liabilities, and therefore the government infused this money—fixing the problem. Now the question is: what happened to this bailout money? There aren’t little cubbyholes in the company’s treasury for general funds, bonus funds, electricity expenses, etc. it just become part of the company’s assets and is used in the same way that all the rest of its assets are used—fulfilling the company’s obligations to its stakeholders: investors, partners, employees, vendors, and yes—executives.

When you or I start a job, we generally negotiate or just accept a certain hourly wage or weekly to monthly salary plus a possibility of a bonus and benefits. At a certain level, these wages/salary become trivial compared to the prospect and promise of bonuses, stock options, golden parachutes, etc. Corporations must make these lucrative offers in order to hire & retain the best and brightest in the field, just as professional sports team have to offer star players multi-million dollar contracts. To those who are outraged at bonuses paid to executives at failing companies such as AIG, I ask: “where do you make the cutoff?” Imagine that you cut all bonuses and stock options for a CEO who earns a salary of $1 per year (actually very common), what is he to do? Furthermore, with this reputation, how do you expect to hire a new CEO in the future? Remember, in 1994, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream initially insisted that they would only pay their CEO seven times what the lowest paid employee made; despite their progressive credentials, they soon had to abandon this promise in order to find an individual of the caliber needed to guide what had become a large corporation.

Outcome
Regardless of what new regulations are enacted, we are seeing the end of the secretive back-room dealing-making that has characterized so much of the financial industry. Even if governments do nothing, the market will demand more transparency and lower costs (spreads) for financial transactions. The result will be higher returns for investors and less cost to borrowers, which of course means lower earnings for the businesses and individual that broker these transactions…and, of course, less of those high-paying financial-sector jobs.

More specifically, we will see a convergence of returns. We all know that riskier investments demand higher returns. This relationship is not punitive—it is not just to punish the reckless—it is to cover the inevitable losses that riskier investments entail. In the long-term everybody gets about the same return plus a premium proportionate with the volatility the investor must endure. What everyone has looked for was that elusive, safe investment with a higher than normal return. While there have always been a few of these, I predict that these “secret” investment will all but disappear, to the point at which we can finally say with certainty that the outliers on the risk to return graph are definitely scams (as should have been obvious with Madoff.)

The one bright spot for governments investing (and it is not just the US Federal government that is doing this) in private industry is that they are buying in at a low point; In a few years they will almost certainly have realized a substantial profit—at which time they should divest of these private concerns. It is a mistake to think that these bailouts are a gift from government to private industry; remember that Chrysler was bailed out in 1979, and by 1983 had totally repaid it 1.5 billion dollar loan to the government.

Opportunities
I find that, as individuals, this hand-wringing and finger-pointing is entirely useless; what does it help you or me to assign blame to this or that group, person, or ideology? In a time of turmoil such as now, it is prudent for a bright, young person to look around and ask, “where is this going, and where should I place myself to benefit from the inevitable changes ahead?” I really think now is the time to position oneself for the new business, regulatory, and financial climate that is coming upon us, and I am convinced that it will be characterized by more transparency—and therefore be more information-oriented, and consequently utilizing more information and communication technologies.

We have seen part of this technological revolution in finance on the personal investment front; we no longer call our broker to place a trade (from which he would take a percent or two in commission.) Instead we log on to our discount brokerage website and enter trades ourselves for a fixed $12-$15! Furthermore, on the NASDAQ stock exchange, there isn’t even a trading floor; it all takes place inside of computers. Yes, there are still brokers and market makers, but we’re definitely seeing the disintermediation of actual human beings transacting financial business. Likewise, we see that the computers of Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion (in communications with the computers of nearly all consumer credit providers) automatically determine an objective credit score for nearly every adult in America. Even loan origination (well, shopping at least) is being automated by sites such as LendingTree.com.

The ratings of corporate entities however, have long been suspect. With this crisis, we have confirmation that the stars and letter grades assigned to bonds, equities, and derivatives by the likes of Moody and MorningStar are worthless. So the obvious need is an objective system like that of the FICO (300-850) credit scores assigned individuals. I assume that someone like Dun & Bradstreet is ideally positioned to fill this need. Obviously you can’t as readily assign a single number to represent the fiscal health of a complex organization with all its divisions, subsidiaries, assets, investments, and liabilities, but together with governmental and market pressure for more transparency, I am convinced we will see the creation of one or more objective, independently audited corporate/financial rating service.

With the availability of all this data, the next obvious step is an electronic marketplace where businesses and investors can transact short and long-term lending directly without the packaging and interference of financier or their hefty commissions.

So, dear reader, if you agree with my predictions, how do you think an IT nerd with an MBA like me should position himself to catch this next wave? More specifically, where is this financial information revolution going to start—geographically and with what companies/groups? (Obviously I’m not talking about the existing and useless “financial news” industry that just speculates and rehashes earnings reports, annual reports & 10-Qs, nor the endless speculation of pundits.) I’m serious about this; I would appreciate any advice.

Do what you say

My parents taught me that it is better to say up front that you are not going to do something than to promise to do it and then not follow through. I use this common anecdote in explaining America's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Treaty to Europeans who brag—all high and mighty—about their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases (and, of course, imply that we—as a country—are the boorish, inconsiderate roommate of this planet.)

I've been following this issue for a while, watching as it has been becoming more and more apparent that the “first world” signatories to this treaty would not be able to live up to their promises. It seems that the EU—led by Germany—have almost totally backed out of their commitment; their “actual reductions might be as trivial as 4%” reports The Wall Street Journal.

So it looks like, collectively, we are the “good son” after all; when ask to step up to an impossible task, we simply said “sorry, we can't do it.”

I suppose the rebuttal would be: “at least Europe tried to make a difference,” to which I would ask did American business, innovators, and local government not try?

Oil Will NEVER Get Cheaper

The sting of higher fuel prices are probably nowhere more apparent than here in the southeast US where people drive more, earn less, and define themselves by the size of their pickup trucks and SUVs. Naturally, this distress has generated all kinds of strange theories on what’s causing these unprecedented fuel prices (actually, in constant dollar terms, we are only now returning to the elevated fuel costs of the 1970s.) Everyone from the lowly gas station attendant to Saudi oil sheik to the shadowy speculator have been a target of wrath from truck owners who have just spent $100 to fill up their tank. But what really is the cause of this increase?

The answer is simple: an unprecedented increase in global demand. Prior to the last decade, the demand for fuel—and for other resources such as metals—was more or less directly related to the economies of developed, western countries. What has changed now is that the rest of the (developing) world is catching up with us. Countries formerly behind the iron curtain and throughout much of Asia, Africa, Latin America have been held back economically for decades (by corrupt and/or incompetent governments, I would argue.) Now we are seeing economic (even if not political) liberalization across the board—you can nearly count the exceptions on one hand, and even in those countries, like Cuba and North Korea, micro-enterprises are starting to flourish. Why is this happening? Because even neo-communists like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales recognize, at least to some extent, that freer markets are the key to economic prosperity—which, incidentally is why we shouldn’t worry so much about the leftist resurgence in South America.

The economic, regulatory, and even cultural barriers that had prevented progress over so much of the developing world have been lifting in the last two decades. This freedom, in turn, has resulted in upward mobility in the population of these countries as businesses grow and trade increases. As these people—who are the majority of the 6 billion of us here on this planet—move into a sort of middle-class (by world standards at least) they begin to demand the same kind of goods that we in the west have been used to for generations: richer food, comfortable housing with modern fixtures and appliances, and even motor vehicles. [update: see this article in February 12, 2009 The Economist]

Granted, this global “middle class” cannot be compared to America’s middle class in terms of conspicuous consumption and outright waste. In fact, nobody could reasonably expect any country, industrialized, “transitioning,” or developing, to ever approach the wasteful level of energy use of Americans. However, even if the rest of the world begins to use just one-fourth of the level of resources per capita of Americans, we are looking at an incredible amount of increase in demand for everything that is mined, manufactured, and grown.

Consider Tata Motors of India; its new $2500 “Nano” 4-seater is in the price range of this emerging, third-world middle class. This means that, theoretically, there could soon be a billion (or even billions of) new cars on this planet! Compare this to the millions of cars that are sold in the west, and you will see why I think that high fuel prices are here to stay; demand has exploded, and will continue to grow at an exponential rate—a rate that supply will have a hard time to match. I realize that fuel prices have dipped back down a little in the last few months (and SUV owners are breathing a little easier,) but I am talking long-term trends here. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how global supply of fuel or any other natural resources—for that matter—can possibly rise as fast as worldwide demand is ramping up. [2016 Update] Do-oh, I guess that I didn't have any idea about fracking in in 2008

When you look at the potential (and likely) rise in global consumption of almost any resource now, it is downright scary! Furthermore, this surge has just begun; when it comes to gasoline, California alone still uses more gasoline than any other country beside the US (Wired article.) This year, China is poised to overtake this one state in gasoline usage, but certainly not the entire US. This is both an indictment of our (and especially California’s) car culture (China has 1.1 billion inhabitants compared to California’s 36 million,) and an alarming preview of how much more of this particular resource we will needed in the future.

What is being proposed?

Everyone is looking for a silver bullet to solve this problem. There is a widespread assumption that some breakthrough is on the horizon that will save us from having to face difficult choices, and—on the fringes—there are those that think technologies are being purposely suppressed by incumbent energy companies and even governments. Whether we are talking about ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars, solar panels, or wind power, what is consistently overlooked—or perhaps omitted—are the facts regarding the lead-time for these technologies, the energy debt they require, and the simple physics that prevent some from ever becoming an effective solution.

Regardless of how revolutionary a new energy source or method of using energy more efficiently may be, it is practically impossible for such an invention to ease our energy crunch this year, or next, or even 4 years from now. Assuming you’ve invented a widget that would make all current cars twice as efficient, and it is so simple that it requires no further research and development; it would still take years to manufacture, distribute, and install this device. (Incidentally, I trust that you already know that ALL after-market gas-saving devices out here are total scams, the only way they can work is by placebo effect—you may subconsciously drive more carefully after installing one of these devices.)

Likewise, if solar panels finally crossed that magical tipping point of economic feasibility, we simply couldn’t make them fast enough to supply our energy needs because the very manufacture, transportation, and installation of these “energy saviors” would require several times more energy than they produce in a year—not to mention the all the aluminum, steel, copper, glass, silicon, and various other esoteric (and often toxic) materials used to produce solar panels. The same goes for wind power, despite this article’s assertion that offshore wind farms could produce all of America’s current electric needs, neither the article nor any of the comments below it address the energy and natural resource requirement of such a enormous project. Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not against alternative energy; I think it’s a shame that America lags Europe in this respect—places like Germany and Denmark already produce a significant percentage of their electricity by wind and solar. All that I’m saying is that this can’t happen overnight. [Update 6-Sept-08] Just found this article that show how urban wind turbines are actually bad for the environment!

Hydrogen is being touted as the ultimate in alternative fuels for vehicles, since its only emission is water vapor. However, free hydrogen does not exist on earth; it only occurs in compounds with other elements: namely with oxygen, to form water; and with carbon to form various hydrocarbons. In order to isolate hydrogen from these compounds you have to use more energy than the hydrogen can ever produce, regardless of whether it is used in a combustion engine, fuel cell, or an entirely new, revolutionary technology. These are the laws of physics that simply can’t be broken (see this article.) Therefore, all hydrogen can ever be is a method of energy storage—just like a battery. This, in turn, would require even more clean electrical power generation than mentioned in the previous scenario in order to be a truly environmentally-friendly solution.

What can’t we do?

Obviously we cannot prevent the third world from developing. I use the word “cannot” in every sense of the word; it is nearly impossible to stop the “invisible hand” of the free market from expanding these economies, certainly any coercive action to keep the third world in its previously underdeveloped state would be unthinkably immoral, and even requiring—or just encouraging—policies that would mitigate the impacts that we have experienced in our development over the last century, seem incredibly hypocritical to third world populations that now want to “test out their new wheels!” In other words, I think we have no moral authority to prevent the third world from following the path we have already taken regardless of the economic and environmental outcomes.

What needs to be done?

Depending on your background and political biases, you likely lean towards either conservation or further development of existing supplies. Certainly everyone is for developing alternative energy sources—well except for those that feel their homes or properties will be directly or indirectly effected (interesting nutcases against wind turbines.) However, I think it is obvious that we need to do all of the above. Despite the manifestly evident need for conservation, no politician is going to propose this, since it reeks of weakness (remember Jimmy Carter’s “sweater speech”?) Thankfully, the market will take care of this…which brings me to my next point.

What will happen?

What will happen is that the market self-corrects. Naturally, as the demand for something increases, the price does as well—thereby tempering the demand while, at the same time, encouraging greater production of said resource and its substitutes (alternative energy in our case.) This is why it is so important that our leaders do nothing to distort the market. McCain and Clinton’s proposed gas tax holiday was just such a bone-headed idea: it would have softened the very necessary market signals that tell us, as consumers, to reign in our consumption and producers (including alternative energy upstarts) to ramp up production, exploration, research, and development. Likewise, incentives to produce ethanol from corn, which is horribly inefficient, has proven to be a boondoggle that nobody but Iowa corn growers benefit from.

The other option is to introduce a dizzying array of counter-balancing regulations, taxes, and subsidies: laws and incentives to force individual and industrial consumers to conserve artificially inexpensive resources plus incentives and outright subsidies to producers to increase production and develop new sources despite a price that is too low to make an economic case for such investments. These prohibitions and inducements would, of course, be gamed by all sides despite legions of bureaucrats to administer it all!

I have been planning to write and publish the post for some months now. What has happened in those intervening months seems to counter my thesis that fuel prices will remain high indefinitely. The reason that fuel prices have fallen (slightly) this summer is that demand has slumped—bringing about the concept of a “staycation” for instance, and production has risen—Canadian oil sands are now economically feasible for example. However, as I’ve said before, this is a temporary dip; the pent-up demand for fuel and other resources in the developing world will only continue to rise, negating the effect of all our conservation efforts. Furthermore, the higher cost producers require to maintain new sources such as marginal oil wells or oil sands means that we can never get back to the prices of the previous decades unless worldwide demand commensurately shrinks to that time as well, idling these more expensive resources. (Interesting CNN article about this)

We simply need to get it through our thick skulls that energy will never again be as cheap as it used to be. The recent rise in fuel prices is not an anomaly that will quickly pass; oil (and other natural resources) are indeed scarce enough to demand these prices (not to mention yet unknown cost of environmental impacts of using said resources.) We now need to reorganize our lives and communities to deal with this new reality. Ever the optimist, I actually think that—for the most part—we are learning this. For example, even the gearheads at Motor Trend are admiring compact, fuel efficient European cars.

[Update – March 2009] With gas still under $2/gallon, and no sight of a serious economic recovery in the near future (necessary for demand to rise,) one might think that I would want to retract this post. However, I stand by everything I have written here last year. I am confident that, in the long-term, I will be vindicated in saying this is just a temporary dip in the price of fuel. No one knows how long this recession will last, and even after a recovery there will be a surplus of oil that has been cached all around the world during this period of low demand. Never the less, I challenge anyone to claim the following is bad advice: “Do not allow your local car dealer to convince you that now is a good time to buy a gas-guzzling SUV or truck because gas prices are going to stay low. Within the service life of any new vehicle you buy now (let’s say around 5 years,) gas will rise back up to the $4-$5 per gallon range.”

[2016 Update] OK, I give up. I was wrong. Largely as a result of the fracking revolution, America suddenly has more oil than it needs. However, I still would not buy an SUV; regulatory pressure and long-suppressed uptick in resource demands from the developing world still loom in our future.