The innovation incubators

[Whereisup]

.

This is also why no bankers have gone to jail for the meltdown for fear of the defense you just gave.

You've missed something in the news the last few weeks. It looks like a number of top banking executives will be going to jail once their trials are over. The Justice Department is moving to charge bank executives who knowingly sold mortgage bundles they knew would fail.

We are about to begin seeing trials.

Jim

 

[Whereisup]

... don't believe any banks or other lenders were ever forced to loan money. I think they were getting while the getting was good ...

--and if you want we could highjack this thread into an anti-banker bash. I'd bet this would please the loopy left wingers here that want to divert attention away from the fact that current public policies --which include those for 'innovation incubation'-- have gotten us massive wealth destruction and horrific unemployment.

People always divert on message boards, and that doesn't bother me. I just reply, sometimes, to what they are saying.

This didn't start with a banker bash. The news reports on the new regulations specifically said that start-ups were being allowed to raise money from the public because they couldn't get funding from the banks. I'm not sure that everyone caught the idea of "new regulations...".

I would agree that public policies have gotten us into trouble, but the key question is --- what public policies?

One of the public policies which has contributed much to the problems has been deregulation. Corporations were deregulated so much that it was safe for them to behave in a criminal way, as the banks did, and it is the criminal activity which has caused the economic problems.

Deregulation has been pushed by conservatives.

This has turned rather difficult. How much regulation should there be? There shouldn't be so much regulation that it hinders business activities. On the other hand, there should be enough regulation to prevent crime.

So, exactly how do we come up with just the right amount of regulation? That is a superdifficult question. However, humans have successfully answered difficult questions before in history.

Jim

 

[rdean]

Remember Romney? He wanted to bring in immigrants with degrees and help them start businesses. Because he thought his base was too stupid to learn. What else could it be? The GOP base is just dying for bosses with names like Mahmoud and Singh Gurm. Hilarious.

Mitt Romney: Staple Green Cards with Advanced Degrees

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember Romney? He wanted to bring in immigrants with degrees and help them start businesses. Because he thought his base was too stupid to learn. What else could it be? The GOP base is just dying for bosses with names like Mahmoud and Singh Gurm. Hilarious.

Mitt Romney: Staple Green Cards with Advanced Degrees

Right on DeanyPoo.. Republicans want American educated PHDs with rich Daddies in India and Taiwan.. And democrats want uneducated, semi-skilled brown muscle from South of the Border with a Western Union account.. Seems like a Mexican standoff here..

And your racist progressive core is hanging out in public..

 

[expat_panama]

...massive wealth destruction and horrific unemployment.

...the problems has been deregulation. Corporations were deregulated so much that it was safe for them to behave in a criminal way, as the banks did, and it is the criminal activity which has caused the economic problems...

Let's look at the hard numbers that quantify the economic crisis we're concerned with. Here are real median household incomes along with the number of Americans aged 15-64 who aren't working:

The damage began with the 110th congress, worsened with the '08 elections, and began to be held in check with the 2010 congressional election. If this loss in national weath was for the benefit of evil corporations then the crisis should have enriched them, but the fact is that in real life--

--private corps lost $four and a half trillion during the crisis and wealth creation since the crisis is slower than before.

Hating and denouncing the rich with bogus accusations may have been the 'in thing' during the French Revolution, but there's no serious believable 'deregulation' that took place in '07 that permitted criminal corporate activity in '08 that can explain this.

 

[william the wie]

Forget it expat, the myths of trendy economics include:

Triply disproven general equilibrium.

That compounding productivity gains and shrinking labor force are unrelated.

Or my favorite that China losing 10s of millions jobs to US productivity means reduced net UE in the US.

Or in this case not using complex numbers to account for increasing marginal returns industry output, which in this case means deflationary products such as smart phones, additive manufacture, nanotech and biotech understate real income.

 

[expat_panama]

...myths of trendy economics...

Interesting. Mythology does serve a purpose and we don't want to equate it with willful stupidity. Myths are great conversation openers, they're a thought structure for sorting out the chaos around us, and they motivate us to act. They're the understandable form that points us to the substance of reality. Our job is to go for the substance and not the form.

 

[editec]

Most of you have probably read or seen reports on the new innovation incubators which provide space for people starting new businesses, provide them with advice, and get them to interact with and help each other.

This is one of the major creative new developments in American history. Of those new small businesses which make a product, some will grow into larger companies, and so replace American jobs which have been exported. There aren't enough of these incubators at the moment, but new ones are being set up every year.

The Obama administration has also stepped in with some changes in regulations to help people develop their new small businesses. For example, banks tend to refuse to lend money to new start-up businesses, which is rather unpatriotic of the banks due to the great value to America that start-up businesses are, and can be in the future.

To help correct that, the Obama administration has changed regulations so that now, small businesses are allowed to raise money directly from the public when banks refuse to help. Since this is beneficial for America, and basically nonpartisan, I would guess that Republicans will continue to allow small businesses to do this when they next come into power.

Jim

What exactly does that mean, Jim?

That small businesses can "go public" and sell stock or something?

Small businesses could always ASK for people to invest so please EXPLAIN what that help REALLY means.

Thanks.

 

[Whereisup]

Whereisup---

Jim

Its a real shame .. Because the thread was on a hiway to identifying the KEY COMPONENT for American economic salvation. And you turned off into the banking ditch and then hijacked your own rescue mission into a cave where even the GPS doesn't shine in order to fantasize about the omniscent SKILL of govt to RESCUE us from the evil-doers..

Government FAVORS the evil-doing large multi-nationals to the detriment of free market attempts to get capital to the places where innovation strives to stay alive. And I'm really not impressed by your beliefs and missed estimates of the wisdom, competence, and skill of GOVT to get that job done. Or their feeble atttempts to write special wavers AROUND the barriers that they place in the path of progress...

1. Not exactly. I think the situation is so complex that there probably won't be a "KEY COMPONENT". By now, I've developed about a dozen possible programs and policy changes that would help. They mix and evolve so I haven't decided on an exact number for a list. One thing I would like, which no message board has done, is for other message board members to come up with additional new ideas for the list. There must be some ideas better than many of mine out there, but I can't seem to get them pulled out of other people. Then, I would like the ideas to be discussed until a shorter list of the best comes out of the process.

2. I didn't say and don't think that the government is "omniscient". However, what happened with the credit default swaps and loan bundles guaranteed to fail was so massive and came so close to destroying the American economy and world economy that I was very impressed that the Bush administration and Obama administration were able to save the economies involved. It wasn't a perfect save. We still have some fairly serious problems, like the Greek economy, but to do as much as they did is praiseworthy.

3. I don't think that corporations are evil. That doesn't mean I think they are saintly, however. They do have some serious problems, and those problems need to be reformed. I see no reason that corporations can't be reformed. Humanity has reformed governments many times in the past, so we should be able to reform corporations also.

4. Corporations, in terms of what is actually happening, have perhaps 60% to 70% of the power in the United States. The reason is that they bribe members of Congress and other government officials with legal bribes such as campaign contributions and future highly paid jobs. This is complicated by the problem that corporations are making decisions in a quite unintelligent way. However, all that can be reformed.

5. Destroying corporations would not be helpful. It would merely push the entire world into extreme poverty, and lead to the deaths of perhaps as many as a couple of billion people. Having governments take over corporations has some serious problems, but it would make this message too long to discuss them now. Eventually, in the conversations, I will get that discussed.

Jim

 

[Whereisup]

Most of you have p banks tend to refuse to lend money to new start-up businesses, which is rather unpatriotic of the banks due to the great value to America that start-up businesses are, and can be in the futu

Jim

What exactly does that mean, Jim?

That small businesses can "go public" and sell stock or something?

Small businesses could always ASK for people to invest so please EXPLAIN what that help REALLY means.

Thanks.

As I understand the news report, small start-up businesses will be able to issue bonds and sell stock. As I understand it, that hasn't been legal before. In the past, in order to be able to issue bonds and sell stock, a company must be above a certain size.

Jim

 

[Whereisup]

...massive wealth destruction and horrific unemployment.

...the problems has been deregulation. Corporations were deregulated so much that it was safe for them to behave in a criminal way, as the banks did, and it is the criminal activity which has caused the economic problems...

Let's look at the hard numbers that quantify the economic crisis we're concerned with. Here are real median household incomes along with the number of Americans aged 15-64 who aren't working:

The damage began with the 110th congress, worsened with the '08 elections, and began to be held in check with the 2010 congressional election. If this loss in national weath was for the benefit of evil corporations then the crisis should have enriched them, but the fact is that in real life--

--private corps lost $four and a half trillion during the crisis and wealth creation since the crisis is slower than before.

Hating and denouncing the rich with bogus accusations may have been the 'in thing' during the French Revolution, but there's no serious believable 'deregulation' that took place in '07 that permitted criminal corporate activity in '08 that can explain this.

1. Deregulation started with the Reagan administration and has continued since.

2. The credit default swaps and sales of mortgage bundles guaranteed to fail at that time is a fact, not a politically based accusation. Surely you don't believe that all wealthy people are saints. There are, by the way, a number of wealthy people who are excellent people. I don't know the numbers. However, if even 10 percent of wealthy people are criminals, and acted when the credit default swaps and sales of mortgage bundles guaranteed to fail came along, that would have been enough to have caused the emergency that happened.

3. It is important to be clear about what is going on, because if there are things happening one doesn't know about, that can cause one to make bad decisions. You should do some research on credit default swaps and the use of them in recent history, and you should do some research on mortgage bundles guaranteed to fail and the use of them in recent history. It is perfectly OK for you not to believe me. But if you want to be in the know, and you don't believe me, the only way you can inform yourself is to do some serious research on your own. If you do the research, you will be able to believe yourself.

4. I think people like to believe they understand things, because otherwise they feel insecure. So if you don't want to feel insecure, stop reading now.

The kind of economy we have, with giant international corporations, some as large as entire nations, and with much new technology, is something we can't expect to understand at the moment because it hasn't existed all that long. The previous economy, with small free markets, most people farmers and a number of craftpersons, and some companies with a few hundred to a few thousand employees, was something that lasted several thousand years. With that much experience, we did understand that kind of economy. The current economy however has only existed for about a half century, with a transitional economy with largish companies, but not as large as now, going back another three quarters century or so. So this economy has been around so little time that we simply don't understand it very well. If the current economy continues for several hundred more years, then we will probably understand it.

Jim

 

[expat_panama]

...that hasn't been legal before. In the past, in order to be able to issue bonds and sell stock, a company must be above a certain size.

The only thing a business has to do is pay the legal fees. A kid with a lemonade stand can incorporate and sell stock. There's a youth program called "Junior Achievement" (kind of like the scouts only for business instead of camping) where kids think up a product, sell stock, make and sell the product, and then pay off investors.

 

[william the wie]

We've had technological bubbles and industrialization of agriculture going on since Savary's steam engine of the late 1690s and Jethro Tull's seed drill in 1701. So yeah we have hit a much larger difference in degree from 1713 but difference in kind, no. For that matter binary code music boxes go back to at least 9th century Iraq so even smartphone ICs are not really a difference in kind. What we do have are politicians who do not realize that bubbles are the natural consequences of the gigantic and expanding library of apps that have built up over the centuries. That was pointed out by Leon Juglar in the 1800s.

So, no we are not facing anything new other than larger bribes for elected officials.

 

[Whereisup]

...that hasn't been legal before. In the past, in order to be able to issue bonds and sell stock, a company must be above a certain size.

The only thing a business has to do is pay the legal fees. A kid with a lemonade stand can incorporate and sell stock. There's a youth program called "Junior Achievement" (kind of like the scouts only for business instead of camping) where kids think up a product, sell stock, make and sell the product, and then pay off investors.

Although that's not what the news reports said, news reports aren't always right. I think this is relevant to the innovation incubators in terms of where new businesses could obtain funding.

If you are right, they could have issued bonds and sold stock all along. If you are wrong then they can now, so it is the same either way.

Jim

 

[Whereisup]

We've had technological bubbles and industrialization of agriculture going on since Savary's steam engine of the late 1690s and Jethro Tull's seed drill in 1701. So yeah we have hit a much larger difference in degree from 1713 but difference in kind, no. For that matter binary code music boxes go back to at least 9th century Iraq so even smartphone ICs are not really a difference in kind. What we do have are politicians who do not realize that bubbles are the natural consequences of the gigantic and expanding library of apps that have built up over the centuries. That was pointed out by Leon Juglar in the 1800s.

So, no we are not facing anything new other than larger bribes for elected officials.

Another thing that is different is that the huge corporations can and do destroy the free market.

In a number of economic sectors, even if there is no organized cartel, the major corporations will price their products about the same way, pay their employees about the same, purchase their raw materials at about the same price.

So there is no longer a free market setting prices and wages. They are deliberately decided by the top executives of a few corporations which dominate a segment of the economy.

Jim

 

[william the wie]

The relative concentration of wealth and economic power in London and Amsterdam were far greater in the 1700s with the competing East India, central banks and fur companies. All of those were privately traded companies and as a bit of comparison far more western Indians (excluding former Mexican states) were killed in the Fur wars of 1783-1814 than the grand total killed by the US Army and RCMP combined. The American Fur Company out of NYC, the Hudson Bay Company out of London and the Company of Adventurers out of Montreal, prior to its hostile takeover by HBC, did in fact use biological weapons to kill off the tribes that supported the other companies, sponsored massacres of the same people and then blamed these problems on their Indian fur suppliers and middlemen. Other than BP and Dow can you name any major modern company that has even by hyperbole been accused of deliberate and intentional Genocide? Until you can and do present such an example I find your claim dubious.

 

[expat_panama]

...the same either way.

--except for the past half dozen years now household incomes have been $10K/yr less than they were before, and we got 10M people without jobs that used to be employed. I wouldn't call that 'just the same', I'd call it 'worse off'.