Increasingly wary of the entrepreneurship narrative

The eye catcher ….

Social media in particular has been pushing entrepreneurship to blacks as another path to wealth building.  I need to ponder this idea some more particularly from the legal and public policy perspective, but right now I wonder if entrepreneurship is nothing but a policy sham, designed to keep the eyes of Americans in general and black Americans in particular off of what truly drives wealth building in any economy: capital, especially its monopolization.

True wealth building factors ….

Since I am not wealthy, the following wealth factors are from what I have observed versus actually experienced.  They are:

  1. The ownership of the factors of production.
  2. Ownership or significant control of a unique production process.
  3. Investment in a number of unique production processes that provide significant returns.
  4. The sale of unique, exceptional expertise.

Entrepreneurship: Wage slavery on steroids … 

Entrepreneurs are typically involved in the resale of the output of the production process.  They rarely own the intellectual property behind the production process or the product itself.  They are typically agents competing against other agents trying to sell the same or like products.  Competition erodes the opportunities they have to earn high profit.  They are stuck in the volume game.  Any wealth the attain will come from their ability to save some portion of their business margins.  Most are wage slaves with the additional responsibility of paying back a business loan with the hopes of capturing the value of the firms during their sale.

Parting, starting thoughts….

Should policy provide entrepreneurs with more opportunity to capture wealth and if so, how?  Are we too fixated with the “actin aspect” of wealth that we are paying little attention to the thought exercise that is involved in creating the true value behind wealth and its transmission?

Again, just some thoughts on entrepreneurship that I promise to share later.

Advertisements

Joe Biden still sitting comfortable in South Carolina

For the period 11 June through 22 July 2019, Joe Biden is polling strong in South Carolina with 37.5% of potential primary voters giving him the nod.  Real Clear Politics has Bernie Sanders polling at 12.5% while Kamala Harris trails at 11.3%.

The South Carolina primary, to be held on 29 February 2020, is seen as a barometer for how well the candidates may do with black voters.  The majority of South Carolina’s Democratic primary participants are black and blacks have historically provided significant electoral support to the Democratic Party.

Joe Biden “yes” vote holds at $.30

As of 1:20 pm EST, PredictIt priced the chances of Joe Biden winning the Democratic nomination for president at $.30.  Elizabeth Warren‘s chances of wining the nomination is priced at $.23 while Kamala Harris‘ chances are now priced at $.16.

Thanos: To be Savage …

And they found Thanos, the Savage, working the land, in touch with a natural environment that provided his sustenance, in a world where there was enough nature to go around. They couldn’t understand that kind of freedom. So they killed him so that they could return to a world of systems upon systems upon systems that serve only to separate man further from what is natural. They would rather live in that artificial world than one where they could get closer to themselves ….

….Thanos was right …and in the end, in reality, The Avengers failed…

Libra coin and broadband provide a template for increased economic empowerment

The eye catcher: Maxine Waters’ reaction to Facebook’s Libra …

Facebook’s announcement that it is getting closer to releasing a cryptocurrency has regulators in the United States in a wee bit of a tizzy.  For example, U.S. Representative Maxine Waters, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, asked that Facebook put a moratorium on activity to release the crypto-coin, known as Libra, in 2020.

“Given the company’s troubled past, I am requesting that Facebook agree to a moratorium on any movement forward on developing a cryptocurrency until Congress and regulators have the opportunity to examine these issues and take action,” Mrs. Waters said.

Facebook’s issues with adequately protecting the behavioral data of its platform’s users is a continued topic of discussion among the consumer protection folks.  As a protector of the American payment system, Mrs. Waters concerns are expected.  A platform that is used by 2 billion people across the globe with a digital payment system overlay should raise concerns for any nation as that new payment systems entrant poses a competitive alternative for people using currency to seek out and purchase goods and services of value to them.  Reducing the transaction fees assessed on currency movement and purchases provide a benefit to consumers and to holders of capital seeking to increase returns.

Privacy. Disposing the non-issue …

I will dispose of the data privacy issue side note before moving on to the more important issue of black political economy empowerment.  If Mrs. Waters is that concerned with saving Americans from the privacy bogeyman, she would bring members across the aisle in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation and offer a comprehensive bill on privacy that encompasses data collection behavior on the part of core providers, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, and edge providers, such as Facebook and Google.

Democrats have shown no balance on the issue of internet regulation and acting as if Facebook’s cryptocurrency is a surprise only signals to the internet industry that Congress lacks vision and intends to remain hopelessly behind the technology curve.  The privacy issue should not be used to slow down Facebook’s crypto initiative.

Facebook’s Libra is an outline for the African Diaspora’s Next Step ….

What Mrs. Waters and the rest of the black American political elite may not appreciate is the schematic a digital coin tethered to other currencies or securities provides for the African Diaspora community.  For example, a digital payment system provides a conduit between the African Diaspora in the United States and the African continent.  Currency is an information transmitter and if digitized it means that the information currency transmits about wealth and opportunity can be sent without the friction introduced by unneeded intermediaries.

The block chain technology that such a platform would be built on provides transparency in the form of a digital ledger linked by cryptography.  By design, data transmitted in the block chain is resistant to modification.

Reduced friction in transactions facilitates digital data flows.  It means reduced costs for the cross border flow of capital.  Broadband technology would not only enhance the search and confirmation of investment opportunities in Africa, it makes greater use of block chain technology possible.

And while Facebook’s mission is to “connect the world”, Facebook’s priority is not economic empowerment of blacks.  This opens an opportunity for engineers, scientists, technologists, and economists in the African Diaspora to build their own digital platform linking the western and eastern hemispheres with a digital currency designed to run over this platform.  The resulting creation of capital on both continents can be used to build food processing plants that are desperately needed in Ghana and increasing the size, production efficiencies, and marketing efforts of black-owned farms in the United States.

Conclusion: Keep the eyes on empowerment and digital future …

Rather than slowing down Libra, Mrs. Waters and the rest of the black political elite should be asking, “How can we use this platform or the idea of this platform to our benefit?”

 

 

Kamala Harris’messaging on busing out of touch 40 years later

The eye catcher ….

Kamala Harris attacked fellow Democratic candidate Joe Biden during last night’s second round of debates between Democrats vying for their party’s blessing to go up against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in November 2020.  Ms. Harris scored points on Mr. Biden when the U.S. senator from California challenged his position in the early 1970s on school busing.  Ms. Harris asserted that Mr. Biden was against busing, the policy that transferred black students from schools in poor neighborhoods with under-performing, under-funded schools to schools in majority white, more affluent communities.  Ms. Harris argued that were it not for that policy, she would not have enjoyed the personal and professional success she is enjoying now.

From the perspective of a candidate seeking votes in the political markets, does the issue of busing resonate enough with the electorate’s fear that the narrative will garner votes?  The answer is no.

Ms. Harris’ busing argument doesn’t address Americans’ fears …

For millions of Americans, the issue of busing does not pull at the heart strings.  With a median age of 38 years, the policy of busing was waning when half of America was alive.  For the past two decades, cities across the United States have implemented remedial plans to address the problem of school segregation.  Ms. Harris’ mother faced the fear of her daughter receiving a less than stellar education in their neighborhood and likely believed this was the best or only available option.  And while there is still the concern about poor funding in low-income neighborhoods, options, including vouchers, charter schools, private schools, and relocation are available to alleviate these fears.

But while the issue of busing will quickly fade from the memories of the electorate who watched last night’s debate, what may linger a little longer is Ms. Harris’ performance.  The push back on Mr. Biden included a picture of Ms. Harris as a school girl and when combined with the tone and delivery of Ms. Harris’ remarks provided enough of an emotional message to connect with people in the audience and with traders in the political futures markets as the price of an event contract on Ms. Harris’ nomination climbed as much as seven cents last night on PredictIt.

But her performance may not address the fear of some in the black community that her record as a prosecutor does not reflect serious attempts at law enforcement reform.  There is the argument that her record is mixed, having not done enough to address the efficacy of investigating police shootings, declining to weigh in on recreational use of marijuana, and her defense of the death penalty.

Kamala Harris, while probably liked by her sorority sisters and the professional class, may not be endeared by those who have had a less than pleasant run-in with law enforcement.

Conclusion: Kamala Harris has work to do …

Ms. Harris has managed to present energized optics over the past 24 hours, but in the 21st century digital world, those optics can be blurred quickly by opposing messaging provided on tens or hundreds of other mediums.  Right now as I type this post, Joe Biden is mounting an energetic rebuttal to Ms. Harris on C-SPAN and while the political futures markets have Ms. Harris’ selling at a higher price than Mr. Biden, the ability for Mr. Biden to go on a policy offensive across multiple platforms with a deeper bench of media and civic leader support could put him back in the driver’s seat.

The corporation serves the State, not the other way around …

The eye catcher ….

During last night’s debate among candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, a number of candidates including U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, criticized corporations operating in various industries for the greed they perpetrate on Americans.  From internet to health care to energy companies, the candidates took issue for predatory prices for health care, the anti-trust implications of large internet companies, and the tax breaks companies receive while rank and file Americans struggle.

In short, corporations should be feared …. or should they?

History of the fear ….

As usual when selling a fear narrative it is important to leave out the education component from any assertion that there is a bogey man to be afraid of.  What consumers of the political narrative should be asking is, “What is a corporation?”  “Why should I be afraid of it?”

corporation is an extension of the State.  A corporation’s purpose is to extract resources, process them, convert them into goods and services, and distribute those goods and services using price as the allocating mechanism in order to generate tax income for the state and private income or profit for itself.

To varying degrees this has been the corporation’s role for the last 400 years.  Americans have been so programmed to believe that America was discovered by adventurous Europeans that they overlook or are simply ignorant about its corporate beginnings.

Prior to the 17th century, corporations, originally not-for-profits that received charters from the British monarch, were established to meet some public works need with their duties overseen by government. During the 17th and into the early 18th century, colonial corporations had the primary responsibility of expanding the British monarch’s empire, creating monopolies and controlling trade.  These companies bought or extracted raw resources, sent then to England for manufacture, and then imported the manufactured goods into the colonies for purchase by the colonists.

Americans have forgotten (if they ever knew) that although their ancestors were miffed by the trade monopolies held by these companies and the economic oppression they contributed to, post the American Revolution, corporations were the structure that drove the private investment into the American industrial revolution.

The problem for American government by the 1820s and 1830s that like the monster from Mary Shelley‘s Frankenstein: or, The Prometheus Man, the corporation sought their own version of self-awareness and increased freedom from the strictures of the State.  It has been a back of forth battle between the State and the corporation, with the State taking a more interventionist approach by stepping up regulation in the areas of banking, energy, securities, and telecommunications.  Corporations had been created to carry out the State’s bidding in maximizing America’s resources.  Intervention via regulation is indication that the State fears that it may lose control over the corporate power it relies on to administer the Nation’s resources.

Spreading the fear to the consumer …

It wouldn’t be good social policy for the State to drop the hammer on corporation monopoly over resources if the sentiment of the public were not incorporated in its policy actions.  The optics of an arbitrary application of administrative power does not fare well in a democracy.  There has to be an excuse and in a democracy the excuse should include a discussion on the harms an unregulated corporation could have on the consumer.

Americans may be uncomfortable with the ability of corporations to engage in predatory pricing, but they have a bigger fear of a government that exercises power on a whim.  One can always substitute the product of a corporation with another product, but one cannot easily get away from a State with a monopoly on force.

To stem the fear of arbitrary and capricious application of force, the State gives the impression of fairness and due process in its rulemaking by asking the public to comment on or, when applicable to the decision, to vote.  The State gets the public to buy into regulation of the corporation by painting the corporation as harmful to the public’s interest.  It makes the corporation the bogey man; the entity that transfers wealth from the consumer to its treasury unjustly via high prices or non-disclosure of prices, terms, and conditions.

Conclusion: To serve the State …

By substituting the fear of consumer abuse for the fear of reduced power over the Frankenstein monster, the State accomplishes to goals. First, it keeps the public in check by holding itself out as a consumer protector. Second, it reminds the corporation of its role in the American political economy: that the corporation serves the State and not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041515/what-history-corporations-america.asp

 

The World’s First Corporations