You are here: Home / Archives for Politics and Current Events
Apr 13

Why I Put So Much Faith in the Internet

April 13, 2009 • 3 Comments • Politics and Current Events

I absolutely love consuming something that I know is more substance than fluff. There is something to be said when someone pours their time and energy into creating something rather than telling you and everyone else they know about what they’ve created. It’s called craftsmanship, which is something we as Americans have not seen for a long time.

This country came to power under the Ford model. Create something cheaply and efficiently and market it to as many people as humanly possible. This is how the Model T took off. This is how Coca Cola and Nike became big. When you buy a Nike shoe, you spend $100 for a shoe that cost them $6 to produce. How much of that is marketing? How much realistically is R&D?

I spent half a day looking for tennis shoes that were not produced under sweatshop labor. I found out that New Balance has a decent track record. I don’t like New Balance shoes. They are heavy and do not fit my feet well. So I bought a pair of Nikes for just over $100.

$6 went to craftsmanship. I’d say at least another $40 went into marketing. Some went to facilities, distribution and some went to profit.

For $100, what kind of shoe could you produce? Could I have custom insoles? Could I have the lightest shoe possible with the most cushioning? Could I be assured someone didn’t have to work 80 hours a week to produce it? Can you make it last a long time? Can you make it in my favorite colors?

I put faith in the internet because we now have a distribution model that makes getting that shoe made to order much more realistic. Why? 1.) We don’t have to rely on huge, expensive distribution channels to get the word out. More channels equal more specialization. 2.) Our potential audience is much broader. A good website sells in your sleep and doesn’t restrict by geography unless you want it to. 3.) It’s easier to connect with the influencers who would actually be doing their audience a favor by showing them a product that is good. 4.) The competitive nature of the internet punishes products that are margin rich without providing value, as other competitors can offer the same for less.

This isn’t about shoes. This is about work. I don’t want to pay for flash. I am tired of knowing that the products I consume often exploit workers and consumers in order to appease shareholders. This is why although I hate being behind a computer, I put so much value in the work that web professionals do. We are building the model for the new age…

3 Comments
Mar 24

Have Free Drinks, Talk Tech with Brewster McCracken this Thursday

March 24, 2009 • Leave a Comment • Politics and Current Events

I don’t follow local politics. This is what my options often feel like:

CANDIDATE A (stances):
Supports trees. Supports upping minimum wage 800%. Supports local government unions. Supports creeks. Supports public nudity and free luvin. Supports marriage between man and beast. Supports clean bong water. Keeps Austin Weird. Hates The Man.

CANDIDATE B (stances):
Supports real estate. Supports big business. Supports Hummers. Supports boat owners and those who frequent Hula Hut. Supports anyone who lives west of Mopac and south of Steck. Supports mowing down hippies with tractors. Is The Man.

So you can see my frustration as someone who sees that development of technology, which could possibly favor supporters of Candidate B, would also actually help the people looking for Candidate A. Software and technology saves energy, time, and space. It solves problems. Why is it that in Austin, tech savvy people seem to be the last people to get involved with decision makers? We all want investors to come here, and the city can help us with this.

So City Council member and mayoral candidate Brewster McCracken asked me to throw a tweetup so he can meet people in technology who can help him 1.) get elected and 2.) generated more jobs in tech sectors in Austin. I’m not getting paid–I just feel this is good for us. Politicians should listen to people who are tech savvy. It’s good for the economy. Steve Calkins from Breeze Marketing and I are paying for the first $400 worth in drinks, so you might as well come down to Maudie’s off of South Lamar on Thursday at 9:00 to hang out. Here’s the link:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=63058166532&ref=nf

This event follows Richard Linklater’s screening of “Dazed and Confused” at Alamo Drafthouse. So come down! It should be a good time.

Leave a Comment
Mar 19

Why People Aren’t Spending Money

March 19, 2009 • 1 Comment • Politics and Current Events

We are in a recession. People aren’t spending money. They aren’t taking risks. We are wondering when everything is going to bottom out even worse.

Wired just came out with an edition explaining why the economy caved. I honestly didn’t read it, but it had a bunch of complex formulas on the front.

Here’s my big fancy philosophical theory:
When companies exploit both their workforce and their customers, it hurts everyone.

Take the music industry. Major record labels often pay artists very little money for a hectic lifestyle. If an artist isn’t smart and doesn’t buy the rights to his or her songs or make money on tour, the label makes a lot of money for a little work and the artist makes a little money of a lot of work.

In this equation, do people really care that much about stealing the music if they know they will go to the musician’s tour, which is the big money maker for them?

Take shoe companies. The label makes a lot of money off a little work, and the makers of the shoe are often in very poor conditions for very little money. I understand economies of scale and realize it can be better to work in a factory than a rice paddy. But when my shoes are $110 and I realize that a company spent $3 on the materials and $30 to market it to me, is it really true that we get what we pay for?

And if a company treats me poorly and I connect with someone else who has the same experience, why do I want to go back? I’M NOT PROFIT MARGIN FOR YOUR INVESTORS. I am the person who ultimately pays your bills.

The internet teaches us that you don’t always get what you pay for. Instead of going to Macy’s to buy a necklace, I can go to eBay and pay a fraction of the price from the eBay seller in China who made it. Instead of going to a major record label, I can find a musician on Pandora for free and then I can pay that musician directly instead of having a record label muck it up by trying to appeal to the biggest audience possible.

The world doesn’t have time or money for large bureaucracies. With many points of refined connections, we can act much faster and more effectively than a bureaucracy. In order for America to get out of this recession, we are going to have to embrace and nurture this new model instead of propping up broken business models. A company’s long-term worth and value to society is not its stock price. It is only its worth to its customers. Enron, AIG, GM, Ford, Sun, and just about every other fledgling corporation teach us that.

So choose wisely in this new economy. Your customers will talk about you. They will do the selling for you. If you neglect them or the employees who produce for them, you could end up in a host of trouble.

1 Comment
Feb 23

Sarah Lacy Overestimates the Power of VC Money in the Energy Crisis for TechCrunch

February 23, 2009 • 12 Comments • Politics and Current Events

I was going to write a comment on Sarah Lacy’s response to Thomas Friedman’s post on the bailout, but figured a post was warranted.

Sarah Lacy doesn’t seem to understand much about the auto industry. This post is detrimental to the clean energy movement and I wish she’d done more research before posting it.

In sum, Sarah Lacy thinks that if the government offers stimulus money to VCs in a sort of competition for someone to find the cleanest tech, that this is somehow “bailing out winners”. OK, let me get this straight: the U.S., which is falling desperately behind in creating clean energy cars behind countries like Japan, Germany, and even India, shouldn’t give money to promote innovation even though energy independence is key to our national defense and economy? Is that correct?

Sarah, I worked in the auto industry for three years. I made a lot of money in it because I came equipped with a lot of information. THE U.S. HAS MORE AT STAKE IN THE ENERGY RACE THAN JUST ABOUT ANYONE ELSE AND WE ARE FAILING MISERABLY. Yes, you see Intel chips, Google, Apple, and eBay all out of the U.S., but our auto industry is going to be extinct if we don’t do something.

In order to solve mass poverty in the Midwest, we have to bailout the big three to an extent. When you buy an American car, you pay more for the pension of a worker than you do the steel. With so many baby boomers retiring and the Big Three not having an answer to all of these promised pensions, you will have millions of people who worked their entire lives to receive absolutely no retirement. Should we just say “tough”? You picked a loser to work for, so you will just have to bag groceries at the supermarket to pay for your meds? It’s not my fault that the Big Three preferred to spend money on marketing over innovation, but I also understand the economic repercussions of millions of senior citizens being dropped on the curb to fend for themselves.

That being said, the Big Three are not innovating and smaller firms will have to be the innovators. However, there is a lot more infrastructure involved in clean energy than there is in IT, and small firms can’t handle this by themselves. There are pumps. Safety regulations. Clean vehicles are physical goods that must be disposed of. Anytime you involve a massive infrastructure change, you really do have to involve the government. And what Thomas Friedman was calling for was for VCs to come up with a sustainable way for Americans to drive which we would then support in our infrastructure.

Here are some facts that Friedman probably knew that Sarah Lacy apparently does not:
1.) Electric vehicles are currently not very profitable. I knew a manager at Toyota. The Prius is a loss leader for them and is quite expensive to produce. Without government subsidies, it would be unlikely to be on the roads at all. The only reason why this manager liked carrying it is because customers would come looking for a Prius, find out how expensive it was, and then buy a a Corolla. If you think any company would take on the massive overhead with the hope that these vehicles will be cheap to produce, you aren’t being very realistic. The American people stand to gain the most by having clean air and energy independence. These cars can eventually be profitable, but it’s going to take some investment initially and I don’t see enough of that coming from the private sector.

2.) The U.S. is currently exporting biodiesel to Germany, a government that does subsidize it because it promotes cleaner air and energy independence. How do I know this? I visited a biodiesel plant that actually did the exporting. Other countries see the value of bipassing the oil industry, which is capital rich but doesn’t actually employ a lot of people. Using alternate fuels means we can ignore corrupt governments like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iraq. They will cease to be world players.

It is truly embarrassing how little the U.S. knows about diesel. The Europeans have been using it for years, and diesels can actually run on biodiesel blends (which can be made from waste and not corn like people often think) with no modifications to the engine whatsoever. It also has mechanics that are one step above a lawnmower and unlike electric cars, they are incredibly cheap and easy to fix.

3.) The government is often involved in clean energy–you just don’t see it. There are wind farms in North Dakota created by Native American tribes. They now supply enough energy for both the reservation and a nearby military base. And what paid for the infrastructure? Subsidies. The electric car is a direct result of legislation that California threatened which would have required automakers to improve gas mileage significantly. GM produced an electric car, and Honda created the Insight when they saw the GM electric car. GM scrapped their car, Honda didn’t. You will see more solar panels in Germany than you will in the U.S. Why? Because the German government subsidizes it. The U.S. government subsidizes energy saving windows and thermostats. Why? It’s in our collective best interests. If I said “Give me VC funding for my product because it’s in our collective best interest”, would I honestly get funding? Are you honestly that optimistic about the private sector?

Automakers are in the business of making money, and creating cars that better the environment and help solve a geopolitical clusterf**k will not make money without a serious boost. It does make me feel safer when I go to bed though. So I, as a taxpayer, am willing to invest in clean energy. Consider us, the taxpayers, a big venture capital firm who is looking to improve our quality of life. Money is money is money, and I guarantee ANY maker of clean energy cars will gladly take some stimulus money for their projects.

Before you go on and on about the Tesla, ask them how much of their cost is invested in their technology, and then figure out if you think the average American could actually afford that. Or how that person would actually go on a road trip when their car only goes 225 miles without a charge which takes 3.5 hours at least. The Tesla is still a bit of a toy. Sorry.

Some people (not all people, mind you) in Saudi Arabia and Egypt want to blow your brains out because you support a government that supports oppressive regimes in their countries. Alternate energy allows us to exit these relationships while cleaning the air that we consume. This is a geopolitical and environmental issue, so giving tax money to innovators is an investment, not a bailout.

So Sarah, stick with IT or do your homework please. Friedman is on to something.

12 Comments
Feb 01

Supporting Biodiesel (Something I Should Have Been Doing Long Ago)

February 1, 2009 • 7 Comments • Politics and Current Events

I used to work for BMW and did quite a bit of reading on biodiesel. After researching, it is definitely something we need to support. Diesel technology is used all over the world and I am clueless as to why we don’t see more diesel vehicles on the road in the U.S. It’s a very simple, sustainable technology. Biodiesel blends will help clean the air, create jobs, and can also get you 800 miles to one tank of gas. How crazy is that?

I read in the DieselGreen Fuels blog that biodiesel subsidies will run out in 2009 unless they are renewed. Investments in alternative fuel sources are directly correlated with government subsidies and regulation. With investment, biodiesel will only get more efficient and affordable, and the people of Texas have a vested interest in its survival. I wrote this letter to John Cornyn’s staff today:

To John Cornyn and his staff,

I am a writer for the Science Channel, and I am asking that Senator Cornyn support biodiesel subsidies for economic stimulus.

Here are some of many reasons why this is good for Texas and for our nation:

1.) Biodiesel actually generates more jobs than traditional gasoline. Gasoline merely requires someone to get the oil out of the ground, someone to transport it, and someone to refine it and get it to stations. It is not something that is produced. The lack of jobs it creates explains why fuel rich nations such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have so much money, but an inequity of wealth.

Biodiesel is still in its infancy, and creating the most efficient biodiesel fuel will generate jobs in farming and science sectors. These are jobs that should be in Texas.

2.) Biodiesel is a cleaner burning fuel than traditional diesel as it does not contribute as much nitrogen dioxide to the atmosphere. Every transport truck uses diesel. Traditional diesel emits nitrogen dioxide into the air, causing smog and respiratory problems. Using biodiesel would reduce cases of cancer and asthma and would improve our quality of life.

This may go without saying, but sick people don’t work.

3.) Unlike electric cars, diesel engines have been around for over a century and are sustainable. Some of the first engines ran on peanut oil. The technology is very simple–diesel fuel generates a large explosion which generates a lot of torque. The car or truck is merely coasting off of this large generation of torque. This explains why they are much more fuel efficient than traditional gasoline engines. To demonstrate the efficiency of these engines, Jeremy Clarkson of the world famous auto show “Top Gear” drove an Audi A8 diesel, a large car, from London to Edinburgh and back on one tank of gas. This is over 800 miles.

When people aren’t spending money on gas, they are spending it on other goods and services. Exxon made record profits yet again this quarter, and it’s time we make sure the American public has a little extra money of their own too.

4.) Biodiesel is sustainable because we don’t have to worry about the repercussions of using it. Where will we put electric vehicle batteries? How much will it cost to service these vehicles? Diesel vehicles are incredibly reliable because the technology is simple and has been used for decades. Diesel vehicles are expensive only because the people who drive them love them so much and are willing to pay the difference. I used to work for BMW, and we never had a lack of buyers for any diesel vehicle we received on trade.

From Europe to South America, diesel is used all over the world. I have no clue on Earth why Americans know so little about its virtues. As we speak, there are biodiesel plants in North Carolina exporting biodiesel to Germany. This is ridiculous. Biodiesel is a step towards energy independence and a cleaner America. Using it would mean less scuffles with OPEC and volitile Middle Eastern nations. It would generate domestic jobs and keep our air clean. I implore you for the protection of our nation, protect and increase biodiesel subsidies.

I encourage you to read facts about biodiesel. Here are some starting points:
http://dieselgreenfuels.com/blog/
http://www.biofuels.coop/category/energy/
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/biodiesel.htm
http://www.biodiesel.com/index.php/biodiesel/frequently_asked_questions_about_biodiesel/
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ageng/machine/ae1240w.htm

If you are convinced that biodiesel is a good thing for our nation, consider writing John Cornyn so that he will include this funding in this bill.

7 Comments
Dec 22

Please Ensure the Government Funds Stem Cell Research and the NIH

December 22, 2008 • 8 Comments • Politics and Current Events

I am sitting next to my sister in the ICU at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center I hate this place. My sister was diagnosed with leukemia three years ago, struggled with host vs. graft disease, and recently relapsed. I hate cancer. Every day I leave here, I feel like I’ve just seen war, to the point where it makes it difficult to sleep or even enjoy life. My sister’s pained face and voice are etched into my memory and it’s hard to think that someone who took care of you growing up is in so much pain. If having a family member with cancer feels this bad, I have no clue how it must feel to actually experience it firsthand.

I have gotten over the part where I blame myself for not doing enough. Now I’m angry at our government. Is our government responsible for cancer? No. Could they be doing a lot more to fund research to prevent it or at least make the treatment seem somewhat humane? Absolutely. We’ve spent more money on the war in Iraq than in over 30 years of fighting cancer. And yet, I am more afraid of terrorism than before it started, and I’m still very much afraid of cancer. How could we let this happen?

To the politicians who falsely led us into this war, you should seriously be ashamed of yourself. From an opportunity cost standpoint, you have caused more suffering in the world than I can possibly imagine.

If you aren’t a politician who got us in this war, please write our current politicians and tell them to quit wasting the money we work so hard to get. If you think they didn’t waste our money, read Imperial Life in the Emerald City and then talk to me. Read this report which shows a 14% decrease in NIH funding since the start of the Iraq war. Or just look at someone in the ICU at M.D. Anderson or meet the families of the 1500 people a day who die of cancer each day in this country. I’m sure you’ll think otherwise.

8 Comments
Nov 10

Solving the Digital Divide is a Matter of Security

November 10, 2008 • Leave a Comment • Politics and Current Events

Today was surreal.

My mother was an English teacher, and now in her retirement, she helps men who are studying theology with their theses. One of these men is in Zambia. His name is Jean Renee Talbo and he lives in a place called Lusaka. He and my mother email each other back and forth regarding his writing. I told my mother I was interested in corresponding with Jean Renee, because heck, I’ve never met a person from Zambia and I figured it would be neat.

Jean Renee is a very kind priest who helps the village. He is concerned because the tractor they use to get goods in and out of the village is out of commission. I might be able to find him bikes, but bikes really aren’t useful during the rainy season. They need $4,000 for the repair.

Today I went to Jonas Lamis’s presentation “Brains, Bots, and Bodies” today at the Texas Union. I learned about technology that will semi-automate driving. I learned about search engines that don’t search–they do. There was talk of fighting off aging and artificial intelligence.

Such a stark contrast in ideas is just really hard to compute for a person in a day.

People often tell me “You have such a big heart” and tell me I should care more about myself. Here is my point–even Colin Powell acknowledges that the war on poverty is a matter of national security. When you have a world of haves, and a war of have-nots, and a network of people who prey on the insecurities of the have-nots to steal from the haves, being kind suddenly isn’t a matter of just feeling good. Acknowledging the fact that the poor even exist is a matter of security. By forging a mutually beneficial relationship with those less fortunate than ourselves, we 1.) help them gain useful skills, and 2.) gain a network of people whose best interests will tell them that we need to be protected. So we give a little, but we get a lot.

This concept doesn’t just apply to countries. It applies to us as business professionals and as individuals. Trust me, if you can help the problems of the least of these, helping those who are better off is a piece of cake.

So does anyone have money for a tractor?

Leave a Comment
Oct 11

Let’s Take Our Obama Efforts Off the Computer (I’d Love to Help)

October 11, 2008 • 2 Comments • Politics and Current Events

I got an email from the Obama campaign saying they need people to call voters in swing states. I hate cold calling, but considering most people aren’t on their computers as much as I am, it is a necessary evil.

If you are up to the task (which if you have faith in your cause, you will be), here are some tips:
1.) Be genuine–the script is a guideline, but someone will probably hang up on you if you use it. It’s too one-way and not conversational.
2.) Take what you can get. You will get a lot of voicemails, wrong numbers, and even people hanging up on you. Face it, you are a Marine on Normandy on the frontlines, and you are going to take your licks from people who don’t like the idea of you calling them. Expect this upfront.
3.) Stay positive, no matter what. Someone will think you totally suck for interrupting their day. Accept this. If you come in with a defeatist attitude, you will miss the opportunities when they are presented to you. Stay positive and you might just convince someone to volunteer as well.
4.) Come in with a plan. What was my plan? 1.) To ask if they were voting for Obama and 2.) to ask them to volunteer in any way, form or fashion, even for just an hour. If you spend 20 minutes calling people and get three hours of volunteer time from people, this is a 800% ROI. Kick. Ass.

I also had a script for voicemails that I loosely followed. I’ve done lots of phone sales and it helps, especially in the beginning.

Don’t sit idly back and expect this election to fall the way you want it. If you pledge to cold call for Obama, you have my support. Feel free to drop any questions you may have my way.

2 Comments
Oct 06

Should McCain Live Down the Keating Five?

October 6, 2008 • 5 Comments • Politics and Current Events

So Obama’s campaign went on the offensive and posted a video on McCain’s ties with Charles Keating of the infamous Savings and Loan scandals. Essentially, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board wanted to investigate Lincoln Savings and Loan Association for “unsound lending practices”. Five senators, all of whom had been given contributions by Lincoln Savings and Loans chairman Keating, intervened and prevented this investigation. One of these senators was John McCain.

What preempted this? Lincoln Savings had invested very conservatively until Keating took charge. He fired existing management, then took company assets from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion making risky investments that eventually tipped regulators off. It was too late, and Lincoln Savings and Loan Association then collapsed in 1989, costing tax payers $2 billion. It also cost 21,00 investors, mostly elderly, to lose their savings. Three out of the five Senators involved lost their political careers and McCain was chastised for executing “poor judgment”.

We are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which was basically ripped off of John Locke’s term “life, liberty and the pursuit of property”. So here are some questions for you:
1.) Would this government interference protect our “pursuit of property”, since it was aimed at preventing direct lending as well as the sale of high-risk junk bonds?
2.) How much does the S&L scandal of the 1980s resemble the one going on now (deregulation leading to overzealous and unscrupulous lending)?
3.) Are these just natural cycles? What would it take for us prevent this from happening? How accountable are people like Keating? How accountable was McCain?
4.) Will people trust banks if those involved in today’s housing scandal are not properly implicated?

Would appreciate any feedback.

5 Comments
Sep 04

What is “Change”? You’re Living it Right Now

September 4, 2008 • 5 Comments • Politics and Current Events

A lot of Republican naysayers feel Obama has little substance. He is a “celebrity”, more concerned about his career than the fate of the Free World. They always seem to ask the same thing. What “change” is he going to bring?

Trust, combined with the internet, is a weapon many Republicans never seem to get.

What scares a terrorist more? A bomb, or the internet? A terrorist ringleader can find a desperate kid wanting to make ends meet for his family. If that kid gets bombed, he is regarded as a hero and rewarded in Heaven. If you empower that same kid with knowledge from Wikipedia or W3Schools, it’s over. In the same ways the Catholic Church had to conform to a world taken over by the ideas of Martin Luther, Fundamentalist Islam cannot compete with a world where a Muslim student in Pakistan just wants to compare chemistry notes with a Christian student in Texas. Fundamentalist Islam cannot compete with people of two totally different faiths who are comparing how their beliefs are the same and how they are different. Fundamentalist Islam depends on the few guiding and monitoring the many, and that just doesn’t compute in a wired age. Why would a Muslim want to listen to laws made by few men after experiencing the vast expanse of influence on the internet and being able to contribute to it himself?

Bombs incite people. Used prematurely, they make enemies of people who have no business being enemies. Use them unilaterally, and it’s even more stupid. The potential of information on the internet is infinite. We aren’t just literate anymore, we can all be publishers and are all students of our own work. Are we really all that different? Aren’t we all just trying to make our lives a little better for ourselves and our children? The internet, coupled with a commitment to truly understand and appreciate all cultures, is more dangerous than any war the Republicans can continue to fight. It’s important to retain defense, but it’s not going to work against a people who have so little to lose and don’t want us there anyway.

Osama bin Laden wanted us to fight. He was looking to incite us so as to stimulate anti-American sentiment and thus support in his cause, and he did a great job. He still can’t compete with a tool that allows Muslims to learn useful life skills, participate in international commerce, and learn about the world around them. They are shutting themselves in and we must have the courage to help those who want to open up.

Even if we can’t get internet into certain areas, we can get other people into those areas who can then tell their stories. Those stories are then compared to others, which are then scrutinized against others. People love telling their stories, and it’s every historian’s dream to have so many firsthand documents with so many angles to a story.

We are fighting the few who control the many. Activate the many, and the few oppressors are gone. That is what we live now. That is Change.

Two Questions: How many microloans could we have given out in Iraq with the trillions of dollars we spent on this war? If we did that, do you think they would house terrorists?

What is change to you?

5 Comments
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»