patrick.net

I never said it was. But there are areas on the spectrum between social need, and market opportunities that both have relevant and legitimate functions. Understand someone's point of view before you try to knock them down, you will look like a fool in the real world as you put it.

Ok, ok rich guy. Just remember what they say about foolish people and their money.

An intelligent person might have said, gee that is a different point of view, it sounds kind of strange but how do you arrive at that conclusion. To which I might have responded.

Well my research demonstrated that free markets fail in areas of high social needs because they can't derive a revenue stream. A rehab clinic might be such an example. However government fails in commercial markets because it has no incentive to improve, and as a rule of thumb government bureaucrats think in minimalist terms and try to satsify the basic need instead of looking for ways to maximize customer satisfaction.

Oh, you might say, that sounds interesting. So how do you arrive at your conclusion about innovation.

Well, I might respond by saying that given the global market place and the extremely high cost of innovations nowadays, and the fact that private industry has no way to recognize the social spillover benefits to society of some innovations, government through public policy has demonstrated that an infusion in some of these areas can act as a catalyst for innovations that would otherwise not occur.

Hmm, that sounds like an interesting point you might say, I'd like to subscribe to your news letter.

Of course, another dime-a-dozen MBA drone"

I would agree, last we forget plenty of MBA in 1980 who could not
get a job and few that did got staff jobs equall to BS degree.

Having a MBA on your resume in Silicon Valley means you cost more
than the product we manufacture.

I actually agree with that. An MBA is barely the same as a bachelor's degree was 10 years ago. It's getting more an more competitive people, you better get your skillsets up or you are going to be commoditized. Innovation has already displaced entire industries of professionals.

Look at travel agents, accountants, engineers, software engineers, attorneys, realtors....it's a long list

All of these guys are either being completely eliminated, or are seeing real decline in annual salries. Instead of shooting the messenger you should go get yours.

Bap, let's just say, I earn more in my sleep than you do at whatever 'job' you have.

"and I live in one of the greatest cities in the world."\

Where is this if I may ask?

North San Diego, city is San Marcos

FYI
Im in corp accounting/finance for tech company.

And to clarify I meant the greater San Diego area, in a nice neighborhood. Not ocean view or anything like that. I know a JBR like you is going to try to find something wrong with it.

The economy in say San Marcos is different from San Francisco South Bay. Very different...

Thats ok Malc Im worth 2.2 Million myself and rent until I see 50% decline in prices.

Space, glad to hear you are doing well. Unlike others, I'm not going to try to piss on your accomplishments.

Malcolm, considering that a free market doesn't currently exist on the scale that you imply, I wonder how thorough your research could possibly be. Now, given your arguments thus far, and your participation in this blog, I'd guess that you don't own a home, have little or no savings and are a typical brain-washed MBA student recently out of school and competing with the million of other similar morons out there who thought that getting an MBA was the ticket to easy street.

I know I started this and I'm sorry I did, but you'll have to get your education elsewhere. I have better things to do, thanks.

I agree accountants and eng. are being scaled back locally in California.

What can I say.. it just happened but not by my hand or accomplishments.
It was from someone elses foolish mistake and greed. :)

Space, that's a good strategy. I would do the same, but I bought my house so cheaply that I hate to lose my prop 13 cost basis so even though the paperwealth is declining, I have no mortgage so I'm happy to hang on to this house. I might let some struggling relative live in it for cheap if I buy something else up when prices really do pop.

Anyone who says luck isn't a big part is a freakin liar. The skill is recognizing the opportunity, but some would rather knock someone else for trying.

Good move Malcolm... Sounds like your in the driver seat..
Very good point on Prop 13... and i agree

Actually,
My start up was valued at $6B back in 1999. Given the vested stock options.
it was not my doing... the actually brains did very well much better than me.
Im actually at the low end.... Oh what a great time that was...

Well Frank you'd be wrong on almost all counts except I did get my MBA in May of 2006, more as a personal achievement.

The start up share price went on IPO from 35 to 600 per share. I managed to cash everything out. The founders and engineers did well. But the valuations the public expected was unreal and they keep overpaying for the "hot stock"
Anyway good luck

Your comments on the scale of global market indicate your ignorance on the subject. This is for two reasons: China alone is going to swamp us, Japan already has.

Secondly these are hybrid models as I propose because their governments listen to industry and provide the infrastructure for them to kick our asses in innovation.

The free market's strength comes from what entrepreneurs do with innovations.

Fine Malcolm, you have the last word.

Space, your gain was a classic failure of the VC model. Good for you, nice going.

LOL, In dont know... I would thank the VC at google same VC at my prior company. He start up Yahoo and Apple...

There are good VCs like Don Valintine, Roger Mac and Michael Mortiz...
but there are lots more bad ones....having a bad model.

Im still in the game...
Looking for my 3 third IPO... just for fun like your MBA...

I agree the Japanese did indeed kill off our Semi Industry, along with the Auto and Electonics..
China will provide still competition. Europe already has a strong stake in Software and Biotech.

Interesting perspective:
http://www.slate.com/id/2161834/

Japan couldn't innovate its way out of a paper bag. Everything done in Japan is a copy of something done elsewhere. And China, an innovator? China is a gigantic Xerox machine. At least Japan follows international property rights laws. The only "innovation" in either of these economies is dirt cheap labor (China) and dirt cheap access to capital (Japan). But what do I know. I'm just another clueless MBA...

"Japan couldn’t innovate its way out of a paper bag. Everything done in Japan is a copy of something done elsewhere."

Thats right... Its was never said Japan was innovate... they make things cheaper and they have no goverment intrusion. The two elements that made our nation number 1 while Europe which was #1 died out.

Space Ace:

Youth pop culture is inundated with Japanese innovation. It is only a culturual phenonemon, But it is also a Japanese innovation. Sailor Moon, Pokemon, Yug I Oh, Naturo, Mario Brothers, Nintendo Dogs, the whole genre of Animae, etc.

I don't know where the hybrid car concept got thought up first. For all I know, it could've come from Detroit. But just thinking of something is not innovation. Innovation involves the funding, the engineering, the marketing and sales, and the patience to see all these through. So while Detroit slept, Japan innovated.

Space Ace:

Youth pop culture is inundated with Japanese innovation. It is only a culturual phenonemon, But it is also a Japanese innovation. Sailor Moon, Pokemon, Yug I Oh, Naturo, Mario Brothers, Nintendo Dogs, the whole genre of Animae, etc.

I don't know where the hybrid car concept got thought up first. For all I know, it could've come from Detroit. But just thinking of something is not innovation. Innovation involves the funding, the engineering, the marketing and sales, and the patience to see all these through. So while Detroit slept, Japan innovated.

Michael Holliday,

I can't really be of much help regarding public service versus corporate careers. Often law enforcement, rescue, teaching, etc. are as much a passionate calling as they are a salary career. If you have a passion, then by all means go into law enforcement as long as you can make enough to be reasonably happy. In the end, a good cop, good paramedic, good teacher is probably worth much more to society than a good corporate middle manager.

I'm very bullish on the Bay Area, and have written about that a lot already. I think in general this is a good place to live, work and raise a family -- current real estate bubble excepted. But this too shall pass.

When you talk about corporate jobs you're really talking about 2 general categories:

1) Corporate jobs.
2) Jobs at smaller companies.

Over time, corporate jobs tend to pay significantly higher salaries, provide more generous benefits, and are more consistent/stable. But you have very little chance of ever "getting rich" working for a corporate. Unless you break the glass ceiling, you can't really get the big payola.

Smaller companies, ranging from startups to mid-sized and growth companies, offset all that by giving you a lottery ticket. If you get acquired (or seldom, go public) then you'll have a chance to share in the payola.

It's all about your appetite for risk. As a general observation, it is also harder to go from 2 -to- 1 than it is from 1 -to- 2. The corporate ladder is often very rigid and unforgiving. If you miss a career window, it's usually gone for good. Not always, but in most cases. I know a lot of people who had very good corporate careers in 1996 who by 1999 had dropped everything to go become millionaires at NeverTurnAProfit.com. Most of them did end up plugged back into their corporate jobs, but now on a lesser career track. At least 2 guys I know now work for people they hired out of college -- and despite their brave faces, they aren't happy about that fact.

I only mention this in regard to startups. Unless you're very young in your career, or you are committed to an "entrepreneurial lifestyle", a startup is *not* the right choice. I've also written about what it really means to be an entrepreneur. Very few people who claim the title really are. The main thing is it's about commitment, which means irreversible decisions. It's my opinion that no one under the age of 26 or older but with future ambitions of climbing the corporate career ladder should consider working for a startup. 15 years of startup experience will not get you a job with IBM or Lockheed when you're 40 years old. Maybe luck still will, but your startup resume won't.

Don't know if that's helpful at all. But if you do come back this way I'll be the first to say 'welcome back'.

* No one _older_ than 26 or _younger_ but with...

* add: "unless you have decided to be an entrepreneur for a living"

Randy,

I'm curious to hear it difficult to go from a startup to, say, Lockheed. Do you mean for managers, or for engineers, or both?

I've had two jobs (both startups) since college, and both have ended up being acquired by larger companies. It seems clear that there is a place for me at the parent company if I'm so inclined (I'm not, though). I've always figured the same would be true if I wanted to work at another large corporation, but maybe I'm overly optimistic.

To clarify though, in both cases I joined when the startups were twenty people and stuck around through acquisition at around sixty people.

Malcolm:

Your desciption of tripling prices - and of those who bought the hype without benefit of understanding fundamentals - sounds right to me.

An interesting parallel: Merchandisers send out professional 'cool hunters' to identify trend setters and, right behind them, early adopters (5-8% of the marketplace) so they're prepared with the right product to meet the 70% who make up a mature trend. By the time late adopters are on board, a fresh trend is already on the horizon.

Our bubble tracks this model pretty well. As does the relatively small number who have anticipated its unwinding to date. I'd say we're late in the early adopter phase.

Boston Transplant - I been in two that went public working on third and did work in large 3B company prior to current position. In a large company you wear 1 hat and your visibilty and responsiblity is limited. In a startup or smaller company your understanding of logistics and issues is so vast, that you have better understanding and ease if you wanted to migrate to a larger company. Its all about how much dept of experience and knowledge you have in common and uncommon situations. If your doing a sideway move you will be bored unless its a juicy position.

As for getting acquired .. LOL that just a good as going public. Tellme just got acquired by Microsoft for 800m - 1B.... thats just as good as if not better than IPO.

Its really hard to generalize about small or large companies from my view. But many are just very unstable, therefore any long term commitment to area should be questioned. As for Lucky Tickets, those days are long gone. My third startup im working at now, is plagued with inexperienced management. The odds of failing is very high compared to 2 prior startups I worked at.

The best start ups had employees who were very old... we are talking 35-55 year olds. They know what they are doing. There are few examples of young guys in their 20s making it big. Those are rare. I can say for every startup that went IPO --- 5 failed. Too much money chasing too few good ideas.

Its really hard to find that sweet spot...

New thread: Fear