it would appear that their definition of small business is a bit different from mine. a 'low' daily minimum of $50 a day (or ~$1,500/month) is beyond the total monthly advertising expenditures of many locally owned and independently operated mom & pop establishments.
This may help explain the low visibility of so many small companies however.
There is certainly a correlation between a competitive environment such as that in SV and elevated work ethic, but is this really something that is so unique, geographically speaking? Why does the author and philip Letts (see the comments on site) seem to think that such a condition is impossible to replicate elsewhere?
It would be bad thing if competition in this area devolves into this sort of conspiratorial atmosphere. While competition is great to have as it pushes positive change and innovation, it is worrying in this instance for its ability to degrade the usefulness of search engines.
Obama, Imma let you finish, but Kissinger was the worst pick of all time!
A great review of the prize committee's choice @ http://technopolis.blogspot.com/
I guess the competition is going to get a lot stiffer now that its out of alpha. I wonder what the world will be like now that so many more people will know the difference between Didot and Verdana.
Ignoring the extreme inconvenience, this might be an interesting way to tackle our nation's (U.S.) problem of students with poor performance in mathematics.
I am much more likely to follow the David Allen, Getting Things Done (GTD) methodology - and not only because its a more detailed study. What I found this article lacking was the suggestion of a learning curve, or how a scatterbrained person can become more organized and effective. The GTD lectures highlight the importance of finding a methodology and a set of tools that work for you. There is no silver bullet, and I bet a very small minority of super-achievers skipped over the whole organizational tool phase. They probably used them, then internalized the processes.
There are some lessons to be learned from this article. Namely, John Cochrane demonstrated the type of knee jerk, incensed reaction that has landed many otherwise upstanding academics in the bad graces of their peers. His piece was much more inflammatory than it needed to be - in fact, I would argue that the tone invalidates his position.
To me, the piece sounds like it is coming from a man that has simply had enough of his institution being attacked for its historical tendency towards a particular party of economic thought. Understandable, but highly disappointing in its effect.
Certainly, not all regulation is created equal. Historically speaking, Glass-Steagall was one (actually two technically speaking) of the most effective bills passed in the past hundred years. It was written in the wake of the stock market crash by people who were determined to make sure that such a calamity did not reoccur, attacking a systematic problem with the financial market at its root cause. I contest that the other regulations you refer to tend to be far less significant and effective, likely (though I may have my work cut out for me substantiating this) because the legislation treats symptoms rather than basic issues.
Additionally the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that removed the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall (the parts that are related to this argument) happened under Clinton. The trend of financial market deregulation started in 1980, due to a shifting tide in economic though in the neoclassical (chicago school) vein and a multi million dollar banking lobby.
>if our choices as a society are: 1) major government intervention and problems, or 2) little government intervention and problems, I think I'd prefer the latter.
If this summation was accurate, I would tend to agree with your conclusion that little government intervention is preferable. However, I respectfully disagree with the premise, pointing to the success of Glass-Steagall (read 'government intervention') in maintaining a healthy separation of depository/commercial financial intermediaries and their investment bank counterparts. It was, clearly, the deregulation and removal of said safeguard that allowed for the conditions of 'too big to fail' and gave meaningful, even disastrous implications for the average citizen. Finally, the author is either misinformed or intentionally ignoring the causal relationship between deregulation embodied in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the financial meltdown.
"American culture is too often focused on coveting what others have, and showing off success through the display of material goods."
Agreed, but its not just American culture that does this. The type of conspicuous consumption you refer to was one of the major ideas behind the economist Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class. He claims that it is human nature to emulate those of a higher economic class through wasteful spending. Interesting stuff.
It was nice to hear that American consumers are not quite as prone to frivolity as is commonly believed. At the same time however, this gives me a sinking feeling -- the consequence is that individuals will find it far harder to cut budgets on housing, transportation, and healthcare than on impulse purchases like big televisions. We are, in fact, in worse trouble than we thought. If you have seen suburbia recently, it shouldn't be too surprising to find out that the 'necessities' have become more expensive; the past few decades have seen bigger cars, homes, and commutes than ever before. In order to downscale costs, there is going to have to be some serious downsizing, and this is something that does not come easy for those in the land of the supersizes (especially with regard to living in higher density/urban areas and sourcing locally).
For me, the big take-away from this article is debt-financing. For many years, the U.S. government and its average citizens has been spending beyond their means - acquiring now and hoping to meet the mounting payments in the future. This has certainly demonstrated itself to be a losing strategy, and a habit that is especially difficult to kick. I am interested to see how this country will rise to meet these challenges.
This may help explain the low visibility of so many small companies however.