Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

How A New Tax on Sugary Drinks Ruined a Beloved UK Soda

/in , /by

While I was scrolling through Facebook the other day, I came across an article from Vice that caused me to do a double-take. Published in Vice “Munchies,” section the article was titled, “The Sugar Tax Killed Rubicon and I’m Not Ok.”

In most any other instance, I would have paid no serious attention to this post and continued scouring my newsfeed in search of more interesting posts. But Vice is not usually the most critical of arbitrary taxation. And yet, here was an article that, at least from its face value, was criticizing the new UK tax on sugar. I was intrigued.

However, what I read was not as critical as I had hoped. In fact, even though the UK’s soda tax was to blame for “killing” the writer’s favorite soda, the author seemed to think capitalism was to blame.

The author was angry. In need of quenching her thirst, she had stumbled into a convenience store after attending a music festival late one night, in search of a Rubicon, a sugary soft drink popular in the UK. But as soon as she took a drink, it was apparent that something was wrong. The drink did not taste like it usually did. It wasn’t nearly as sweet. And after a few moments of contemplation, reality set in: Rubicon was a victim in the government’s new war on sugar.

The Sugar Tax

Following the lead of many U.S. cities, the UK recently instituted a new tax targeted at fighting obesity. The new tax seeks to penalize the makers of sugary drinks by levying a tax on beverages that exceed the new sugar restrictions.

Explaining the new sugar limitations, the BBC writes:

“Drinks with more than 8g per 100ml will face a tax rate equivalent to 24p per liter.

Those containing 5-8g of sugar per 100ml will face a slightly lower rate of tax, of 18p per liter.

Pure fruit juices will be exempt as they do not carry added sugar, while drinks with a high milk content will also be exempt due to their calcium content.”

The goal of this new tax is to fight obesity by discouraging both soft drink manufacturers and consumers from purchasing beverages with high sugar levels. This was originally expected to generate over $500 million annually for the state, but this projection has since been changed to $240 million since many companies have now altered their recipes to include less sugar in order to avoid the tax. The revenue generated from the new tax will be given to schools to invest in their own physical education programs as well as breakfast clubs that provide healthy meals to children.

However, it is also still unclear who will get stuck paying for the new tax. For manufacturers who do not choose to alter their formulas, they can either choose to accept the financial burden themselves, or pass it on to the consumer.

Either way, even those who usually support taxation are not happy with the consequences of this new law, as the recent Vice article shows. Unfortunately, the anger is being directed at the wrong culprit. 

Capitalism is Not the Bad Guy

Before the author begins to explain her disappointment with the new sugar law, she opens up her piece by saying:

“I do not object, in theory, to the idea of reducing sugar consumption—a food acknowledged to contribute to obesity, and subsequently, heart disease and diabetes. I also back this kind of regulation if done correctly, as I am happy for companies (not consumers) to foot the tax bill for a better welfare system, when poverty is the real cause of obesity, not sugar.”

In theory, many things sound like a good idea. Providing all homeless people with homes, for example, doesn’t seem like a bad idea. However, if in order to get the money to fund this program you are taxing job creators, there is a real problem. And while this sounds rather far-fetched, this is an actual law about to go into effect in Seattle, Washington.

Forcibly taking money from one source in order to give it to another is not benevolence, no matter how great the cause in question may be. And while many leftists do not agree with this premise, they also do not like when their favorite products are altered thanks to taxation. 

As the author continues:

“..If I must suffer through capitalism, then I want the small joys that come with it. I want identikit experiences that I can recreate wherever I am, in the form of branded food and drink.”

Yet, while the author’s real issues lie with the government for implementing this new tax, she seems overly eager to blast capitalism instead. Throughout the article, the free market routinely gets thrown under the bus. In fact, the author even goes out of her way to blame the parent company of Rubicon, AG Barr, for making this decision, completely neglecting to account for the fact that the UK government enacted this new tax, not the capitalist bogeyman. 

“AG Barr has taken away a certainty in my life. It has betrayed my trust, and for that, I will never forgive it,” she says. And yet, while the author is not a fan of capitalism, her commentary on the soda tax actually proves why the free market is so great.

The government doesn’t really care about your feedback. And in all honesty, they don’t have to. When you operate by force you do not have to cater to the demands of your constituents. But the market has to respond to this demand or they will lose business. Of course, they may just lose business anyway if the government passes a tax as egregious as this one.

And since many consumers were as equally unhappy with the new formula as the author of this Vice article, Rubicon has already responded to this demand by reworking the recipe.

“For our Rubicon exotic fruit juices, we worked closely with drinkers to understand their needs and taste preferences to develop the new range with something for everyone…We introduced Rubicon Deluxe, a richer and more indulgent product. Rubicon Deluxe has a higher sugar level than regular Rubicon, so it’s more suited to special occasions.”

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incidence. Too many people are too quick to blame capitalism without fully understanding why. And as for the author of this piece, hopefully, she realizes that the government, and not the market is to blame for the death of her favorite soft drink.

Patients without Borders and the Rise of Medical Tourism

/in , /by

There is simply no way of getting around it: American health care is exorbitantly expensive. But while many people look to government to solve our nation’s health care woes, the real solutions lie elsewhere. In fact, the more the government intervenes in health care, the higher the costs seem to rise. Just look at what happened when Obamacare was implemented: costs of care rose and many families suddenly found themselves unable to afford their insurance premiums.

But where government intervention has failed the health care sector, free market innovation has become its savior. The rising costs of health care in both North America and Europe have actually created a void in the marketplace. And medical tourism is filling that void by offering a whole new avenue of choice for health care consumers.

For anyone unfamiliar with the term, medical tourism is when someone chooses to travel outside their country of origin, usually to less-developed countries, in search of affordable, quality medical care. And it also happens to be one of the fastest growing global industries. In 2016, this burgeoning sector was valued at $100 billion and is expected to experience 25 percent year-by-year growth by the year 2025. And in an era of soaring medical costs, it is saving health care consumers thousands of dollars and providing them with the care they so desperately need.

The Rise of Medical Tourism

The thought of traveling outside of the United States for health care might sound absurd to many Americans. After all, why on earth would we travel to a developing country for medical treatment when we live in one of the richest countries in the world? The truth is, while American health care costs continue to rise, something quite spectacular is occurring in other parts of the globe: the costs are going down and the quality of care is going up.

In India, for example, the critically acclaimed Narayana Hrudayalaya heart hospital offers cardiac surgeries from $5,000- $7,000. The same surgery in the US would cost a patient upwards of $50,000. And as far as other medical procedures are concerned, in Costa Rica, a knee replacement surgery can cost a patient around $23,000. However, the same surgery, obtained in the US can cost anywhere from $35,000-$60,000.

But it is not just the affordable costs that are appealing to foreign health care consumers. In Costa Rica, for example, the facilities are so pristine, many offer spa services and even provide a private concierge to each of its patients while they recover.

But India and Costa Rica are just two such examples of popular destinations for medical tourism. Countries like Brazil offer medical services at rates 20-30 percent cheaper than the US. And in Singapore, health care costs are 25-40 percent less expensive than in America. It is no wonder, then, that these countries are becoming popular destinations for medical tourists. In fact, medical tourism is becoming so popular, it is attracting consumers from all corners of the globe.

In 2016 alone, over 1.4 million Americans left the United States with the explicit purpose of seeking more affordable medical care abroad. Canada and European countries are also seeing an influx of people choosing to travel internationally in search of cheaper medical care. According to research conducted by IPK International, 3-4 percent of the global population travels abroad for health care. But all this sounds almost too good to be true. It seems almost impossible to believe that less-developed countries could offer quality care at a fraction of the cost.

Too Good to Be True?

Imagine needing a knee replacement and having your employer offer you two options; you can either pay $3,000 dollars out of pocket and have the procedure performed in the United States, or you can opt to take an all-expenses-paid vacation to Costa Rica. And on top of the free trip, you will also receive a $2,500 bonus check.

For employees of the North Carolina-based furniture manufacturer, Hickory Springs Manufacturing, this is a choice many get to make. And it should come as no surprise that more than 250 employees have made the decision to take the trip to Costa Rica. But before you start thinking that this all seems too good to be true, let us consider what the employer has to gain from this.

In the five years that Hickory Springs Manufacturing has begun offering to send its employees abroad for medical treatment, the company has saved over $10 million on health care costs. On paper, this seems almost impossible, especially since the employee needing care also receives first-class airfare and a personal assistant during their stay, not to mention the bonus check. But since the actual cost of care is half the cost of the same care in America, the company still saves an enormous amount of money by treating their employees to top of the line care.

How Do They Do It?

Medical tourism sounds great, but many might be wondering how it is feasible for these facilities to offer such high-quality care at such low prices.

For starters, western medical care has become so burdened by regulation that it prevents health care providers from offering the best possible care. American heart surgeons, for example, have restrictions placed on them dictating how many heart surgeries can be performed per day. The logic behind this is that by capping the maximum number of procedures each day, they ensure that the doctor is not too tired to perform a surgery to the best of his or her own abilities. But this also causes costs to go up, as demand is higher than the supply, and also results in long wait times for vital operations.

But in the absence of these restrictions, the famous Narayana Hrudayalaya heart hospital in India has been able to use economies of scale to “mass produce” heart surgeries. And by maximizing the output of surgeries performed, the hospital has been able to drastically lower costs and wait time, making care accessible to even the poorest patients. And while many first-world surgeons have worried that performing so many surgeries in a day might be dangerous, Narayana Hrudayalaya actually has success rates that are higher than the United States.

And since popular medical tourism destinations do have fewer restrictions placed on them, it is also easier to adjust their models to meet consumer demand without having to jump through regulatory hoops.

But fewer government restrictions on health care does not mean that the patients are in danger. To be sure, any medical procedure comes with its own set of risks, no matter where it is performed. But just because these facilities are not mandated to abide by western standards of care, doesn’t mean they don’t maintain high standards voluntarily. And in many instances, these foreign facilities actually surpass western hospitals, as evidenced by Costa Rica.

And as the medical tourism community has grown, so has the need for private, voluntary accreditation boards that help medical tourist choose the right care for them.

As reported by Patients Beyond Borders:

Trusted international accreditation has become one of the biggest drivers in the growth of the medical tourism market. Responding to a global demand for accreditation standards, the US-based Joint Commission launched its international affiliate agency in 1999, the Joint Commission International (JCI). In order to be accredited by the JCI, an international hospital must meet the same set of rigorous standards set forth in the US by the Joint Commission. More than 800 hospitals and clinical departments around the world have now been awarded JCI accreditation and that number is growing by about 20% per year.

More recently, established agencies that accredit outpatient clinics, such as The Accreditation Association of Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC) and The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (AAASF) have launched international initiatives that address ambulatory care.”

Since many medical tourism facilities do not accept medical insurance, they are also able to work directly with the patient when it comes to setting a price and arranging the terms of payment. Since the physicians do not have to spend time trying to accommodate both the government and insurance providers before giving treatment, they are free to focus their attention primarily on the patient.

Another reason the costs are able to stay so low is free market competition. Money is a powerful incentive and medical tourism brings in revenue that is appealing to both governments and the medical tourism facilities, which keeps the entire industry competing for patients.

In Joe Quirk’s Seasteading: How Floating Nations Will Restore the Environment, Enrich the Poor, Cure the Sick, and Libertate Humanity from Politicians he writes:

As an industry, medical tourism far outstrips regular tourism. For instance, Israel scrambled to overhaul its tourism industry when a report released in April 2013 from its Health Ministry estimated that medical tourists, on average, spend nearly $5,000 per visit, compared with about $1,500 for sightseers.”

Since these different destinations are now competing for patients the way other private entities compete for customers, they are able to function like an actual market, which means they respond to consumer demand. If a country’s government notices that by promoting less onerous health care laws, they attract foreign health care consumers, which in turn brings in more revenue to the state, they are going to be incentivized to continue this practice, or even improve existing laws.

An Entrepreneurial Approach to Health Care

The more health care is able to function like an actual free market the more options will be provided to consumers. And with more options available and thus, more competition, the lower prices will become. Literally, everyone wins in this scenario.

As Quirk writes:

We groan at such facts only because we know our hospitals are trapped in a particular jurisdiction of laws. But if we think like entrepreneurs competing to provide better, cheaper services, this sounds like an exciting potential for profits.”

But as we have seen, this also creates the exciting potential for patients to receive quality care.

When we search for solutions to America’s surging costs of health care, many of us assume that the answers lie in government action. However, the more the government intervenes the higher costs of care seem to grow. So rather than waiting on Washington to provide viable solutions, health care consumers and medical innovators are pushing the boundaries of patient care far beyond international borders.

The Impostor Syndrome Inordinately Affects Respectable People, Sparing Narcissists and Frauds.

/in /by

In her book, Pushing Your Envelope: How Smart People Defeat Self Doubt And Live with Bold Enthusiasm, author Maureen Zappala describes the Impostor Syndrome, where it comes from, and how to overcome it. As she defines it, the Impostor Syndrome causes good people to “discount their success and second-guess their abilities. Haunted by a fear of being unmasked as a fake, they remain beneath self-imposed limits, afraid of both success and failure.”

As a former project engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Zappala explains, “some limits need to be pushed. Airplanes fly within limits called the operating envelope, the set of conditions where they are aerodynamically safe and stable. Sometimes they push the envelope and fly near and even beyond these limits.” These limits are imposed by the laws of nature, but the Imposter Syndrome is about irrational, self-imposed limits. According to the School of Life, thinking of ourselves as inferior is rooted in childhood, where we find out that “parents are really very different.” This gulf in status tells the child that “other people are not like us at all.”

The Nature of Complexity

This is the nature of things. Whether it is a rocket scientist exploring her relationship with gravity, or a child exploring his relationship with adults, it’s about people experiencing the reality of complex systems. As Zappala recently explained:

There’s a colossal amount of technical knowledge to learn and master. The pressure to stay on top of it can be overwhelming, and can make experts feel substandard, especially when they compare themselves to someone who appears to have more knowledge. And every day is different, unscripted and uncertain. Striving to impart calm can make even the best experts feel a bit unsure.

And in his essay The Use of Knowledge in Society, economist Friedrich Hayek has a similar explanation which he calls the knowledge problem:

The peculiar nature of the problem of rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all separate individuals possess.

Rational individuals respect complexity, and accordingly, they can only guarantee that there is no single answer under conditions of uncertainty. And for those experiencing chronic self-doubt, their inner voice declares: “They all think I’m smarter than I really am! I feel like such a fraud.”

As Hayek explains in The Road to Serfdom, “The higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values.” This would describe genuine achievers.

The Audacity of Dopes

However, the clinical term “Impostor Syndrome” is confusing; technically, it describes accomplished people who think of themselves as frauds. But there are many more among us who are real frauds, and we all know what that personality looks like. While they have accomplished nothing meaningful, they have the audacity to force themselves on society as experts and visionaries with nothing more than a certificate. They are attracted to government power.

And most damaging, they consign others to inferior status for not submitting to their group think. Hayek explains,

If we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and common instincts and tastes prevail.

The irony is that the real imposters are totally immune from the chronic self-doubt inherent in the clinical definition of Imposter Syndrome. These intellectual frauds are what Nassim Taleb has defined as Fragilistas. In Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder he writes:

The fragilista defaults to thinking that what he doesn’t see is not there, or what he does not understand does not exist. At the core, he tends to mistake the unknown for the nonexistent. Fragilistas are naive rationalists.

For proof, consider their disregard for the complexity of systems like education, health care, housing, inequality, and economics – and their epic fails. One big clue should have been President Woodrow Wilson’s bombastic claim that the successful prosecution of World War I, The War to End All Wars, would lead to everlasting world peace and prosperity.

Healthy Self-Awareness is Essential to Civilization

To the jet pilot, the aircraft’s capabilities and the laws of physics are the operating envelope that must be respected. To the charlatan who ignores reality in their quest for control, there is no operating envelope – natural law is a mere nuisance. Hubris is their immune system from the artificial envelope created and “experienced by high achieving people who have difficulty internalizing their accomplishments.”

Externally, those experiencing the clinical version of Impostor Syndrome hold others in inordinately high regard. As The School of Life explains, “what we know of others is limited to what they show us and tell us. It is a far narrower and edited source of information. It is an unhelpful picture of what others are really like.” And it’s exacerbated by the media attention, adoring fans, and monuments that are lavished on the Fragilistas who have accomplished little else but acquire power and unearned wealth. This lack of a self-awareness spread among many Fragilistas is fundamental to decivilization.

Fortunately, as Zappala explains, for the smart people who have earned success and respect, and yet are constantly self-aware of their anxieties, there are proven methods that will help them “defeat this self-doubt and live with bold enthusiasm.” Confident individual achievers are essential to building civilizations.

Trump’s Tariffs Cause Harley-Davidson to Move Overseas

/in /by

For months, economists have warned of the potential consequences of engaging in a global trade war. And yet, President Trump has pressed on with his tariffs in an attempt to compel consumers to “buy American.” Imposing a 25 percent tariff on imported steel, and a 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum, this new trade policy has dealt a blow to the global economy.

Originally, Trump had said that the European Union would be excluded from these trade restrictions, but this has since changed. And unfortunately, imposing tariffs on materials purchased from the EU has now resulted in one beloved American company moving its manufacturing abroad.

On June 25th, the motorcycle brand Harley-Davidson filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosing its intent to move a portion of its manufacturing facilities overseas. Currently, the giant of the motorcycle world manufactures its products in the Rust Belt. However, with the escalation of Trump’s trade wars, the company is moving some of its facilities to Europe to save money and avoid losing its foreign consumer base.

Unfortunately, other countries do not take kindly to trade barriers being arbitrarily placed on imported goods. And in many instances, when these types of policies are instituted, foreign countries respond by creating their own tariffs on American goods in retaliation. This is exactly what is happening now. The European Union is moving forward with new tariffs targeted at American products including denim, orange juice, bourbon, motorcycles, peanut butter, motorboats, and cigarettes.

For companies like Harley-Davidson, who do a lot of business in Europe, this presents a huge problem. In fact, the new tariffs are expected to increase the cost of a motorcycle exported to the EU by $2,200 per bike. Additionally, the new policy is estimated to cost Harley-Davidson upwards of a $100 million each year. This is a huge burden to place on the company.

Unwilling to participate in a war that they did not start, Harley-Davidson made the decision to move some of its manufacturing abroad so as not to alienate its European market. The company’s filing said that passing of this costly burden to the European consumer would result in “an immediate and lasting detrimental impact.” But since it takes almost a year to get a new manufacturing plant setup, the company is still expected to lose anywhere from $30 to $45 million in the process.

While the domestic consequences of this decision are still unknown, it is not out of the realm of possibility to assume that by moving its manufacturing abroad, the company will have to lay off American workers. But what else is the company to do?

Trump has attacked the company for this decision, tweeting:

“Harley-Davidson should stay 100% in America, with the people that got you your success. I’ve done so much for you, and then this. Other companies are coming back where they belong! We won’t forget, and neither will your customers or your now very HAPPY competitors!”

But Harley-Davidson’s decision is a direct result of Trump’s careless trade policies. These tariffs make it more expensive for American companies to get the supplies needed to make their products. This is then coupled with the tariffs placed on American goods abroad, making this a lose-lose situation for Harley-Davidson. They are spending more while also suffering losses since their products are now too expensive for foreign buyers. Trump has tied the hands of the company, along with many others. And as far as consequences go, we are just getting started.

It is very likely that in the coming months, more companies will be forced to make the decision to move manufacturing abroad. And the only entity Trump can blame is himself. Individuals and the companies they represent should be free to trade with whomever they choose.

How Trade-Tested Betterment Fixed My Car.

/in /by

We’ve highlighted Professor Deirdre McCloskey’s concept of trade-tested betterment – the innovation and economic growth resulting from capitalism that has boosted standards of living in developed countries by 3000% in 200 years. Stephen Miller, writing in the Wall Street Journal, tells us a personal tale about betterment over the years to which we can all relate: how cars went from dodgy to dependable, improving consumers’ quality of life in a very direct way.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

I take for granted these days that my four-year-old car will get me from A to B without breaking down. Forty years ago, this wasn’t the case. When I drove, I would listen carefully to the car’s many sounds, worried that something was about to go wrong.

This anxiety was reasonable. My first car, purchased in the early 1960s, had an unusual problem: The accelerator pedal sometimes stuck to the floor. I would have to bend down to get it unstuck while keeping one eye on the road. A few years later I bought a new car, but before long its fuel pump began to clog, and the engine would suddenly die. My next car had a very exposed gas tank that, in the event of a rear-end collision, could cause a fiery explosion. The car after that had a bad distributor that caused the engine to sputter in rainy weather. I would have to stop every 50 miles and wipe the distributor dry.

The cars of the 1950s through the 1970s were prone to problems. They had a tendency to overheat when stuck in traffic on hot summer days, and their tires would often go flat. I once got a flat at 1 a.m. on the approach ramp to the Verrazano Bridge between Staten Island and Brooklyn. Fortunately, a police car showed up and I changed the tire without getting killed.

Today, cars are much more reliable. I can’t remember the last time I called roadside assistance. “Getting 100,000 miles out of a car in the 1970s was cause for celebration,” economist Steven Horwitz wrote in a 2015 paper. “Not getting 100,000 miles out of a car today is cause to think you bought a lemon.”

The improvement came because of what Deirdre McCloskey, author of “Bourgeois Equality,” calls “trade-tested betterment.” In countries with strong market economies, companies that develop better products and services usually reap financial rewards—as long as the government doesn’t interfere to protect the existing industry leaders.

Countries that embraced trade-tested betterment after about 1800, Ms. McCloskey writes, were “startlingly more productive, creating ten times, thirty times, a hundred times more goods and services, and to the poorest among us.”

Some people want the government to protect jobs threatened by new technologies, but that’s an old mistake. “The advent of cars did not produce mass unemployment because of insufficient demand for the output of blacksmiths and horse traders,” Ms. McCloskey writes. “Fundamentally, all tools—a blast furnace and a spinning jenny, or for that matter an Acheulean hand ax or a Mycenaean chariot wheel—are ‘robots,’ that is, contrivances that make labor more productive.”

Trade-tested betterment worked not only for cars, but for all the appliances in my house. They are more reliable and sophisticated than those I had 40 years ago, and they use far less energy. The computer this article was written on, a Chromebook, cost me $175 a year ago. My first computer, bought three decades earlier, was more expensive yet did nowhere near as much.

When the government tries to protect jobs, it impedes economic growth and lowers the standard of living for everyone. U.S. policy makers should listen to Ylva Johansson, the Swedish minister for employment and integration, who says: “The jobs disappear, and then we train people for new jobs. We won’t protect jobs. But we will protect workers.”

Mr. Miller is author of “Walking New York: Reflections of American Writers from Walt Whitman to Teju Cole. ”

Photo: iStock/Getty Images

This article first appeared in wsjonline on 14 August, 2014.

How Digital Media Is Helping to Decentralizing the Justice System

/in /by

Making a Murderer’s Brendan Dassey was sentenced to life in prison at just 17 years old. Loyal viewers of the Netflix original series will remember that Brendan Dassey’s story was among the most heartbreaking elements of the show, demonstrating the failures of the American juvenile justice system.

After multiple unsuccessful attempts to appeal his conviction, Brendan’s case appeared to be a lost cause. However, after the series premiered and highlighted evidence showing that Dassey’s confession was both involuntary and unconstitutionally coerced, US Magistrate William Duffin made the decision to overturn the original conviction on in the summer of 2016.

Unfortunately, before he was released a federal court of appeals upheld Dassey’s original sentence and he remained incarcerated. Just days ago, the United States Supreme Court announced that they would not hear his case, meaning it is unlikely that Dassey will be released anytime soon, if at all. But the fact that this case was resurrected and the public’s concern caused the courts to reconsider is a huge win for individual justice.

Jury of Peers

The Brendan Dassey situation represents a growing phenomenon currently taking place, where access to technology has transformed regular citizens into effective advocates for criminal justice reform. In fact, thanks to the affordability of products like smartphones and tablets and cheap services like Netflix and iTunes, justice has been able to prevail in spite of our broken criminal justice system.

For about twelve dollars a month, Netflix subscribers get access to a variety of films, documentaries, and television shows, including original Netflix programming like Making a Murderer. In our modern world where streaming technology is available to anyone with internet access, Dassey’s story, which went unrecognized by the general American public for almost ten years, is now available to anyone with a Netflix subscription.

Whether intentional or not, by sharing Brendan’s story, the creators of the series launched a national crowdsourcing effort to demand justice for Brendan Dassey.

Calls were made, letters were written, and local Manitowoc County law enforcement officers were bombarded by faithful viewers who were convinced that the prosecution got it wrong. As a result, Dassey had his conviction overturned and will now either walk free, or, at the very least, receive a new trial. However, this “vigilante” form of criminal justice activism is not unique to Brendan Dassey.

Introduction of Evidence

Podcasts have become an effective way for individuals to share their message with the entire world at extremely low costs. Like Making a Murderer, the podcast Serial, which in turn resulted in the follow-up broadcast, Undisclosed, sought justice for Adnan Syed, who was charged and later convicted of murdering one of his high school classmates in 1999.

The respective podcasts were both created to expose the holes and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative against Syed. Additionally, since the case in question is nearly 20 years old, there have been technological advances made in the years since the trial which could potentially prove Syed’s innocence.

The two podcasts were extremely successful and caught the attention of the judge responsible for deciding whether or not Syed would receive a new trial.

A few summers ago, Judge Martin P. Welch announced that he would grant Adnan Syed a new trial based on information revealed during an episode of Undisclosed. The prosecution had used data obtained by cellphone towers to pin Syed to the scene of the crime. While this data can be used to locate the general vicinity where a mobile device was used, we now know that the data cannot be used to identify the precise location, nullifying a major element in the prosecution’s case against Syed.

Both the Undisclosed and the Serial podcasts are available to listeners for free. Thanks to modern advances which have made both recording equipment and broadcasting capabilities more affordable and accessible than ever before, listeners around the country were acquainted with Syed’s story and encouraged to speak out against injustice.

Two individuals getting a second chance at justice may not seem very significant in the grand scheme of things. However, since competition is an essential and organic element of the free market, it should not be shocking to learn that Serial, Undisclosed, and Making a Murderer have already encouraged others to make their own original podcasts and series, sharing personal stories of injustice and inspiring others to act.

How the “Uber” Model Can Solve a Health Care Conundrum

/in /by

The birth control coverage issue is one that is rarely met with anything but controversy. But as the country argues over whether employer contraception coverage should be mandated by law, the real issue gets ignored: access to birth control should be far easier than it is today and the government is preventing this from happening.

State Control, Not Liberation

Many proponents of the Obamacare birth control mandate assert that it gives women more control over their lives. To be sure, the advent of birth control was extremely empowering to women as it gave them control over family planning and thus, their own futures for the first time in history.

Unfortunately, asking the government to mandate access to a product is in no way liberating. In fact, it is the epitome of control.

There is virtually no logical reason to explain why birth control is so difficult to obtain today.

If I have a minor headache or a muscle ache, I have the ability to go to my local drugstore and choose from a variety of products all aimed at making me feel better.

And while these products are relatively safe, there will always be a risk of consumers misusing or abusing even something as seemingly harmless as Tylenol. Knowing this, it seems odd that something, as commonly used as birth control, is still only available to women through state intervention.

Thanks to the FDA approval process and state control over prescription drugs, getting birth control is as strenuous as obtaining other medications with much harsher and potentially dangerous side effects.

Currently, women must find a doctor, rearrange their busy schedules to visit the doctor, and then sit through a rather intrusive line of questioning before they are handed a piece of paper that essentially gives them the state’s permission to use contraception.

This is similar to the process required for patients seeking antidepressant or psychotropic drugs which both come with a plethora of safety precautions and risks. Birth control is not only safer, it already fits the FDA’s own benchmarks for being sold over the counter. Yet, it has been routinely prevented from being sold over the counter.

It should also be highlighted that in countries where oral contraception is available over the counter, there have been no reported increases in negative health-related incidents.

The Over-The-Counter Solution

By allowing oral contraception to be sold over the counter, the corresponding costs would be free from the price distortion that always accompanies third-party insurance companies.

When you go to the store to purchase Advil, you don’t have to wonder about how much you will end up paying out of pocket. The price is listed on or near the product and you know exactly what you will pay when you reach the register. This helps keeps prices low as consumers understand when a product’s price is unnecessarily high, especially when they are able to do a side-by-side comparison to other similar products in the aisle.

When you are given a prescription for birth control from a doctor, you are given access only to that prescription and any generic version of that specific chemical compound. You only know what that one particular product will cost, which puts the consumer at a disadvantage since they cannot compare with other products on the market. A Google search can get you an idea of the general cost, but since this does not factor in individual insurance premiums, it becomes a giant guessing game.

In addition to cost, selling contraception over the counter would make it much easier for women to gain physical access to it. Instead of having to worry about getting to a pharmacy in between work and other responsibilities, women could go to any drug store, at any time and select their brand of choice. This would also help prevent the common issue of missing doses between contraceptive packs because consumers would have easier access that is not based on whether or not they have a prescription.

The movement to move birth control from a prescription drug to an over the counter drug has been growing over the last decade. However, it is the government and specifically the FDA that is dragging its heels on making this a reality.

In January, it was announced that Ibis Reproductive Health, a nonprofit organization had joined forces with the European company, HRA Pharma to further the efforts to make oral contraception available over the counter. But even though this sentiment is spreading, thanks to lengthy government approval processes, this is unlikely to happen within the United States anytime soon.

But thankfully, while the government is taking its precious time, the market has found a way to make birth control more accessible to more woman at an affordable cost. And they have done so in spite of the government.

Uber for Birth Control

The market is a resilient force. So long as demand exists, free enterprise will always find a way. Since its creation, contraception has been a product for which there is always high demand. But now, the sharing economy model is making it easier for women to bypass the traditional methods of gaining a prescription, without ever having to leave their homes.

There is almost nothing the sharing economy cannot provide for the consumer. From inexpensive rides and cheap short-term lodging alternatives to food delivery and even puppies on demand, this organic market force has become a huge source of convenience in our lives.

Over the last few years, and thanks to the telemedicine laws that allow doctors to visit with patients online, the sharing economy has expanded into the health sector, specifically contraception.

The San Francisco-based startup Nurx has been doing its best to make oral contraceptives more accessible for female consumers. The startup works by providing users with a birth control consultation online. After filling out the relevant health-related questionnaire on the site, consumers can either choose from a list of available brands or let the doctor choose for them based on their medical history.

For those without insurance, Nurx waives the consultation fee and provides its birth control options for just $15 a month. But its services do not end there. After the prescription has been written by a Nurx affiliated doctor, a three-month supply is then delivered to the consumer’s door within a day.

Under the Obamacare mandate, only those with insurance coverage were given the $0 copay for oral contraceptives. For those without insurance, one month of birth control can cost an obscene amount of money even reaching triple digits. But thanks to Nurx, uninsured women have options.

Nurx co-founder and attorney Hans Gangeskar commented:

It’s absolutely ridiculous the way the system works. We absolutely believe oral contraceptives should be available over the counter. This is one step on the way.”

Unfortunately, telemedicine laws vary from state to state, which precludes many from taking part in these market alternatives. But this model is catching on and while it isn’t perfect, it is still a major disrupter when it comes to shaking up the up the way contraceptives are distributed to patients.

The issue of access to birth control is important. But unfortunately, many people can only fathom solutions that fit within the framework of our current state-dominated system, instead of creating new and potentially revolutionary market alternatives. This usually means utilizing government authority to reach a desired end. But as Nurx is demonstrating, there are better options available now. Just imagine how much better these alternatives would be if the state wasn’t involved at all.

Women should absolutely have easier and more affordable access to birth control, but it should not come from a state mandate. The market is more than capable of dealing with the contraception issue and is doing so in a way that supports the female consumer without hurting other individuals or forcing private companies to pay for something against their will.

Those Two Enemies Of Innovation – Organization And Process – Are Being Defeated.

/in /by

In the twentieth century, the business world developed techniques and structures of organization and process that were instruments of power and control. The heroes of this era include Alfred P. Sloane, Peter Drucker, Michael Hammer and Jay Galbraith. There was some contribution from the military, who perfected the implementation of hierarchical control to the point where front-line soldiers would follow a general’s orders, transmitted through multiple managerial layers, to their death. That’s exemplary management! Hierarchical implementation of processes was the model for control.

Then there was a new reinforcement that entered via software. Processes could be automated so that there was no possible deviation – what Jorge Sanz has likened to “pouring concrete”, so that the path of process was followed faithfully without deviation. Business Process Engineering became the revenue stream of choice for many global consulting firms.

The power of organization and process was embraced by government, and this led to the stifling expansion of the administrative state. Government administrative processes are now so copious, so lengthy, and involve so much organizational apparatus that they can starve initiative to death before it can get going. Consider this example from Greece:

Yianna Balafouti, an entrepreneur in Athens, decided that doing business here isn’t worth the effort. Bureaucracy, along with economic depression and the absence of bank credit led her this year to shut down her delicatessen.

For years while she ran her business, authorities didn’t know how to categorize it. Her applications for approval of different food products were frequently returned because civil servants couldn’t figure out which regulatory codes to use. In the end, she said, she felt powerless to fight, lost all pleasure in running her business and closed it.

And this:

An emblematic investment under the bailout program was supposed to be the redevelopment of Athens’s former airport, now disused. But the project, planned since 2012, has been held up by one public body after another, including the authorities for archaeology, forestry and land registry, as well as slow-moving judicial proceedings to consider challenges from local residents.

Bureaucracy, unclear property rights, and political and judicial obstacles have impeded Greece’s attempt, at Germany and other lenders’ behest, to privatize some €50 billion ($57.7 billion) of state-owned land and other assets. Only around €6 billion of privatization revenue has been collected since the privatization drive was launched in 2011. “Bureaucracy is more powerful than people understand,” said Christopher Egleton, chairman of U.K.-based tourism company Minoan.

But we’d be remiss to pin the errors of organization and process only on government. They are also the reason why big corporations can’t innovate. Innovation is not a process, and it can’t be ordered into existence by a hierarchy. We now know, in fact, that innovation is a result of spontaneous order, emerging from interconnectedness and social conversation rather than process. Doing the right things in the right order can get you nowhere in innovation, while interconnectedness can lead to unexpectedly favorable outcomes.

Organization and process have a lot to answer for in holding back innovation. But there is hope. A new software revolution is developing, and this one is not pouring concrete. It’s liberating consumer sovereignty.

Steven A. Cohen and Matthew W. Granade call the new revolution “model driven businesses” which employ new forms of software to

put continuously learning models, built on “closed loop” data, at the center of what they do. When built right, they create a reinforcing cycle: Their products get better, allowing them to collect more data, which allows them to build better models, making their products better, and onward. These are model-driven businesses.

Cohen and Granade omit one important point. What makes products “get better” is consumer sovereignty. The consumer (or the customer for a B2B model) determines what is successful in the marketplace, what products are purchased, which services garner high ratings and user loyalty, and which producers and service providers make a profit. The authors hints at this in describing Tencent, the Chinese social media giant.

“We are the only company that has customer data across social media, payments, gaming, messaging, media, and music, and we have this information on [several hundred] million people. Our strategy is to put this data in the hands of several thousand data scientists, who can use it to make our products better and to better target advertising on our platform.” That unique data set powers a model factory that constantly improves user experience and increases profitability—attracting more users, further improving the models and profitability.

Those “people” the Tencent executive was referring to are consumers. Software executives refer to them, obtusely, as “users’, which misses the point but does not invalidate it. Consumers now have a much more powerful weapon in their negotiation with corporations over the quality and value of products and services: the creation of data. Every click, search, web-page visit, minutes spent on site, purchase, rating, product return and social media post is now a driver of an algorithm in a “model-driven business”. They should be called consumer-driven businesses. The old military and corporate hierarchies could not respond to consumer input; they were designed to give consumers orders, not to let them run the show. The old processes, set in concrete, were not designed for consumer sovereignty.

The new model-driven business has no organization and no process. It has data, algorithms and models, continuously learning and improving based on consumer input, without the hands or preferences or slow decision-making of managers and executives or the concrete pathways of business process software getting in the way. The future points to the elevation of consumer sovereignty over managerialism, which can only be good for freedom and individualism.

Game of Thrones Is a Treatise on Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely

/in /by

Power is a devastatingly addictive device. It can corrupt seemingly strong and moral men, it can lead to the slaughtering of entire civilizations, and it can bring longheld regimes to their knees. Once a person becomes consumed by the quest for power, individuals become nothing more than pawns to be sacrificed in the name of maintaining order and control.

So it has been since the beginning of governed societies and so it will be as long as there are states to seize and wield. It is for this reason that Game of Thrones is such a compelling series.

As its title implies, Game of Thrones is all about the pursuit of the crown in the fictional realm of Westeros. Not wanting to be plagued with an extreme case of FOMO when the newest season finally aired and having a particular affinity for all forms of entertainment involving dragons, I spent much of the last two weeks of my life binge-watching the six completed seasons of the series.

“Maybe Your Mistake Was Trusting in Kings”

As I made my way through each episode, initially disturbed by all the blood but eventually becoming somewhat desensitized to the number of heads being casually sliced off, I realized that all the violence perpetuated in the show was committed in the quest for power and at the expense of the individual. Or, to put it differently, all the lives being sacrificed were lost in the name of propping up the state.

To make matters worse, aside from a few exceptions, each of the seven kingdoms of Westeros is ruled by landholding lords who care more about maintaining their positions than the welfare of their own subjects. And while many of these lords, Ramsey Bolton and King Joffrey in particular, are heinous creatures drunk off their own authority and without any redeemable qualities, there are still serfs and military members who are all too willing to die to protect a leader who cares nothing for them.

And even though history is replete with obedient subjects, I still couldn’t understand why the people of Westeros were so eager to have someone rule over them. These rulers had nothing of value to offer their people aside from the false promise of security from foreign threats. Yet with each display of corrupt leadership came more unwavering loyalty.

Even the Brotherhood Without Banners, which is a loosely structured group of individuals who refuse to pledge their allegiance to a particular lord, are inclined to follow a leader. What this all inevitably boils down to, and what the show so poignantly demonstrates, is the age-old truth of absolute power corrupting absolutely— no matter which geographical region or ideological background it originated from. And while the series is most likely not meant to be a thesis on the nature of power and its impact on the individual, it undoubtedly is.

But then there came a ray of light.

As I watched the sixth season, I noticed the tides finally changing. The people were sick of fighting for causes that did not directly impact them. They were tired of making the ultimate sacrifice even thought they knew they would suffer oppression – regardless of who leads them. Trusting in governments had truly only made their lives worse. No king or lord was going to liberate them by keeping them in absolute servitude.

In one of the last episodes of season six, as two characters are discussing how they ended up in their predicament, one comments, “Maybe your first mistake was trusting in kings.” How aptly this comment summarizes the entire problem human civilization has grappled with for years. Why do individuals place their trust in authoritarianism?

Cast Off Your Chains

Fear is one of the strongest human motivators. It can lead people to do things they never thought they were capable of doing. It can lead individuals to capitulate to the whims of leaders they believe will protect them in return.

In what may be the most genius strategy ever executed in the fictional world, Daenerys Targaryen assumes her role as conqueror of Easteros by preying on the fears of the enslaved populations and playing the role of hero in neighboring lands.

With each land she conquers, she promises freedom to the local slave class – so long as they sacrifice their lives to aid her in her conquests. And while these enslaved people initially view her as their benevolent emancipator, she is merely a master of a more cunning variety.This situation could, for example, be likened to a nation claiming to be free while instituting a compulsory draft. It is freedom in name only. At the end of the day, the lives of each citizen are still pledged to whoever resides on the throne and their only real value in the eyes of the ruler is as a dispensable body to stand in the way of an opposing army “storming the castle.”

As her army steadily begins to grow and she continues to conquer each new government that stands in her way, Daenerys continues to speak of liberating those who have been mistreated by their former masters. While she probably has the most noble heart of any of the characters on the show – aside from the Starks (Jon Snow included) – she still maintains her power through the use of force.

Daenerys encourages her collection of freemen to kill in her name with almost no discretion given to the matter. However, after a group of masters go on a killing rampage over the loss of their slave population, Daenerys, human as she is, begins to exhibit a rule of will over the rule of law she claims to live by; the Achilles heel of so many rulers before her.

Wanting to show her opposition that she is a just and strict ruler to tone down their campaign against her, Daenerys puts the man responsible for slaughtering her people on trial, instead of executing him on the spot like so many others. However, while he is awaiting his day in court, one of her soldiers, overwhelmed by his love and devotion for his queen, utilizes vigilante justice and takes the man’s life.

Showing what happens when someone disobeys her authority, Daenerys has her own man publicly beheaded as he begs her for mercy. But what is particularly enlightening about this scene is that while attempting to stand up for the rule of law she is actually doing it a great disservice by denying her own soldier a trial. For the rule of law to exist, due process would have to be applied equally to each citizen. Instead, only those of higher ranks are given that right.

This angers her newly liberated slave soldiers as they realize they have traded one master for another. And where once the revolting slaves had written “kill your masters in blood,” underneath it now reads “Mhysa is a master,” referring to Daenerys.

For the entire duration of the show up until this point, I had believed Daenarys to be the most incorruptible character on the show. Sure, she kills people, but every character on the show kills and at least Daenerys’ intentions were purer than most. Not only had she spent most her life in exile, she was, for all intents and purposes, a slave in her own right.

Before her brother died by her own authority, Daenerys had been subjected to a wide range of atrocities at his hand. She was beaten and even routinely gifted to men in order to fulfill whatever ends her brother was after. In fact, even her marriage was a result of force since she was gifted to a savage warrior king in order to add more might behind the Targaryen claim to the throne.

All these factors instantly made Daenerys a sympathetic character rooted for by viewers. Since she had endured so much hardship in her life, one had high hopes for her character. But not even Daenerys, the mother of dragons, was able to see how power had slowly corrupted her in spite of her claims of liberation. Without even noticing, she had become the same enemy she claimed to be against.

Winter Has Always Been Coming

So long as there have been governments instituted among men, so has the threat of tyranny inevitably loomed around the corner. And as history and even fantasy fiction have shown, the only antidote to tyranny is constant vigilance.

“Winter is coming” is the creed of the House of Stark. It is repeated often both by the Stark family and their northern supporters scattered throughout the seven kingdoms. It is an ominous warning to never let one’s guard down or become complacent in the comfort of the present. Winter, or some other formidable foe, is always waiting in the wings.

For the Starks, winter manifests itself in the fight for power in which they are inevitably caught because of their noble origins. The Starks are unique in that they have never actively pursued the crown. Their main concern has always been survival and maintaining their family honor. But unlike the others, they do not see the throne as the only means to their ends. Even when the dying King appoints Ned as the acting king until his son comes of age, Stark only agrees because the heir to the throne was a tyrant-in-waiting.

While some members of the House of Stark have dabbled with power, Sansa especially, the family is an extreme juxtaposition to the other characters on the show.They seem to understand the nature of power and what those who seek it are willing to do. They also seem to understand the need for constant vigilance. They know there will always be those who fight for total and complete control, and that they themselves must always be prepared to fight back to uphold and protect their dignity as individuals.

There will almost certainly always be an ongoing game of thrones in the real world. As people fight to obtain and maintain their power, the individuals are the ones who lose along the way. As Game of Thrones has so brilliantly shown us so long as societies insist on having a king, or a president, or some ultimate authority figure, winter will always be coming and it will come at the expense of the individual.

The Term “Small Business” Is Pejorative, Discriminatory And Out-Of-Touch. Naturally, It Comes From The Government.

/in /by

The unprecedented interconnectedness of today’s world can give rise to new kinds of business structures that we’ve never seen before. An individual entrepreneur can build a global supply chain from the desktop, with custom manufacturing in China, automation software to manage the logistics of shipping and the related financial services like credit and insurance, sophisticated marketing automation, and precision delivery to the customer’s door. Single entrepreneurs and young start-up teams can download computing power from AWS and run algorithms and A.I. that they find open-sourced on Github. Freelance creatives can get projects from UpWork or join distributed global teams working together on large communications campaigns, and do better (in both performance and compensation) than they would have done while working at behemoths like WPP or Omnicom.

Efficiency, effectiveness and financial and business performance no longer have anything to do with size or scale. Nor, as Bill Gates points out, does economics. What we learned in school about supply and demand and economies of scale no longer applies. We need to unlearn it if we are to have any hope of understanding the future. His blogpost was prompted by reading Capitalism Without Capital, a book (by Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake) whose title tells us a lot about the possibility of new organizational structures for firms in the global economy where traditional measures of company size are no longer relevant.

So why, in this day and this age, do entrepreneurs have to put up with the term “small business”? It implies something inferior, less capable, or incomplete. And nothing could be further from the truth. So-called small businesses create two-thirds of the new jobs in the economy in a typical year, and account for just under half of GDP. Since there is a lot of output government fails to include in the flawed statistic that is GDP, especially in services and retail, it is probable that small businesses are a much greater component of real output. And now, with the new structures we can see emerging, they will no doubt account for much more in the future, probably in a way that is hard to understand for the government bureaucrats who try to measure and report these things.

Because that’s where the term “small business” originates and where it is maintained: in the bureaucracy of the administrative state. As the SBA (Small Business Administration) points out in their Table Of Size Standards (where “you can check whether your business is small”), their interest in size is all about how they can tax a business, regulate a business, subsidize a business or allow a business to sell to the government. Their size standards can be based on firm revenues (as the SBA defines revenue), and/or based on number of employees, and /or on structural or legal variables. And their criteria can vary by industry type and over time. It’s not an exact science, by any means. But once a business definition is determined to be “small”, a cascade of bureaucratic triggers are tripped and the appropriate tax, regulation, subsidy and procurement machines begin to roll. The result for the small business owner is generally seen in the form of the interminable stream of demand letters that appear, delivered by USPS: taxation notices, demands for compliance and reports, insistence on meeting various government codes, and so on and so on and so on, ad infinitum. Nothing helpful.

Not only is the characterization of a business as small, it’s insulting. Many so-called small business owners and operators find the term prejudicial. They are rightly very proud of their economic role and size is not something they focus on. Their concerns are about producing a great product or service, serving their customers immaculately, creating jobs for the community, addressing the creative challenge of continuous improvement and the personal challenge of wearing many hats as they deal with operations, finance, marketing and sales from one desk.

Here are some self-evaluations from entrepreneurs who were asked about their perception of the term “small business owner” (from carolroth.com)

SMB Owners Are The Risk Takers For The Rest Of Society.

Sometimes, people that work for large corporations can use “small business” in a negative connotation. I find this very frustrating, because the risks that small business owners take are so much greater than what they take working for a large company. They don’t understand the stress in being available 24/7 or knowing that you have other people relying on you for their livelihood. In fact, small business owners should be embraced by the public and the government for what they do–take risks.
Bob Bentz of ATS Mobile.

“Solopreneurs” Are Unique In The Important Resources We Provide.

Although I do identify myself as a small business owner (SBO), the phrase means many things to different people. If you’re trying to get a loan from the government, a small business can have 200+ people (see http://1.usa.gov/20RKwfF). Most SBOs would consider 200 people to be a large business. Many SBOs are by themselves, so my favorite term is “solopreneur.” I am proud to be part of the small business community. We provide important resources that I wasn’t aware of before I started.
Linda Lovero-Waterhouse of WSI Web Systems.

Small Business, Exceptional Customer Service, Big Loyalty.

There is great local support for small businesses. The top positive attribute people think of when they think “Small Business” is exceptional customer service and a willingness to go above and beyond for customers. Because of this service, customers remain loyal. Behind the curtain, being a Small Business Owner means that I can move faster and be more nimble than a large company. If I want to try something new, there is no red tape holding me back or board to go to for approval; I can innovate.
Michelle Stansbury of Little Penguin PR.

Operationally Excellent And Customer Focused.

After spending 20 years with a Fortune 200 company and 15 years owning a small business, I know which situation requires more knowledge and effort to succeed. Currently, I have several eCommerce properties and we compete with the big brands on a daily basis.

Small businesses can be both operationally excellent and customer focused. I know we can’t out-Amazon Amazon. But, we answer the phone every time it rings.
Robert Shirilla of Tapestry Throws.

Under-appreciated In Silicon Valley……

So, I think the term small business is a loaded term where I live. In SF, we often talk about startups and disruption, a small business isn’t capable of, quite frankly, growing quickly enough to be interesting to many people. I know that’s a local thing and not everyone is the next Uber… but in Southern California, I found the term small business to be a positive one… here, not quite as much.
Mark Aselstine of Uncorked Ventures.

…. Small Business Owners Are The Heart of America.

A “small business owner” is someone I consider the “Heart of America”. They are the people who have an idea, the desire to serve others through their talents, and the belief to make that idea a reality. These are not overpaid fat-cat CEO’s with Ivy League pedigrees. They are people like you and me, trying to provide for their family and contribute to their community. They are what people talk about when they say, “Buy American”.
Mike McRitchie of Critical Path Action.

You Can Make a Big Difference

Small Business is the life blood of the American economy. It accounts for 65% of new jobs created. If we were smart, we’d be developing programs that focus on helping this business segment with capital and mentoring to give existing small businesses a better chance to survive and create new jobs. The government should also be working with funding sources to foster the creation of more new businesses. I am very proud to be a small business owner. I can’t think of a higher calling.
Greg Gottsacker of North Star Business Systems, Inc.

Small Business = Huge Impact

No entrepreneur considers his business to be “small” and, yet, this is a category they may fall into. But no matter the actual size of the operation, the ideas, the reach and the impact of any “small” business is great and the charisma required of the owner to bring a business to fruition is huge. Your business and your efforts will make a big difference in many people’s lives. And that must always be acknowledged.
Kate Edwards of Kate Edwards Consulting, LLC.

Let’s Get Rid Of The Term “Small Business”.

In short, the term “small business” misses all the value and purpose of entrepreneurship: innovation, service, growth, job creation, community involvement, personal lifestyle and individual self-reliance. Let’s get rid of it.

Write for CFI