What they don’t tell you about garage startups

There is more about successful garage startups than just the founder’s ingenuity and hard working. Most articles perpetually regurgitated by monopolistic media and various blog posts try to convince you that exactly only hard working and ingenuity is necessary to create a multibillion international company. I purposely refrain from listing examples, but they are so abundant that they can easily be googled. Even a facebook meme circulates probably repeatedly refreshed by Zuckerman’s robots.

Why however most of these garage startups are located in North America though ingenious and hard working people can be found everywhere in the world? A quick and shallow answer is white supremacy, but more subtle analysis quickly reveals that this cannot be the answer. There are thousands maybe even millions of startups worldwide but only a dozen became multinationals. In Europe those startups are easily out-competed or swallowed by existing monopolies. In Asia almost all of these companies stay at the garage level for ever while in Africa and South America most of of ingenious entrepreneurs encounter difficulties even to create or maintain a garage business.

Some of the reasons have been thoroughly analyzed in blog post by Ivan Raszl that I’m happy to link here. He points out the importance of a social environment that provides wealth, education and security.

It is the affluence that enabled a few geniuses to excel. Millions of people use their garage exclusively to park their car and their spare time to travel. Only a few motivated geniuses abuse their garage for experimenting in their spare time. I think the lack of proper space and time is the most prominent hurdle for successful startups in Africa and South America.

The next hurdle is crime or the lack of protection from it. While it is simple rubbery of typical criminals in Africa and South America, it works less openly in Europe and Asia though rubbery it is. It is rubbery taken to a new dimension which may be called organized crime. What I mean by that is not only the Mafia type found in Southern Italy, but also the various governmental organizations whose bureaucracy is stealing much of the success. And of course these governmental parasites effectively cooperate with existing monopolies that not only fear competition by want to receive their share by a non-friendly takeover. The existence of this rubber schemes in Europe and Asia is why startups are endorsed there but rarely reach international momentous.

As we learned so far in North America only, optimal conditions for startups to thrive seem to exist. Still this begs the question why did only so few recent startups in the United States make it to the wold’s top. Again there are a simple answer and a more thorough one. The simple answer is at the top there is space enough only for a small number of companies. That’s true but if we assume a fair competition in which only these few were the ultimate winners, we would still expect a lot more not so prominent winners. In fact we would expect a pyramid of winners with gentle slopes easy to climb up for newcomers, but what we see is exactly the opposite. The slopes are so steep that it is absolutely impossible for someone new in the field to compete with Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, or Google.

This leads to the logical conclusion that the remarkable success of these companies was not accidental and cannot ascribed to an outstanding ingenuity, and the second answer is that the unique success of these companies was rather a strategic decision meticulously planned and executed.

For instance, Google’s supremacy is the results of a dot-com bubble burst. Before that Gooogle had many competitors, and it was a vibrant market every bright idea made it to a new search engine, algorithm were quickly copied improved and implimented, all in all a market far from being monopolized. Then bankers entered the scene. They began to hype dot-com stocks. Not only did they encouraged investors to buy such overpriced stocks but also they encouraged founders to create new Internet businesses and sometimes those businesses became rich literally overnight for almost nothing but a shady business plan. Then they let the bubble burst and the marked was purged as only Google mysteriously survived.

Great losses were also seen with Google and the question why they still survived is at least partially answered by Edward Snowden when he revealed the NSA connection of many such big dot-com companies that survived the crash.

Now that we logically proved that the garage startup is just a myth, the question remains why this myth is so resistant and so strenuously perpetuated? The answer is that in fact those statups produce a great share of our wealth and even more important is their share in achieving progress. They are desperately needed even by the parasites who feed on them, and the purpose of my post was not to discourage, but rather to encourage to keep the eyes open to the best conditions for those enterprises worldwide and to fight poverty and parasites that still are the greatest threat to human progress.

Posted in Ideology, Manipulation, Media, Political, Rationality | Leave a comment

Copenhagen

This gallery contains 13 photos.

   

Gallery | Leave a comment

Aggressive Always the Others Are

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Berlin Pictures in Spring

This gallery contains 15 photos.

Gallery | Leave a comment

Picked-up Quote on Love

At a reading at the Leipzig Book Fair, Ipicked up the following quote today.

Falling in love is just like handing over to someone the power to seriously harm you, but only those who don’t abuse deserve it.

Quote | Posted on by | Leave a comment

What a firework to celebrate peace.

March 23rd a massive explosion occurred in an ammunition depot near Kharkiv. Roughly 150 tons of ammunition were blown up. This is a video published on youtube. This is good news actually.

The best thing you can do with weapons is blowing them up without killing people or destroying infrastructure.

BTW the international weapon industry is happy too, and that’s for several reasons.

  1. The most obvious reason is that they can make fresh profits by selling new weapons now.
  2. Their products, weapons and ammunition, are consumed without actually having to stir up conflicts. Stirring up conflicts is a cumbersome, time consuming, and costly endeavor, so it definitely reduces net profit. Simply blowing up the stuff in a firework is much more moneymaking.
  3. Even for the military industry killing people and destroying infrastructure is a drawback in every war because the weapons are paid by the people. People can pay for weapons only if they are alive and their infrastructure functioning. People have to earn money by peaceful working before they can buy new weapons. If infrastructure is destroyed they cannot earn enough.
  4. Finally killing people and destroying infrastructure also ruins social life. People’s desire to keep social life intact is astoundingly strong. People miraculously cling to their social connections more than to anything else. If they learn from own experience, killed relatives and friends for instance, how harmful war is to their social life, they give a shit about buying new weapons and that would be the ultimate blow to the weapon industry.

Thus this firework made all happy pacifists and war mongers alike.

A few month ago I published an article “What the Ukrainians Can Learn from the Swiss“. I’m glad to learn that Ukrainians are smarter than I previously thought. Thumbs up keep learning.

Posted in Democracy, Ideology, Manipulation, Media, Political, Rationality, Research, War, Weapons | Leave a comment

The rise of necrophilia

In an IKEA ad at youtube (“IKEA Werbung: TV Spot “Gekommen um zu Bleiben” (30 Sek)”).  This women that already passed her prime time long ago complains that her husband misses his virility and it sounds as if a women can blame a man for not being sexually attracted to her.

My dear old girl, please take this message: “Nobody, absolutely nobody is attracted to you any more except maybe a necrophiliac.”

Posted in Dating, Feminism, Ideology, Mating, Psychology | Leave a comment

Convey Stupidity

wordiness

If you want to promote an irrational argument cloak it in wordiness.

Or even better create a movie.

Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/fatima-bhutto/cinema-can-be-powerful-and-inspiring-but-it-is-never-innocent

Quote | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Why donkeys considered stupid and dogs the preferred pet of dictators?

donkey

The answer lays with psychology, human psychology. I found this remarkable quote in an Nature article that gives us the clue.

“Dogs are the only naturally occurring models of psychiatric [anxiety-]disorders.”[1]

During human evolution two kinds of animals were domesticated.

  1. Animal that grow resources, meet, milk, eggs, fleece, and feathers in particular.
  2. Animals that are exploited, that have to take on daunting tasks.

In human culture, the former group is considered inferior so you can easily kill them, fleece them, and steal their eggs. The human culture needs this perspective of inferiority to not feel guilt when eating their meat for instance.

The other group of animals is rarely eaten. Though there exist some cultures that eat horse beef, in central Asia for instance, this habit is rather uncommon in Western culture. Also the exploitation animals are mostly flight animals. That is a horse is forced to plow by a whip and a dog into obedience by punishment. Dogs can fast learn to avoid punishment by simply complying to threats and commands (that are conditioned threats). Therefore we call dogs intelligent.

Donkeys are an exception they are not a flight animals. They cannot be taught by a whip. Therefore they are considered stupid.

Dogs, on the contrary, during their domestication were made even more fearful. According to the ruling opinion breeders believed they made them more intelligent, they made them more compliant though.

Similar to dogs humans were domesticated. By the rulers of all ages the breeding of the most fearful variety of humans was favored. It was not a question of intelligence. On the contrary, those more fearful humans showed even less creativity, but nevertheless they were easier to force into obedience.

kimmy-with-live-dog

In summary dogs and humans share the same burden of domestication which results in the same anxiety disorders, and as the publication says the same drugs seem to help [1]. Dogs are therefore an excellent model organism to test antidepressants (the article claims), and for dictators dogs are the perfect role model to train their skills of oppression.


1. Cyranoski D. Genetics: Pet project. Nature News. 2010;466(7310):1036-1038. doi:10.1038/4661036a.

Posted in Allgemein, Culture, Democracy, Ideology, Manipulation, Political, Psychology, Rationality | Leave a comment

Peak Beard

A social psychological explanation of rising number of bearded men.

bearded men

Contrary to predictions made some years ago beards are still on the rise.

A few years ago a study appeared that tried to explain the growing popularity of beards. In a nutshell the theory goes that men’s attractiveness to possible mating partners depends on their uniqueness of appearance, so in times when most men are well shaved the bearded variety becomes more attractive and vice versa. I don’t believe that. Beards are not just a fashion. They are an important signal of manliness. Therefore its popularity is not triggered by a competition to appear extraordinary but has severe social reasons. In contrast to this study, my article ventures an other hypothetical explanation, a sociological one, which all the way seems more plausible to me.

When the above mentioned study was published it had many repercussions in popular newspapers including The Guardian, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, and The Washington Post for instance. The New Scientists even ventured a popular science article, and BBC aired a news report. All this regurgitation of the original study just focused on the point that by so many bearded men today we have reached a peak and the trend will go in the opposite direction now, which might be an eagerly welcomed news for Wilkinson and Gillette after all, but didn’t happen. On the contrary. And here is the reason:

It is true, the popularity of facial hair varies. It varies with time, culture, and geographical region. For instance the most religious men in Islam and Judaism feel it to be obliged to wear long beards. By contrast, a beard is unpractical in military service in particular if you have to wear a gas mask occasionally. Also it is well known that while in Europe beards were quite common in the 19th century, they were less so in the 20th century. Now frequency is growing again which in fact resembles a predator-prey-function. However, such a resemblance suggest that adaptive mechanism occur in a similar time frame, but it actually says nothing about the cause, and it is too naive to assume a similar predator-prey scenario.

In order to understand the beard-habit of men it is necessary to understand what beards are good for. Actually, I can rather say what they are not good for. Beards are a hindrance in many aspects. With a long beard you have to perpetually be attentive to not dip into the soup. If growing thick around your mouth you have to be aware that some food get entangled in the hair, which is especially common with fast food. The ketchup a mayo squeezed out of a burger loves to drop into a those hair and it doesn’t even help to use a napkin. Even if the beard looks proper after a napkin cleansing, the smell remains and in particular with mayo becomes repugnant by the end of the day. What applies to food also applies to everything else a beard gets in touch with. For proper hygiene a beard requires shampooing at least once a day otherwise it would grow a considerable number of unpleasant germs and even pathogens.

That said the question remains what is a beard actually good for; why an increasing number of men goes through such an ordeal to grow it. The benefits should have been so remarkable to outweigh the drawbacks. What else could that be than attractiveness to potential mates, but the desire to appear attractive is constant and does not change over time, and a beard is by far not the only think that makes a man attractive, so it has to be something else that changes the balance between all the factors that determine a man’s attractiveness.

We know that facial hair is a hallmark of human males. According to aquatic ape theory, it was necessary to evolve such an unmistakable sex sign to determine the sex when the rest of the body is under water. If believing in this theory or not it is indisputable that facial hair is a key indicator of masculinity. It is even a gradual indicator as testosteron levels correlates with the abundance of facial hair.

Now, why men increasingly rely on facial hair to show their masculinity. The answer is pretty simple. It is a social problem. Society denies them to show masculinity by other means. It is exactly feminism spreading throughout Western societies that not just taught but even indoctrinated boys to behave like girls. To behave boldly is a typical male characteristic, but that is tabooed. Eventually the only socially acceptable way in present Western Societies to prove your masculinity is by not shaving.

Yesterday a saw an attractive women stopping her car right in front of me when I was crossing the street. She was smiling alluringly. I glanced a t her friend. A beard! I suddenly realized that though she was in in charge of that vehicle she already had a male companion. A beard seems also to a repellent.

After all these considerations I wonder if the social justice worrier and feminists likewise will fight for the removal of this last resort of masculinity, demanding that all facial hair has to be cut and sex exclusively shown by a tag that can be changed arbitrarily. Well its sounds sarcastic, but remember what sounded sarcastic 50 years ago is now reality.

Posted in Culture, Dating, Ideology, Manipulation, Mating, Psychology, Relationship, Research | Leave a comment