i finished this piece last night... at about 1:30am...  then i began painting on a 40x70 commission, based on Icarus.... i went to bed at 3:30am, after drinking a large glass of chocolate almond milk, and downing some Newman's Peppermint Honey Pretzels (so good).  i really need to stop eating before i go to bed.

Most of the day, I was stressed about absolutely nothing... life, living, anything, nothing.... i have panic attacks and such...almost had one at the DMV, when i was waiting to get my North Carolina Driver's License, which i had to do within 30 days of moving to the state.  Thankfully, my sunglasses helped me chill.  Putting them on makes me feel like i'm hidden, or something delusional like that... So i pulled them down over my eyes... and a few minutes later, my number was called... bad feelings diverted....

Get this though... On the multiple choice test... there was a question that surprised me.... What type of driver is more dangerous?  A. a fast driver  B. a slow driver C. a female driver....  the answer was B... and yes, i got it right... i was just a bit surprised that C. was what it was... People joke about women being bad drivers, but it seemed a bit dated to actually have it on a government form of any type... i felt like i was suddenly transported back to the 50's and no woman had yet, even thought about, burning their bra....

Many man made and naturally occurring phenomena (being inherently complex systems), including city sizes, incomes, word frequencies, internet links, social networks and earthquake magnitudes, are distributed according to a power-law distribution. One under f Zipf's law follows the same characteristic, or pink noise. Here is a possible long list, collected year after year, since the 1910's up to now - 2008 (which I vividly recommend). From vacuum tubes to trading activities in world financial markets. Even, we could easily found them on Pollock's paintings (recently here). Back in 2002, I have addressed some of his painting features (mostly fractal) regarding the theme "Emergent Aesthetics in Autonomous Collective Systems". Astonishingly, without having a clue what fractal dimension's would be, Jackson increased his fractal signatures year over year, while getting old. Indeed, "Action painting", has he call it, mainly using his body motion and a bucket, were largely enough. 

Financial markets are indeed complex systems, even if they are far from being self-regulated. Much after this recent black Monday, I have made here some notes regarding Self-Organization and finance, over two weeks or so. Their basic features - as I see it. However- essentially what brings me here today is-, what happens to their frequency? Are phenomena like the current financial crisis, frequent? Well, much of that depends on our knowledge on power-laws. Good news is that we know how many of them will occur in a very large time window, bad news is that, we don't know when will they precisely occur. As in Earthquakes (check this out). Does this impel us to do nothing? Not at all. We can't do anything about earthquakes (at least for now - except prevent them), however we can establish some ground smart rules in order to avoid financial systems to collapse in turmoil (that is, tune them in the precise physical regime). Power-laws are not only our wake-up call, as they are a signature. For good or for worse. It seems that we are all playing across the planet, a reversed El Farol Bar problem. If that's somehow true we all should ask new questions like: In what frequency should we go to a bar ?! In other words, should we all run to the banks now, asking for our deposits?

Any polynomial relationship that exhibits the property of scale invariance is a Power-Law. Power-law implies that small occurrences are extremely common, whereas large instances are extremely rare (similarly over maps and cities - if you have time, found out the foundation of Berlin city over time). As the large quantity of small dots + low frequency of large dots we may found on Jackson Pollock paintings. The same goes for Black-Swans.

A Black Swan is a highly improbable event that has three characteristics: It is unpredictable, it has incredible impact, and after it happens we invent a reason for it that makes it seem less probable. For those of you that did not have read 2007 Taleb's book (picture above), wondering what a Black Swan is, or question yourself from where the name arises, just jump for a quick look over here. Nassim started to wrote his book in 2003. Finished it in 2006. So, in what way this "funny" distribution regards financial markets? Well, for many of us now, it his surprising that he have wrote this, back then:

[...] Globalization creates interlocking fragility, while reducing volatility and giving the appearance of stability. In other words it creates devastating Black Swans. We have never lived before under the threat of a global collapse. Financial Institutions have been merging into a smaller number of very large banks. Almost all banks are interrelated. So the financial ecology is swelling into gigantic, incestuous, bureaucratic banks – when one fails, they all fall. The increased concentration among banks seems to have the effect of making financial crises less likely, but when they happen they are more global in scale and hit us very hard. We have moved from a diversified ecology of small banks, with varied lending policies, to a more homogeneous framework of firms that all resemble one another. True, we now have fewer failures, but when they occur ….I shiver at the thought. [...]

Were these words a Black Swan within the Black Swan book itself? Rather not. He continues directly to something we now know and face it in precise context. Please note that this was written in the period 2003-2006:

[...] Banks hire dull people and train them to be even more dull. If they look conservative, it's only because their loans go bust on rare, very rare occasions. But (...) bankers are not conservative at all. They are just phenomenally skilled at self-deception by burying the possibility of a large, devastating loss under the rug. [...] The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deemed these events "unlikely". [...] 

What about the costs, and the memory of them? Yes, indeed memory is important while playing game-theory-like games, as his mainly in our daily reality, but in one-two generations it will be probably lost (I hope not), and once again all will start:

[...]  the real-estate collapse of the early 1990s in which the now defunct savings and loan industry required a taxpayer-funded bailout of more than half a trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve bank protected them at our expense: when "conservative" bankers make profits, they get the benefits; when they are hurt, we pay the costs.

Should we be surprised? In fact, this is not new. Somehow, fallacy goes on (as George Monbiot tackle it with extreme precision over Guardian Journal very recently - Sep. 30). Not only we were not reacting to these power-law consequences, as many of those economic agents playing within the systems core itself, were thinking of something else:

[...] Once again, recall the story of banks hiding explosive risks in their portfolios. It is not a good idea to trust corporations with matters such as rare events because the performance of these executives is not observable on a short-term basis, and they will game the system by showing good performance so they can get their yearly bonus. The Achilles’ heel of capitalism is that if you make corporations compete, it is sometimes the one that is most exposed to the negative Black Swan that will appear to be the most for survival.[...] As if we did not have enough problems, banks are now more vulnerable to the Black Swan and the ludic fallacy than ever before with “scientists” among their staff taking care of exposures. The giant J. P. Morgan put the entire world at risk by introducing in the nineties RiskMetrics, a phony method aiming at managing people’s risks, causing the generalized use of the ludic fallacy, and bringing Dr. Johns into power in place of the skeptical Fat Tonys. (a related method called “Value-at-Risk,” which relies on the quantitative measurement of risk, has been spreading.) [...]

Starting with the distribution and frequency of these kind of events (among many others), all of these words were written in the period 2003-2006. Since then, you could follow Taleb's war on "Value at Risk" over here.  Or here, at Edge.org which I highly recommend.

Meanwhile, apart from what markets are suffering and complex science may enlightened us, life goes on. Not necessarily as we supposed. As we know, reality, many times excels fiction; one single video frame could value one thousand words. Right at your neighborhood. As you may see below, consequences could be much worse than a tornado:

 

CANIS EDIT CANEM

 C’è qualcosa di profondamente malsano in questa finanza cannibale che fagocita capitali senza produrre alcun valore aggiunto, immettendo nel mercato scorie tossiche che avvelenano l’economia e destabilizzano la tenuta di bilancio di interi Stati con gravi ripercussioni sul tessuto sociale.

C’è qualcosa di criminale in questo capitalismo finanziario, che per anni ha drogato gli investitori attraverso gli artifici della finanza creativa col massiccio spaccio di strumenti finanziari “fuori standard”, fino alla devastante overdose da derivati.

Economisti e banchieri cresciuti all’ombra dei Chicago Boys, avevano annunciato con magnum gaudium la fine dell’odioso intervento statalista, la progressiva scomparsa dello stato sociale, in nome dell’espansione globale dei mercati finanziari nelle praterie ultraliberiste della deregulation. I famosi lacci e lacciuoli da recidere, per liberare gli spiriti animali del libero mercato. A correggere le eventuali storture avrebbe provveduto la provvidenziale “mano invisibile”, presente solo nelle fantasie mercantilistiche del vecchio Adam Smith. Il naturale traguardo del “turbocapitalismo” di marca anglossassone, forgiato nei rigori della scuola monetarista (e inaugurato negli anni ‘80 dall’accoppiata Reagan-Thatcher), è stata la più grave crisi mondiale dal crollo di Wall Street nel 1929. Della mano invisibile, come al solito, non c’è alcuna traccia, a parte i moncherini di chi ha lasciato gli artigli sotto la mannaia delle Borse. Ben più presente è invece la mano del vituperato intervento statale, così odioso quando si tratta di redistribuire i profitti e contenere disuguaglianze sempre più grandi. Come da tradizione oramai collaudata con successo, profitti privati e perdite pubbliche.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY
By Al Mohler

Christians should think seriously about this economic crisis and ponder what it would mean to come to a Christian understanding of what it means to be participants in this economy.

As Adam Smith recognized, the economy is a moral reality. Human beings actualize their moral selves in making economic choices and through participation in the economic system — and we are all participants.

Indeed, one of the defining differences between the current crisis and the crisis of the 1920s and 1930s is that the vast majority of Americans are now, in effect, investors. Our retirement accounts are, by and large, mingled with the investments of the titans of industry.

Through their pension funds, school teachers are investors right alongside Warren Buffet. This was not the case in the run-up to the Great Depression. We all want and need the stock market to do well, and the outcome of any market crisis effects both Bill Gates and the worker in the local medical clinic.

Christians should look at the economy as a test of our values. The Bible values honest labor and dedicated workers, and so should we. The Bible warns against dishonest business practices, and we must be watchful. False valuations are, in effect, lies. Dishonest accounting practices are just sophisticated forms of lying. Insider information is a form of theft.

Read the full article here>>>

But hold on there, tiger! Why not run out and fill you gas because here in north east Ohio, a gallon has gone from $3.98 last week to $2:98 tonight. Why? Because no-one wants to buy oil because of the crisis, and so the price has had to drop. Supply and demand: if demand drops, lower the price.

Did the government drop the price? No, the market did. And that's what we all need to keep in the forefront of out minds as the crisis unfolds. Whether we like it or not, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is beginning to move the global economy along. As I said last week, sure things will be painful. But some people - those with more nerves - are about to become rich. They will become rich by being the first to work out when the stock prices have reached a respectable low and can jump in a scoop up the fire-sale bargains. Once that happens, other investors will catch wind of a turn and try to snag their own sale items.

The next turning point will come on Black Friday, November 28th, 2008. This is the time when bargain prices will be hitting the streets, and if you're wanting to get that 60" plasma TV, this IS the time to buy! The credit squeeze will make borrowing harder but retailers may well thinm otherwise. By squeezing margins, they can try to entice folks to spend their precious cash - or more likely credit.

Islaja
Blaze Mountain Recordings •••
Ecstatic Peace!

Islaja's Merja Kokkonen seems intent on blowing away her cultivated forest-child mystique, like throwing open the windows the morning after a heavy night. Is she being commendably honest when she states of her mythology that "It doesn't really exist, of course...to sell a product, you have to have an image, you have to have that package. For us, it's this mystical, mysterious forest thing" - as though her entire image was developed entirely independent of her own desires and wishes for her music? Even though her previous album, last year's Ulual YYY, pictured her staring doe-eyed into the distance of what can only be described as, er, a forest? You know, with wood and trees and stuff. "And the whole forest folk thing is so passé, I think, I mean, it was four years ago that it was the big topic." Easy for you to say, Merja. In the arboreal wilderness, no one can read your marketing plan.

Cynicism aside, this live effort from Ms K does represent a departure of sorts. There's the cover art, for a start: in place of chilly bucolic whimsy is an irritatingly in-your-face collage of puke-bright sky, naked bloke, pencilled doodles - encroaching amusingly across said exhibitionist's nose to give him a fetching Mickey Mouse-esque demeanour - and Islaja herself, giving the unavoidably outraged viewer the finger. I, for one, will be writing to Ecstatic Peace! about that particular step on the road to cultural Armageddon.

Fortunately, the musical realignment seeks to make a more substantial statement. Although the production retains a layer of lo-fi murk, as might be expected from a live album from an outsider artist such as this, Blaze Mountain Recordings could almost be described as straightforward compared with Islaja's previous albums. Rather than a backing of acoustic guitars, flutes and the like built up into meandering contraptions, here her often beguiling vocals are anchored by percussion both organic and electronic. They are also brought more to the fore. Kokkonen's voice on 'Kammen Kynsi Kieli' hangs in space prettily while wooden owls (presumably from the same family as the mechanical bird on her shoulder on the album cover) flit and hoot over buried drums; 'Uni Pollona Olemisesta' - not, unfortunately, an ironic Finnish version of 'Una Paloma Blanca', although hopefully that'll turn up on the next Islaja album - is almost soulful; and 'Sateen Tullessa' has, for a change, an instantly recognisable internal logic that could make it a minor hit in some parallel universe. It's more linear than even 'Pete P', the closest Islaja has ever come to a pop song, here rendered woozy and haunted, albeit slightly flat.

It's a fact of life that live albums are usually slight affairs, little more than a way for established artists to contractually tread water and plug a gap between genuine offerings. Blaze Mountain Recordings is something different, ostensibly at least: even if somewhat slight overall, it's an opening gambit that seemingly points the way toward a more accessible and earthbound future for Islaja. Indeed, her new album will, in her own words, be "wider, louder and bigger, and more clear" - and will be sung in English. Here's hoping she can translate the genuine mystique (whatever she thinks of it) of her previous recordings into a brave new soundworld. With a minimum of crap artwork, please.

Adam Smith
UK release date: 31/03/08

For we on Guam Island it began with the rumor that George W. Bush was reading J.L. Austin's How To Do Things With Words. Trying to comprehend this led to a slightly hysterical wonder that resolved itself into a state of stupefaction. Then, World Hysterical Events seemed to promise that Wall Street would shortly follow the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and that capitalism would end up in the dust-bins of history.The bailout and its disastrous ambiguity led to metaphysical horror. A blank check for 700 billion dollars into the hands of a what? a who? a whom? into the hands of one man appointed by George aka Katerina Bush? Pace Austin, Bush was heard to say during the disastrous White House convocation, "If we don't get something done here, this sucker could go down."

In the People's Republic of Cambridge, our correspondant Stanley Richardson tells us: "Old Bolshies and undergraduates are suddenly sporting pocket copies of The Communist Manifesto. The hat-coat and-tie types seem to be pouring through An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Bow-tie boys have been seen reading Rousseau's The Social Contract. There has been a run on copies of Spengler's Der Untergang des Abenlandes both in German and English."

There is still, as Richardson points out, baseball, and the cafes, taverns, and bars of Davis Square. "Many," he says, "are trying to hit the ball out of the park by hitting the bottle first." Skorsky in Paris chortles at the "end of neo-liberalism. " What? "And, everwhere, the running dog investment bankers are retreating to various villas, vacation homes, or bunkers."

We here on Guam have been drinking with the Gooney birds, playing badminton in the nude, and, listening to actors reading selections from Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism, during our nightly barbecues. China is not far away. First Taiwan, then Guam Island. What was that old cant expression about the Dominio Effect?

Always our best to you. The Editors.

PS. If rumors prove true that after Austin, Georgie Boy wants to read Seven Types of Ambiguity, we're all going to sea in a bottle. Last messages to follow.

When I posted the link to the article, it didn't get a peep from anyone. If anyone is interested, Seeking Alpha still rents pixels to a response to that article, written rather glibly by Felix Salmon. I was reminded of Tiomkin when I read Wolfgang Munchau's article in the Financial Times. I urge everyone who trades currencies or invests in European equities or who does business in the EU neighborhood countries (to include North Africa and the Levant) to read this article. And watch your arses! This is one of those times when I'm not just reading a good article and passing it along. So listen up sheeples and get yer money outta there if you haven't already. Alrighty? And don't go buying commercial real estate in Dubai or large industrial farms in Southern Egypt with the remains of your risk capital, okay?

Eniway [wink], I've noticed that the only national leader in the EU to get it remotely right is Sarkozy. He spoke about the existential threat to Western capitalism as if it (capitalism, not the threat) had already failed to survive. That was before he furtively backed (and then didn't) a €300 billion rescue plan that utterly failed to be ratified. So what if he's French. So what, I say! This has nothing to do with the fact that among otherwise arrogant and self-serving EU politicians, he was quite simply about as prescient as a politician could be -- even if the monetary system in the EU ends up being spared le guillotine this fact will not change. As politicians go, he is sounding more like Adam Smith than many a number of too-self-conscious champions of free market economics today. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you just haven't been reading up on your economics. That's okay. You can click here to get away from this blog, where I'm sure you will be more entertained.

So let's watch what happens to the euro. I confess, I don't want it to go. I've heard more than one person in the US say they wish the euro and the EU would wither and die, but they don't know what the hell they are talking about. (They should take a look at the mess we have made of things.) Take a look at EURJPY --

As you can see, this isn't a price chart. It is a chart of the daily ranges of this pair since Jan 2, 2008. EURJPY is considered by more than a few sage people to be a barometer of the international monetary system. What is happening here is uncommon, to put it mildly. As the carry trade disappears down the rabbit hole and the notion of the euro as a fiat currency looks increasingly untenable (for now), there is absolutely no reason for the yen to appreciate the way it has. It is no small coincidence that in this period of painful deleveraging, the carry trade was one of the more highly leveraged plays out there -- and it was thought at one time to be "risk free". (And just take a look at AUD, NZD and GBP!) Those spikes, which started around the beginning of September, represent a death rattle of the carry trade a warning sign of the trouble ahead for the euro, the EU, and the international monetary system. If the euro dies in the next three years, the effects will be painful and widely felt. I suspect our international financial leaders are trying to figure out a way to protect it. I wish them well.

In the meantime, I tried to trade AUDJPY after the RBA announcement. (In case you missed it, they cut rates by 100 bps.) Of course, I wasn't filled even though I specified bounds of 30 on either side of price. It would have been a killer news trade with very low risk, and I was just too small, too slow, and too retail. EURJPY buy-backs have almost erased today's selling, with resistance currently sitting in the mid-14400s. The pair has been bouncing around in 100 pip waves the way it used to bounce around in 40 pip waves "back in the day". The Kern River after a summer flood comes to mind. (In other words, wear a damn life-preserver!) I may enter long on a retracement toward today's lows, but I may also just wait for a signal that goes with the current. I am wary of countertrend signals that print in strong and sustained moves. (Did anyone see those cascading stops below 10280 on the USDJPY last night? Danger for exporters in Japan!)

Not much scheduled on the calendar in the way of data for the rest of the day -- but plenty of potential action as all the fatheads try to preserve what is left of liquidity and credit and the MSM clings to every little idea -- no matter how banal -- as if it were important enough to rip another 800-point hole in the Dow. EURJPY trades 13948 at 0523 UTC.

0804 UTC Update: Short USDJPY 10293 at 0720 UTC
0908 UTC Update: Close USDJPY 10179.9 at 0908 UTC 

Uncle Audley started to wax lyrical about the age of enlightenment and his scientific revolution. Knowing Uncle Audley, I guess that his journey to the 18th Century would have a resonance with some aspects of modern day life.  Sure enough it did.  “It was a momentous Century.  We had an age where there was a combination of deep intellectual thought and ground breaking scientific inventions and discoveries.  The barriers to human advancement were swept away by these twin movements.  I would say that no previous era has seen such an advance in the betterment of the ordinary individual human being on this island.  Ok, there was still oppressive poverty, brutality and injustice but the foundations were put down for the order of the Victorian Age.

What was also noteworthy was the Government just went about its business and let the philosophers and inventors go about theirs.  They did not seek to take credit for the advancements. 

One of the great figures of this age was Adam Smith, the great Scot, who wrote the Wealth of Nations.  I can now see that he is featured on the back of our twenty pound notes.  Adam Smith came from Kirkcaldy.  Another scion of that exalted parish is Gordon Brown. 

Compare Gordon’s sense of achievement with that of one of the great figures, Sir Isaac Newton.  When Sir Isaac was praised for his achievements, he replied “if I have achieved anything it is because I have been able to stand on the shoulders of giants”.  Our Gordon has shown no such restraint or modesty.  The successful performance of the British economy over the last decade was entirely down to him.  No credit given to the world conditions, the internet revolution driving down unit costs, or the demand from the BRIC economies.  Much less to his Conservative predecessor, Ken Clark, under  whose stewardship, the economy had grown consistently over the previous four years or so."

Keeping in mind Smith's philosophical and economic views, it can be easy to imagine Smith as the producer for "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." It is a great example of how the free market, driven by competition, can benefit many people, particularly those in need. The need is met by local companies, large retail companies such as Sears, and volunteers. For many, the capitalistic system is moral and necessary. However, not everyone feels that the morally good aspects of the free market outweigh its immoral aspects.

http://philosophynews.com/whip/adam-smith-tv-producer-or-french-high-school-teacher/

I'm sure good ol' RR is turning in his grave. Bail-out passed today.

Who'd have guessed a bunch of investment bankers and irresponsible American homeowners would set us down the dialectical path? Your tax dollars, the government and private industry are now all indelibly linked to the tune of $2,300 dollars for every American man, woman and child.

Ladies and Gentleman put your tophats away!

Burn your copies of Adam Smith!

Your money is now permanently invested into the whims of the banking private sec...tor...?

Yes, that's right. You've now given 700 billion dollars to the irresponsible private sector suckers who got us into this mess in� the first place.

Best call your congressman or congresswoman and remind them that they should probably work on re-regulating the marketplace. Immediatly.

Scurry to your phones, e-mail, legal pads, type writers or old fashioned electoric word processors if those are still kicking around.

Now.

-Marc-

On the Conservative side, the argument has been “don’t play to the stereotype that Republicans are hard-nosed fighters” and “it’s only an opinion anyway.” To the first argument, I have to wonder why this is a bad thing. Why are Conservatives concerned with what the Liberal Left thinks of them, and why is it a bad thing to be regarded as someone who stands up and fights for your beliefs? Which ties in to the second argument; Conservatism isn’t just an opinion. Let us examine what Conservatism is at its core.

Economically speaking, Conservatism supports a free-market. Free-markets work better than socialist or communist markets. If you don’t believe me, ask Adam Smith, or Milton Friedman. Politically speaking, Conservatism is against big government. The bigger the government is, the less freedom people have. Our country was founded on the base principle that we wanted to be free. Socially speaking, Conservatism hold with so-called “traditional-values,” a term I personally hate because it plays to the politically correct idea that you shouldn’t mention anything about Christianity or Christians unless it is negative. Where is the liberals’ standard? We have ours. It is The Bible, and if we would stand with it more often than we cower behind it we might actually accomplish something.

In short, Conservative principles are proven, based in fact, and have standards by which they continue. They are not opinions. It is time we realize that we are right and they are wrong. A humorous definition of a liberal that I read recently is “a man too open-minded to take his own side in an argument.” Conservatives need to be vigilant that they do not conform to this stereotype.

I can just about change a light bulb, as long as they are the simple screw in ones. Otherwise I tend to break them.  I seem to remember that, perhaps a decade or so ago, I also managed to put a plug on an electrical appliance.  But perhaps I was just imagining it.  I have also, on occasions, managed to assemble some flatpack furniture.  Some of it even lasted for a few weeks before completely falling to pieces as well.

As for cooking, don't even mention it.  The last time I had an apartment and was living alone, I didn't even touch the cooker during the twelve months that I lived there.

Cleaning is also something that I can't quite seem to get the hang of either.  Sometimes, I have been forced to have a go at it, but the best that I can seem to manage is to move sundry bits of filth from one part of whatever it is that I am supposed to be cleaning to another part.  How you get filth to disappear completely is still an unfathomable magical trick to me, like something David Blaine or Seigfried and Roy (before one of them got eaten by his tiger) would thrill crowds with.

But it's no accident that I ended up this way. 

I planned it.

It was all part of a grand scheme that I came up with when I was about the age of 18.  I decided that all of this domestic business seemed rather boring and something that I should try to avoid as much of it as possible.

So I decided that, rather than devoting a lot of time to become a multi-tasking 'useful around the house' type person, I would instead concentrate all of my efforts upon doing one thing that I enjoyed and doing it very well so that someone would pay me a lot of money to do it for them (or later, for myself).

With the money that I would earn from doing one enjoyable thing very well, I would then use some of that money to pay some minions to do all of the things that I didn't want to do, i.e. restaurants to feed me, cleaners to clean for me, handy-type people to mend broken things, etc.

Generally speaking, the strategy has worked as I have managed to get to the ripe old age that I am without having to have spent much of my valuable time doing all of the shitty, boring jobs that I don't much care for.  This approach has not gone down well though with partners who believe that all men, by definition, should do handy-type things around the house, comparing me to their fathers who are always able to do everything that is necessary.

This is because in Eastern Europe, under Communism, no one got rewarded for working extremely hard at work and so it was better for them to spend as little time doing it as possible and instead learning how to do all of the handy things at home so they didn't have to give any of their meagre earnings to someone else to do it for them.

I say, however, that this is simply a case of natural progression of the human species, a continuation of Adam Smith's theories expounded in his seminal work from 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which foresaw the essence of industrialism by determining that division of labour represents a qualitative increase in productivity and led to the Industrial Revolution, which saw everyone evolve from  the stage of sitting at home all day growing their own clothes and knitting their own vegetables to the wonders of the modern world where most people are skilled in some special area and get someone else to do all of the shit jobs.

In generations to come, I foresee that most people are going to be equally as useless as I am when it comes to boring things - so I'm just ahead of the curve in this respect.

Well that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.

Our nation's current distress has provoked many to consider the sinful nature of man.  Some believe that the problems we are facing are the inevitable result of an economy founded upon self-interest. Richard Dahlstrom, Senior Pastor of Bethany Community Church in Seattle, WA says:

What else could you expect from an economic system predicated on the notion that everyone acting in their own self-interests will always lead to a win/win situation. Somehow, I wonder: WWJT. What would Jesus think?

http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/no-surpise-but-wwjt

Dahlstrom is referring to Adam Smith's "invisible hand." In his "Wealth of Nations," Smith said:

...he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

To put it more simply, he said:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

In other words, the butcher isn't motivated by how his meat will help you, he is motivated by the money that you give him in exchange for it. Furthermore, the more money he desires to earn, the harder he works to provide you with whatever you want. Thus out of his own interest he provides for you.

As for the win/win aspect of it, it's simply the result of a voluntary exchange. The only reason that two people volunatrily choose to trade is because the trade will make both of them better off. No one trades in order to lose. Now, it may be true that they don't get everything they want out of the trade, but, if they voluntarily make the exchange, it is because they believe they will be better off by doing so. Thus it is a win/win situation.

The alternative to this system of voluntary exchange is force, which is what Dahlstrom and others like him are in favor of. When force is involved, it is not a win/win situation. Someone is losing because they are being forced to do what they would not want to do.

Mother Teresa

Ah, you say, but what about Mother Teresa? Well, I'm convinced Mother Teresa was paid by philosophy professors across the world so they would have something to talk about when they get to the topic of altruism in class. Hitler got a check too as he is the go to when any topic of evil is mentioned.

But was Mother Teresa really motivated by a sense of altruism? A sense of abandoning her own interest for the sake of the poor?

No.

She was deceived by Rome's false gospel. She spent her life living in the most miserable conditions because she was taught that her personal suffering would bring her closer to Christ. Furthermore, she intentionally deprived suffering people of relief because she wanted to be in a community of suffering.

For more on Teresa:

Mother Teresa's Redemption
The Myth of Mother Teresa
Penn & Teller on Mother Teresa (a heavy dose of profanity)
Is Mother Teresa a Saint? Part I
Is Mother Teresa a Saint? Part II
The Missionary Position (A Review)

Scripture

That's interesting, you might say, but my morality isn't derived from some 18th century economist. My sense of right and wrong comes from the Bible and the Bible says self-interest is sinful.

Does it?

Dahlstrom makes only one reference to Scripture, Matthew 6:33:

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

In regards to this verse, he says Jesus would "think we should put the interests of the kingdom before our own." The error here is that Dahlstrom thinks that the interest of the kingdom is not our own interest. He thinks we should put aside our self-interest for food, drink, and clothing, and pursue something that is not in our self-interest at all. I'm not sure how he feels, but the kingdom of God is very much in my self-interest.

Rather than teaching us to pursue things that are not in our own self-interest, the verse directs us to what is truly in our highest interest.

John Piper has much to say about this:

When you have the notion that high moral acts must be free from self-interest, then worship, which is one of the highest moral acts a human can perform, has to be conceived simply as duty. And when worship is reduced to a duty, it ceases to exist. One of the great enemies of worship in our church is our own misguided virtue. We have the vague notion that seeking our own pleasure is sin and therefore virtue itself imprisons the longings of our hearts and smothers the spirit of worship. For what is worship if it is not our joyful feasting upon the banquet of God's glory?

Worship: The Feast of Christian Hedonism

By Christian Hedonism, I do not mean that our happiness is the highest good. I mean that pursuing the highest good will always result in our greatest happiness in the end. But almost all Christians believe this. Christian Hedonism says more, namely, that we should pursue happiness, and pursue it with all our might. The desire to be happy is a proper motive for every good deed, and if you abandon the pursuit of your own joy you cannot love man or please God - that's what makes Christian Hedonism controversial.

Christian hedonism aims to replace a Kantian morality with a biblical one. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who died in 1804, was the most powerful exponent of the notion that the moral value of an act decreases as we aim to derive any benefit from it. Acts are good if the doer is "disinterested." We should do the good because it is good. Any motivation to seek joy or reward corrupts the act. Cynically, perhaps, but not without warrant, the novelist Ayn Rand captured the spirit of Kant's ethic:

An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual. A benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.)²

Against this Kantian morality (which has passed as Christian for too long!), we must herald the unabashedly hedonistic biblical morality. Jonathan Edwards, who died when Kant was 34, expressed it like this in one of his early resolutions: "Resolved, To endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of."

Christian Hedonism

Sin

In his lecture on "The Ethics of Self Interest and Profit", part of his "Introduction to Economics" series, John W. Robbins points out that self-interest is not sinful. What is sinful is mistaking what is truly in our self-interest. Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. It is in our highest interest to do so. Because we are sinful, we think it is better for us to sinfully break God's moral law and rebel against Him.

I have read much from Robbins on a variety of topics and he has continually brought fresh insight from the Bible to bear on the topics. His method is to start with a topic, then start at the beginning of his Bible and read it all the way through, making note of every passage that has any relevance to the topic. This can be a tedious task, but it is very rewarding.

A short cut is to simply start with a concordance. If we look up the word profit, we get a few results that are worth discussing:

1 Samuel 12:21 And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty. 22 For the Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself.

Here we are instructed to turn to God because He can profit us, unlike the kings Israel sought after instead of God.

Proverbs 3:13 Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
and the one who gets understanding,
14 for the gain from her is better than gain from silver
and her profit better than gold.

We are to seek wisdom because we can profit from it, because it is in our self-interest.

Proverbs 11:4 Riches do not profit in the day of wrath,
but righteousness delivers from death.

This verse illustrates Robbins' point above. The riches of this world do not profit anyone in the day of wrath, but those who trust in Christ profit from His righteousness. Thus we are to seek Christ, not riches, because it is in our self-interest.

Next we come to perhaps the strongest verse in support of Dahlstrom:

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

This would seem to be an airtight argument that we should not do anything out of self-interest. But let's continue reading the passge:

25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Here, again, we see that it is not sinful to act out of self-interest. What is sinful is thinking that gaining the whole world is in our highest self-interest.

1 Cor 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

Paul is appealing to self-interest. In fact, Paul condemns these actions that are devoid of love precisely because they do not profit.

Renewing our Minds (Rom 12:2)

Dahlstrom closes his note by saying: "If Christians, who have the very words of Christ about money refuse to altar their view of self-interest economics, how will the rest of world do?"

To that I say, if Christian pastors, who have the very words of God about everything in life, refuse to transform their minds, how will their sheep do?

I pray that God will give us all wisdom as we seek understanding from His Word.

Our nation's current distress has provoked many to consider the sinful nature of man.  Some believe that the problems we are facing are the inevitable result of an economy founded upon self-interest. Richard Dahlstrom, Senior Pastor of Bethany Community Church in Seattle, WA says:

What else could you expect from an economic system predicated on the notion that everyone acting in their own self-interests will always lead to a win/win situation. Somehow, I wonder: WWJT. What would Jesus think?

http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/no-surpise-but-wwjt

Dahlstrom is referring to Adam Smith's "invisible hand." In his "Wealth of Nations," Smith said:

...he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

To put it more simply, he said:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

In other words, the butcher isn't motivated by how his meat will help you, he is motivated by the money that you give him in exchange for it. Furthermore, the more money he desires to earn, the harder he works to provide you with whatever you want. Thus out of his own interest he provides for you.

As for the win/win aspect of it, it's simply the result of a voluntary exchange. The only reason that two people volunatrily choose to trade is because the trade will make both of them better off. No one trades in order to lose. Now, it may be true that they don't get everything they want out of the trade, but, if they voluntarily make the exchange, it is because they believe they will be better off by doing so. Thus it is a win/win situation.

The alternative to this system of voluntary exchange is force, which is what Dahlstrom and others like him are in favor of. When force is involved, it is not a win/win situation. Someone is losing because they are being forced to do what they would not want to do.

Mother Teresa

Ah, you say, but what about Mother Teresa? Well, I'm convinced Mother Teresa was paid by philosophy professors across the world so they would have something to talk about when they get to the topic of altruism in class. Hitler got a check too as he is the go to when any topic of evil is mentioned.

But was Mother Teresa really motivated by a sense of altruism? A sense of abandoning her own interest for the sake of the poor?

No.

She was deceived by Rome's false gospel. She spent her life living in the most miserable conditions because she was taught that her personal suffering would bring her closer to Christ. Furthermore, she intentionally deprived suffering people of relief because she wanted to be in a community of suffering.

For more on Teresa:

Mother Teresa's Redemption
The Myth of Mother Teresa
Penn & Teller on Mother Teresa (a heavy dose of profanity)
Is Mother Teresa a Saint? Part I
Is Mother Teresa a Saint? Part II
The Missionary Position (A Review)

Scripture

That's interesting, you might say, but my morality isn't derived from some 18th century economist. My sense of right and wrong comes from the Bible and the Bible says self-interest is sinful.

Does it?

Dahlstrom makes only one reference to Scripture, Matthew 6:33:

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

In regards to this verse, he says Jesus would "think we should put the interests of the kingdom before our own." The error here is that Dahlstrom thinks that the interest of the kingdom is not our own interest. He thinks we should put aside our self-interest for food, drink, and clothing, and pursue something that is not in our self-interest at all. I'm not sure how he feels, but the kingdom of God is very much in my self-interest.

Rather than teaching us to pursue things that are not in our own self-interest, the verse directs us to what is truly in our highest interest.

John Piper has much to say about this:

When you have the notion that high moral acts must be free from self-interest, then worship, which is one of the highest moral acts a human can perform, has to be conceived simply as duty. And when worship is reduced to a duty, it ceases to exist. One of the great enemies of worship in our church is our own misguided virtue. We have the vague notion that seeking our own pleasure is sin and therefore virtue itself imprisons the longings of our hearts and smothers the spirit of worship. For what is worship if it is not our joyful feasting upon the banquet of God's glory?

Worship: The Feast of Christian Hedonism

By Christian Hedonism, I do not mean that our happiness is the highest good. I mean that pursuing the highest good will always result in our greatest happiness in the end. But almost all Christians believe this. Christian Hedonism says more, namely, that we should pursue happiness, and pursue it with all our might. The desire to be happy is a proper motive for every good deed, and if you abandon the pursuit of your own joy you cannot love man or please God - that's what makes Christian Hedonism controversial.

Christian hedonism aims to replace a Kantian morality with a biblical one. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who died in 1804, was the most powerful exponent of the notion that the moral value of an act decreases as we aim to derive any benefit from it. Acts are good if the doer is "disinterested." We should do the good because it is good. Any motivation to seek joy or reward corrupts the act. Cynically, perhaps, but not without warrant, the novelist Ayn Rand captured the spirit of Kant's ethic:

An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual. A benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.)²

Against this Kantian morality (which has passed as Christian for too long!), we must herald the unabashedly hedonistic biblical morality. Jonathan Edwards, who died when Kant was 34, expressed it like this in one of his early resolutions: "Resolved, To endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of."

Christian Hedonism

Sin

In his lecture on "The Ethics of Self Interest and Profit", part of his "Introduction to Economics" series, John W. Robbins points out that self-interest is not sinful. What is sinful is mistaking what is truly in our self-interest. Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. It is in our highest interest to do so. Because we are sinful, we think it is better for us to sinfully break God's moral law and rebel against Him.

I have read much from Robbins on a variety of topics and he has continually brought fresh insight from the Bible to bear on the topics. His method is to start with a topic, then start at the beginning of his Bible and read it all the way through, making note of every passage that has any relevance to the topic. This can be a tedious task, but it is very rewarding.

A short cut is to simply start with a concordance. If we look up the word profit, we get a few results that are worth discussing:

1 Samuel 12:21 And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty. 22 For the Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself.

Here we are instructed to turn to God because He can profit us, unlike the kings Israel sought after instead of God.

Proverbs 3:13 Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
and the one who gets understanding,
14 for the gain from her is better than gain from silver
and her profit better than gold.

We are to seek wisdom because we can profit from it, because it is in our self-interest.

Proverbs 11:4 Riches do not profit in the day of wrath,
but righteousness delivers from death.

This verse illustrates Robbins' point above. The riches of this world do not profit anyone in the day of wrath, but those who trust in Christ profit from His righteousness. Thus we are to seek Christ, not riches, because it is in our self-interest.

Next we come to perhaps the strongest verse in support of Dahlstrom:

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

This would seem to be an airtight argument that we should not do anything out of self-interest. But let's continue reading the passge:

25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Here, again, we see that it is not sinful to act out of self-interest. What is sinful is thinking that gaining the whole world is in our highest self-interest.

1 Cor 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

Paul is appealing to self-interest. In fact, Paul condemns these actions that are devoid of love precisely because they do not profit.

Renewing our Minds (Rom 12:2)

Dahlstrom closes his note by saying: "If Christians, who have the very words of Christ about money refuse to altar their view of self-interest economics, how will the rest of world do?"

To that I say, if Christian pastors, who have the very words of God about everything in life, refuse to transform their minds, how will their sheep do?

I pray that God will give us all wisdom as we seek understanding from His Word.

The definition of Entrepreneurship is as diverse as the different functions of an Entrepreneur. A largely held view of the term is that an Entrepreneur is the person who brings about a change and possesses characteristics to implement ideas for the benefit of the society as a whole. Only few people are talented enough to manage this change. Apart from this definition, a simple explanation of the term "Entrepreneurship" is that it is a person who wants to work for himself.

The Austrian economist Schumpeter defines Entrepreneurship as an event that introduces a new product, a new product method, new markets or a new form of organization. According to Schumpeter, in a perfect scenario, these actions will help generate wealth by creating a demand in the market from a newly introduced innovation. Thus, a true Entrepreneur is the one who combines the input factors in such a manner that the factors generate a greater output. This greater output from the various input factors will result in creating wealth for a society.

Entrepreneurship and Society
Entrepreneurship helps the society as well as the entrepreneur, itself. The benefits of an entrepreneurship may be divided into three distinct categories that include the benefits to the nation, benefits to the society and the benefits to the individual.

As already discussed, an effective entrepreneurial venture fosters the production of wealth for a nation. When many of the entrepreneurial ventures produce an output greater than the input, the economy of a nation is directly bolstered. Another advantage is the creation of jobs for its people. Such a job creation utilizes the human resources of that particular country and helps its natural talent materialize. With the new inventions and development in the new technology, a nation can use its resources more effectively. Since, a majority of the entrepreneurial projects are private; it provides an environment of competitiveness which further increases the quality of the products in the national markets. By privatizing the local economy, entrepreneurial ventures help attract eager foreign firms who are otherwise reluctant to do business with the government subsidized economy.

The income level of an average person and the standard of living of a society increases with every successful entrepreneurial project that is undertaken. There is an increase in the employment level on the regional scale. It is also noticeable that an entrepreneurship helps develop other businesses because of the extra incentives that it can provide to a new entrepreneur in the shape of capital, knowledge and technology. Entrepreneurship helps the societies to fulfill its basic needs in the world that calls for the survival of the fittest. Entrepreneurs lead by example in assisting the society, and therefore boost the moral of the public.

An entrepreneur helps himself while creating opportunities for others. It is a fact that by doing so an entrepreneur fulfills his creative urge. Each successful project carried out by the entrepreneur leads to self satisfaction. The greatest satisfaction is derived from the fact that the individual is his own boss and therefore can use his creativity without any fear of repercussion. The quality of every good entrepreneur project is the profit and the fame that such a career provides. Infect, entrepreneurs always enjoy respect and high status in their communities.

Functions and Features of Entrepreneurship
Ever since the French economist Richard Cantillon tried to define an entrepreneurship, there has been a debate on the exact role and functions of an entrepreneur. Apart from the differences in defining the term, all of the economist from Adam Smith, David Ricardo to the modern economist like Mill and Marshall agree that entrepreneurship plays an important role in developing the economy by generating wealth.

Early economist agreed that among the four factors of production (land, labor, capital and organization), organization is the factor that is the coordinating component that brings together the other three factors, and the entrepreneurship is the element that powers and strengthens the organization. These economists approved that an entrepreneur has a vast understanding of the workings of an industry in which he determines to undertake the venture. Also, an entrepreneurship is a skill that not everyone possesses. The ability to be an entrepreneur is inherited and is only displayed by a minority in a population.

A few modern economists believe that entrepreneurship is itself the fourth factor of production that is most important in driving a successful economy. These experts are of the view that entrepreneurs are defined by their risk taking abilities and their intentions to fill in the void because of the existing lack of knowledge about a product. According to them the entrepreneurial ventures are carried out where there is a gap in the development of a product. The entrepreneurs work to fill the gap by introducing something that increases the effectiveness of the already existing product.

Still, many recent theories of entrepreneurship stress that it is not only the inherent and risk taking abilities of a person that can define an entrepreneur but also the ability to predict where the opportunity for growth exist. By grasping these favorable opportunities, an entrepreneur works to create a new product by using innovation. The new entrepreneurs are able to track the deficiencies in the demand and supply of the market and provide a new improved product, for which there will be a demand. It is true that a great amount of entrepreneurial projects in the developing countries can be attributed to inventing a new product; very few of the entrepreneurs can innovate a new product in less developed countries due to limited resources. Therefore, in the third world countries the definition of an entrepreneur can be modified to include those people who try to improve on the existing technology which is already present in developing countries.

Entrepreneurship and Business Environment
The state of the society and the government are interdependent on the many entrepreneurial projects being undertaken around the world. The role of each entrepreneurial project differs widely on a global scale due to the disparities in the local business environment. In developing countries, the process of privatization has helped to eliminate restrictions on the kind of opportunities that exist in the market.
Whereas, socialist countries have historically helped entrepreneurs who have shown keen interest in optimizing the plans of the government. On the other side, less developed countries have rarely provided the entrepreneur a thriving atmosphere.

The major hurdles that the new entrepreneurs face are the scarcity of resources to carry out such a business. The greatest hurdle is the non availability of funds that comes in the form of money to research and develop. Another largely ignored factor is the availability of knowledgeable partners who can run a successful entrepreneurship after its initial stage. This is so because there is a great tendency for the entrepreneur to move from one project to another. Also, a lack of knowledge on part of the management can halt the development process, if adequate training is not provided. Historically, women owned businesses have not been successful even in the developing countries due to the lack of government support. It remains the most significant problem in mainly the theoretical and male dominated societies.

Governments can help improvise the entrepreneurial spirit by not only removing the hurdles described above but by creating an industrial atmosphere that is favorable to the structural change. If the resources are allocated from the losers to the gainers by purchasing the sales of assets, from the entry and exist of the firms and rise and fall of the industries, the governments can effectively allocate resources to the successful entrepreneurs.

Experts agree that the most effective method of managing the entrepreneurship industry is to foster the start-ups. Among other techniques, this can be achieved by minimizing the paper work and formalities for the new starter. A single identification number should be issued to every new entrepreneurial project to track down each case. The authorization process should not take long and the case decisions should be made by a fixed date. Tax treatment of the new subsidiaries and the policies on induction of new employees should also be simplified.

Types of Entrepreneurship
According to Schumpeter, there are five basic types of entrepreneurial projects. The introduction of a new good in the market is the first of these. By new product, it means something that has been invented and has never been available in the market. In simple terms, whenever a new invention is made, it is seen as an act of entrepreneurship. The second is the introduction of the new method of production. As we know that it is the production of goods that forms the pillar of the economy. By new method, it is assumed that the method which is effective and efficient and is able to improve on an existing production method. The third type of entrepreneurship is the opening of a new market. Whenever such resources are provided that enables the population to benefit, whether it is an economic, education or any other benefit; it establishes a new opportunity that is known as a new market for using that particular resource. The fourth factor is the conquest of a new source of supply. Economists believe that a new supply source allows the industry to increase its productivity. This new source can be in many forms including the discovery of a natural resource (oil, steel etc) or attracting a labor force that hasn’t been exposed to that industry. The last type of entrepreneurship is to carry out a reform of an industry that helps increase human welfare.

Although, all of the five types of entrepreneurship are important but according to Schumpeter, the most influential is the introduction of the new product in the market (invention) that will directly increase the human welfare. The remaining four factors indirectly affect the human welfare by reducing the cost. Therefore, in order for the remaining four factors to contribute, it is important that the first factor be present and it can only be done with the invention of a new product.

Rural Entrepreneurship
These days rural entrepreneurship is seen as the largest force in the development of the rural areas. Infect, many of the developing countries in the world have use the concept of rural entrepreneurship as a very successful method of deterring rural unrest. The greatest asset that the rural areas have is not the natural resource but it is the vast uncultivated land. Due to the ever growing population of the world and the expansion of the metropolitan areas, government reliance on the rural land has significantly increased. These lands are used in the development of industries and establishing manufacturing base. Many countries have used these lands to establish recreational and educational facilities. This is one of the primary reasons that most new institutions of higher education are opening in suburbs and small towns.

Another great advantage in the rural entrepreneurial projects is the availability of cheap labor that can reduce the cost of production. It is also well known that the less technical projects have a greater chance of success in rural communities because of the closely knit together communities that can carry out the communication much better than the workforce in the cities. The production plants of many large entrepreneurial projects are always located in the rural communities because not only does these projects provide employment opportunities
but also prosper on behalf of the hard working labor force.

Governments and companies are promoting rural entrepreneurship by providing extra incentives to women who have been allocated to traditional feminine jobs. Many companies have established training centers in order to educate the rural workforce on technical matters.
Historically, governments have eliminated many of the requirements for the rural entrepreneurs who want to set up an industry in their regional areas. Similarly, many of the entrepreneurs who want to set up rural industries, are exempt from strict laws that govern the urban development.

Problems of Rural Entrepreneurship
Rural entrepreneurship has its own drawbacks. Policies such as keeping of land in protection when there is already an over production, and pricing subsidy policies that help retain the minimum income are two of the greatest threats to rural development. Due to the remote access and unavailability of knowledgeable labor, it is difficult to advise the local entrepreneurs who are willing to take risks. Access to capital labor, commercial markets and the managerial staff are hindered due to remote locations.

In order to alleviate the problems of rural agriculture, a competitive agriculture entrepreneurship under the government supported resources is needed. The government should set aside a quota for the rural entrepreneurship projects and select only the very best ideas that directly benefit not only the community but can compete on a global scale. It is also vital for the success of the rural communities that the development of each rural project remains in the hand of the local agencies, which in return cooperate with the government to oversee the entire project. Entrepreneurship education is the leading factor that can help develop the rural areas. Governments should encourage the foundation of a local network that can communicate with the rural population and try to abridge the gap between the extended and remote communities.

This is a sample Business essay. If you want to order an original custom essay, research paper, term paper, thesis/dissertation on any topic - feel free to CONTACT US NOW and we will help you write an academic paper on any discipline.

Expressen.se (ja, Expressen, usch): Fru Gårman stegar över övergångsstället

Lite konstigt att Hässleholm inte kunde införa det själva, men det kanske är bra ändå, trafikskyltar bör ju helst vara så standardiserade som möjligt. Kommentarerna till artikeln är ganska blandade, många negativa.

Det är en rätt rolig grej tycker jag, men samtidigt, skall man vara pessimistisk; det är ju hur stereotypiserande som helst. Mannen kan ju likaväl ha långt hår, och kvinnan nog oftare byxor än klänning, och även kort hår. Så från ett sorts likhetsfeministiskt perspektiv kanske man lätt blir ambivalent. Herr Gårman kanske egentligen alltid har varit en ftm, förresten, vem vet det egentligen? I vilket fall, utan stereotypiseringar blir det inte grafiskt tydligt. Och det är ju inte säkert heller att fru Gårman är biokvinna (fittfödd, som man kan säga om man är mer radikal, men jag är lite för pryd för att använda sådana ord).

Så, nej, jag bryr mig nog inte så mycket om stereotypiseringen. Den stora poängen är ju att man liksom markerar att inte män per definition är normen för en människa i vårat samhälle, och det skulle ju möjligen möjligen kunna påverka den normen yttepyttelite. Men jag är ganska luttrad inför hur mycket man kan påverka den över huvud taget. Detta skulle i alla fall bli en symbolisk handling som är lite trevlig.

Den verkliga nackdelen är väl om man ska lägga massa pengar på att byta ut massa gamla farbror Gårman mot unga näbbiga fröken "Streradövernormen". Det kanske inte är nödvändigt att kvotera in fru Streradövernormen, det är bättre att fasa in henne när gamla gångtrötta och parkinssonsjuka Gårman ändå hamnar på ålderdomshem och blir vanvårdade av underbetalda, stressade äldrevårdare med barndomsproblem, som jobbar på privatiserade storkoncernsålderdomshem. Då slipper folk klaga över att det kostar mycket pengar, även fast det i sammanhangen "statskassa" och "vägverket" nog är småpotatis - glöm inte den osynliga handen förresten! Även om någon fick "nobelpriset i ekonomi" (Sveriges Riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne, egentligen) för att denne visade att den osynliga handen knappt fungerar alls som Adam Smith tänkte sig, borde den i alla fall bidra till en viss pengaspridning. Fru Streradövernormen är bra för Sveriges näringsliv!! Eller som sagt. Det är positivt och borde inte vara till någon större nackdel, däremot kanske till fördel.

(Skulle man fasa in Fru Streradövernormen, på nybyggen och ställen där det renoveras och skyltar måste bytas, skulle hon kanske bli en statussymbol, eller en rikemanssymbol.. Hmm.)

Jag är förresten queerradikal, eftesom jag inte orkar kategorisera mina inlägg.

Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me'
~Paul Ryan, Republican Congressman for Wisconsin

Today's WSJ first page reads
Historic Bailout Vote Fails in the House by Narrow Margin; Industrials Drop 700 Points Amid Broad Stock-Market Swoon

By preventing the very visible hand of the goverment to act, the US Congress will allow the Invisible hand of the markets clear up the mess of the Barons of Wall Street, but the cleaning up is going to hurt.

A real pure capitalist should be glad: One of the most important attributes of Capitalism is letting failing companies disappear. No help is received by inefficient companies the same way that pop 'n mom stores do not receive any help when a Walmart gets in town.

A Pure socialist should be sad: The WSJ is predicting one million houses foreclosures in the next six months. A lot of hard working people are going to pay the price of not being rich. They will pay for the greed of the CEOs of the US Financial Industry.

Interesting enough, the true is the exact opposite: The bailout sought by G. Bush is widely unpopular, no congressman wanted to vote for it so close to the elections; nobody wants to help the greedy big fish of Wall Street. The capitalist are panicking since the lost in the Dow Jones are going to be huge, as I am writing, the DJCI is down 700 points, about 8%.

The true is that in this case realpolitiks should prevail. Everybody is going to pay if the huge barons of Wall Street lose. All the manufacturing industry, badly beaten now, will get worse. A credit crunch is surely to follow, and a lot of unemployment will be salted with hose foreclosures. The US Government should help the companies that are struggling now, so its representatives, the US People, can dodge a huge economic crisis. That does not mean bailing out the culprits. The CEOs that took the risky bets should be charged and go to trial for misdemeanor. Conrad Black deserves a lot of company, but I think he will remain alone.

Adam Smith, escribió:

"Todo individuo trata de emplear su capital de tal forma que su producto tenga el mayor valor posible. Generalmente, ni pretende promover el interés público ni sabe cuánto lo está promoviendo. Lo único que busca es su propia seguridad, sólo su propio provecho. Y al hacerlo, una mano invisible le lleva a promover un fin que no estaba en sus intenciones. Al buscar su propio interés, a menudo promueve el de la sociedad más eficazmente que si realmente pretendiera promoverlo."

En el siguiente video Milton Friedman nos cuenta "La Historia del Lápiz", una paradoja de cómo funciona el mecanismo de asignación de recursos de un mercado bajo las ideales condiciones descritas por Adam Smith (la competencia perfecta).

"Ni un solo individuo entre los miles que toman parte en la fabricación del lápiz llevó a cabo su tarea porque quisiera un lápiz. Algunos no han visto nunca un lápiz y no sabrían para qué sirve. Cada uno de ellos veía su trabajo como un medio para obtener los bienes y servicios que deseaba, bienes y servicios que hemos producido para obtener el lápiz que deseábamos. Cada vez que vamos a la tienda y compremos un lápiz, intercambiamos una pequeña parte de nuestros servicios por una parte infinitesimal de los que cada una de las miles de personas aportó para fabricar el lápiz.

Es incluso más asombroso que éste llegase a fabricarse. Nadie que ocupase una oficina central dio órdenes a estos millares de personas. Ninguna policía militar hizo cumplir unas órdenes, porque no fueron dadas. Quienes intervinieron en el proceso viven en varios países, hablan distintas lenguas, practican religiones diferentes, pueden, incluso, odiarse entre sí, pero ni siquiera esas diferencias impidieron su cooperación para fabricar un lápiz" .
(extraído de Econolandia)

ESCENA: Es una tarde festiva, en que Nash y sus compañeros de clase se reúnen en un bar.  Nash se halla sumido en sus pensamientos, escritos y libros. De repente en el bar entran cinco chicas, una rubia y cuatro morenas. Los compañeros de Nash bromean con la idea de quién será el elegido por la rubia. Sin embargo, Nash,  en vez de plantearse cómo "ligar con la chica rubia", procede a reflexionar sobre las probabilidades de éxito de conseguir a esa chica sin ofender a las demás. Esto le hizo reconsiderar la afirmación del padre de la economía moderna, Adam Smith, de que en la competencia la ambición individual beneficia el bien común. Llega a la conclusión de que es mentira, ya que la ambición tanto individual como grupal sería la que permitiría alcanzar el bien común. De esta forma logra elaborar una teoría que le transformaría en un hombre reconocido.

Anyhow we started working for a project ... "Tu esti Romania" for the next ellection for the Deputy's Chambler and Parliament at the end of october! We try to organize a campaign which is militating for an optimistic thinking of people of Romania! we try to show people there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about future, there are many reasons to look up to the future!

Today there have been the official nominalisation of Lumi as a deputy in PSD - the most corrupted political organization in Romania! They have M-r Iliescu - the last remain from the comunist government from 18 years ago! ... I could easily overpass all the promisses they've made regarding our future and all the benefits we could get by supporting them! htere were in there ... almost 7000 persons - young, adults, woman, and many others - students, media, supporters, technicians.... and so on and so forth .... no single person were able to say anything about the ideology of this political organization, abut the purpose of its existence and its means .... htere were people promising 500.000 house that would be built for people allover the country; about 20.000 euro, which would be offered to romanin workers, only if they would come back for work in Romania ... and many others .... I remember the emphatic speech of mr. Geoana ... he bearrly have spoke ... most of the time he was screaming, just to e sure everyone would heare htem! our self proclaimed "Prime Minister" has shown us the autoway which was promised to us ... and remained only a dream! he showed us the cars on the streets which are bought from the budget of the country ... and cruyed the missfortune of others for the tourments they were supposed to support!

I couls have overpass even all this shit ... but not this .... in the end of the manifestation, there was a speech of M-r Ion Iliescu .... ohhhhhhoooooooooooo big mistake .... big mistake,.... vry big mistake!

I am usualy used with theyr emphatic speeces; they are blaiming their competition, and denigrating their comtetitors ... still tis time something else left me speechless! our extremly hiogh educated economist, mr. Ion Iliescu .... has come with a theory to infirm the theory of market economy! the invisible hand of Adam Smith ... is not the welth of nation, but will make the rich richer, and the poor, poorer .... and for this reason, Mr. Iliescu considered the nvisible hand should be something bad pentru us ... and we need to stop thinking about us, and start thinking about the others ... he was so proud of its speech ... and he spoke with such a passion and enthusiasm ... that I was thinking weather he really have read the speech ...weather it was realy what he wanted to say ....

I was astonished ... I am thinking wether I would accept being involved in such a project ... in such  a shit ... I am still panding ... the only conclusion I came fot today ... Iliescu - vs. - Adam Smith .... o my god!