With Greed and Cynicism, Big Tech is Fueling Inequalities in America (by @filloux)

With Greed and Cynicism, Big Tech is Fueling Inequalities in America – Monday Note, Frederic Filloux

…In the end, local taxpayers will subsidize Amazon shareholders…

Hi-tech firms are prominent among recent tax-break “megadeals” awarded by cities and states. Tesla’s battery factory ($1.3bn from Nevada), Foxconn’s display-screen plant in Wisconsin ($4.8bn) and Apple’s data centre in Iowa ($214m) are typical. The Apple centre, a cloud computing facility, will have only 50 permanent jobs, so the cost per job exceeds $4.2m. The Foxconn deal, even by the state’s own official estimate, won’t break even for taxpayers for 25 years — an extremely risky time horizon given the likelihood of new technologies leapfrogging the company’s product much sooner. The Tesla deal was 14 times costlier than anything Nevada had done before.

Are nation states nearing their end as our preferred scale of the political and socio-economic organization?

 Global governance (amongst other interesting topics in exponential view newsletter #162)

Dept of states and sovereignty
There is a notion worth revisiting: are nation states nearing their end as our preferred scale of the political and socio-economic organization? This idea lies in contrast with the “end of history” theory of modernity. 

I’ve found the question of evolving the nation-state fascinating since the early 1990s when I first came across ideas of decentralized forms of organization enabled by new electronic networks (and was contemporaneously studying political institutions and models of governance).  

Of course, recently we've seen resurgent nationalism in Turkey, the US, Britain, Hungary and many other places. This might challenge the 'end of the nation-state' thesis, this nationalism is a sort of reversion to the mean. But could it, instead, be the febrile twitching that presages rigor mortis? 

Rana Dasgupta argues this compellingly: 20th-century political structures are drowning in a 21st-century ocean of deregulated finance, autonomous technology, religious militancy and great-power rivalry. Meanwhile, the suppressed consequences of 20th-century recklessness in the once-colonised world are erupting, cracking nations into fragments and forcing populations into post-national solidarities 

As I’ve argued in Exponential View and elsewhere, we increasingly need to adapt our existing institutions or invent new ones in order to cope with the changes in our economies, demographics, natural resources and climate. 

As Dasgputa concludes: “This is not a small endeavor: it will take the better part of this century. We do not know yet where it will lead.” 

One example is the relationship between the corporation and the states, and the balance between their power. Almost a decade ago my friend and researcher, Stephanie Hare, introduced me to the idea of ‘corporate foreign policy’, the notion that states needed to formally recognize that the emerging dominance of technology platforms merited a formal quasi-diplomatic status. Some years later, the forward-thinking Danes appointed Casper Klynge as the world’s first Technology Ambassador, in the vein first described to me by Stephanie several years earlier. 

In other cases, governments seem unwilling or incapable to execute on their duties - for example, maintaining their integrity in the face of or responses to cyber attacks (which are not really any different from other types of hostility). In those situations, private corporations are stepping in to fill or exploit the vacuum.

~@Azeem Azhar

A Look at How Technology is Reshaping the Global Economy (by @maxmarmer )

 via medium – The Industrial Era jobs and institutions decline towards death and the Information Era matures and blooms. The decline of the Industrial Era may have been subtler, and easy to ignore in years past.

The global economy as a whole will also be in precarious place if Information Era companies do not continue to produce accelerating growth. While we’ve nominally been in recovery since 2009, much of the expansion has been enabled by unprecedented levels of debt created by Central Banks around the world. Sky high debt levels across consumers, corporations and countries, are all being buoyed by historically low interest rates. Wealth inequality is rising fast and geopolitical tensions are heating up. We’ve been blessed by very low volatility the last few years, but we also are in many ways dependent on it.

Technology companies continue to become a bigger percentage of the world economy. They have overtaken Oil and Gas companies to become the largest public companies in the world, the private market is bursting with billion dollar unicorn valuations unseen before in history, and many non-technological industries are either dying at its hands or becoming one with it.

Some of this technological future will come from large companies, but by and large these large companies still haven’t figured out how to reliably create disruptive innovation. Their role in the innovation landscape is predominantly as acquirers, where they grow acquired products, applying their capacity for efficiency and scale.

An essential orienting frame for understanding the current state of the world, is that we are at a point of criticality. A liminal space between eras. The old world Industrial order is breaking down, and the new Information world order is in the process of taking over. This transition period is one of opposing forces of exponential creation and exponential destruction.

In the forthcoming era of technological disruption the need for a robust social safety net will be paramount.


worth reading, I'd recommend max. attention ;-)

eHealth Market worth 132.35 Billion USD by 2023

 via @marketsmarkets According to latest research report "eHealth Market by Product (EHR, PACS & VNA, RIS, LIS, CVIS, Telehealth, eRx, HIE, Patient Portal, Medical Apps), Services (Remote Patient Monitoring, Diagnostic Services) End User (Hospitals, Home Healthcare, Payers, Pharmacy) - Global Forecast to 2023", is expected to reach USD 132.35 Billion by 2023 from USD 47.60 Billion in 2018, at a CAGR of 22.7%.

Factors driving market growth include the regulatory mandates and government initiatives for the implementation of eHealth solutions; growing mHealth, telehealth, and remote patient monitoring markets (prevalence of chronic diseases); and increasing need to curtail the escalating healthcare costs. In addition, the emerging market in China, India, and Australia; rising shift towards patient-centric healthcare delivery; and growing use of eHealth solutions in outpatient care facilities are further increasing the demand for eHealth solutions and services given shortage of healthcare professionals, and rising usage of big data.







Some of the key players in the eHealth market are:
GE Healthcare (US),
Cerner (US),
McKesson (US),
Allscripts (US),
Philips (Netherlands),
Siemens Healthineers (Germany),
athenahealth (US),
Epic Systems (US),
IBM (US), Optum (US),
Medtronic (Ireland),
Cisco (US).

The eHealth market in this report is segmented on the basis of product & service and end user. This report also provides market information on major regional segments, namely, North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Rest of the World.


By products and services, the eHealth solutions segment dominated the eHealth market in 2017
The EMR/EHR solutions segment accounted for the largest share of the eHealth solutions market in 2017. Supportive government initiatives for EMR implementation across the globe, growing consolidation among healthcare providers, rise in digital and connected healthcare technologies, and increased government incentives are the key factors supporting the growth of this market.

The remote monitoring services segment dominated the eHealth services market in 2017. The large share of this market is mainly attributed to the rising prevalence of chronic diseases and lifestyle disorders, increasing geriatric population, and high preference for home healthcare and rehabilitation due to the convenience of the services.


By end user, healthcare consumers are expected to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period
Based on end user, the global eHealth market is segmented into healthcare providers, healthcare payers, healthcare consumers, pharmacies, and other end users. Healthcare consumers are expected to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period. The growth in this end-user segment can be attributed to the factors such as the increasing number of people requiring remote patient monitoring, rising demand for personalized care, and high penetration of digital technologies in the healthcare industry.


North America dominated the market in 2017
In 2017, North America dominated the global eHealth market. The growth in this market can mainly be attributed to the strong IT infrastructure in the region, increasing investments and regulatory mandates favoring the implementation of eHealth solutions, presence of large healthcare IT companies, and rising utilization of remote patient monitoring solutions and services for the management of prevalent chronic diseases and lifestyle disorders. The Asia Pacific region is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. High growth in the Asia Pacific region is largely driven by government investments & reforms to modernize healthcare systems, rising medical tourism, implementation of eHealth programs, and increasing per capita income in this region.

However, factors such as reluctance among medical professionals to adopt advanced eHealth solutions and high-cost of deployment and maintenance of eHealth solutions are likely to hinder the growth of the global eHealth market to some extent.


Years considered for this report
2017 – Base Year
2018 – Estimated Year
2023 – Projected Year


Global eHealth Market, By Type

eHealth Solutions

• EHR/EMR Solutions
• Picture Archiving and Communication Systems & Vendor Neutral Archive
• Radiology Information Systems
• Laboratory Information Systems
• Cardiovascular Information Systems
• Pharmacy Information Systems
• Other Specialty Information Systems
• Telehealth Solutions
• E-Prescribing Solutions
• PHR & Patient Portals
• Clinical Decision Support Systems
• Health Information Exchange Solutions
• Chronic Care Management Apps
• Medical Apps

eHealth Services

• Remote Monitoring Services
• Diagnosis & Consultation Services
• Healthcare Systems Strengthening Services
• Treatment Services
• Database Management Services

Global eHealth Market, By End User
Healthcare Providers

• Hospitals
• Ambulatory Care Centers
• Home Healthcare Agencies, Nursing Homes, and Assisted Living Centers

Payers
Healthcare Consumers
Pharmacies
Other End Users


Global eHealth Market, by Region
North America

• US
• Canada

Europe

• Germany
• UK
• France
• Italy
• Spain
• Rest of Europe

Asia Pacific

• Japan
• China
• India
• Australia
• Rest of Asia Pacific

Rest of the World

• Latin America
• Middle East and Africa

¿Ha mutado la economía colaborativa en un capitalismo salvaje de plataformas?

 este artículo en El Mundo me ha hecho recordar esta otra entrada en el blog en base a un artículo de HBR.
Es un tema sobre el que ya he tenido alguna conversación, siempre defendiendo que compàrtido no me parece exactamente lo que se vende muchas veces… y que merece una reflexión.
En cualquier caso merece la pena una leída…
¿Ha mutado la economía colaborativa en un capitalismo salvaje de plataformas? – El Mundo - economia/empresas

¿Qué trampas engañan a tu mente como inversor?

 ¡Conócelas y conseguirás tus metas financieras! Trampas para tu mente • Mediolanum

1. El sesgo de confirmación, mediante el cual el inversor tiende a obviar toda aquella información que no apoye sus creencias…
2. El sesgo del hogar. Los inversores tienen una tendencia natural a invertir en aquellas acciones con un componente nacional. 
3. El sesgo de manada o tendencia es uno de los más potentes en el campo de la inversión. Muchos inversores no analizan la calidad de la inversión, sino que se dejan influir por las acciones colectivas de su entorno más cercano.
4. El sesgo de preocupación evoca una serie de recuerdos vívidos en el corto plazo y crea en la mente visiones de posibles escenarios que pueden alterar el juicio del inversor acerca de sus finanzas.
5. El sesgo del efecto disposición es de los más perjudiciales, porque limita las inversiones ganadoras y deja correr las inversiones perdedoras.
6. El sesgo de autoatribución. … muchos inversores tienden a atribuirse los resultados positivos de su cartera, mientras que los negativos se deben a factores externos.

Growth is getting hard…

 from intensive competition, consolidation, and saturation by @andrewchen

Growth is getting hard from intensive competition, consolidation, and saturation


"
The reason for the above is that there are multiple trends – happening right now – that impede growth for new products. These trends are being driven by the biggest players – Google/Facebook, et al – but also by the significant leveling up around of practitioners in design/PM/data/growth.

We’ll look at a couple trends in this essay, including the following:

1. Mobile platform consolidation
2. Competition on paid channels
3. Banner blindness  = shitty clickthroughs
4. Superior tooling
5. Smarter, faster competitors
6. Competing with boredom is easier than competing with Google/Facebook

These trends are powerful and critical to understanding why all of a sudden, entrepreneurs/investors are starting to get into many new fields (genomics, VTOL cars, cryptocurrency, autonomy, IoT, etc) in order to find new opportunities.

…When the App Store first launched, competition was easy: Boredom. Mobile app developers were taking time away from easy, ‘idle’ activities like waiting in line, commuting etc. But today, acquiring a new app user means stealing a user’s time from their favorite existing app. As we’re near the end of the cycle, companies have moved from non-zero sum to a zero-sum competition. …

How the industry is evolving, in response
The above trends are troubling for new products, and especially for startups. All 6 of these trends are scary, and they’ve emerged because we’re at the end of a cycle. There’s a variety of natural monopolistic trends (like app stores, ad platforms, etc), where everything with related to growth and traction is getting harder.

If companies want to stay in the mobile/software product categories, they need to evolve their strategies. I’ll save a deeper discussion for a future essay, but here are some observations on what’s happening:

1. More money diverted to paid acquisition
2. Deeper monetization to open up channels – especially paid
3. Creation of paid referral programs to complement ad buying
4. Personalization features that rely on lots of data to amp up targeting
5. Products trying to deepen differentiation by solving hard(er) problems/tech

"

Sobre la buena vida

Dos entradas para pensar… soy de los toca pelotas de "tenemos suerte".
O de los que dicen que la cosa va bien, que podría ir mejor… pero que podría ir peor y por tanto prefiero no quejarme.

Dos artículos que reflejan mi manera de pensar.


If you’re reading this, you probably don’t do hard work

It may be challenging work. It may be creative work. It may be skilled work. It may require multiple tries to get it right. You may have to learn new things. You may be rejected a bunch. You may get hung up on. You may not know how to get from A to B. You may have to persuade. You may have to deal with people you don’t like. You may have to sell something someone doesn’t know they want. You may have to be creative. You may have to build something that hasn’t been built before. You may have to battle entrenched interests. You may have to put in a few days or weeks in a row to figure something out you’re stuck on. You may have to make tradeoffs. But that’s the work. Not achieving the outcome you wanted doesn’t make it hard, it means you have more work to do.

Stop Pretending You’re Not Rich - NYTimes.com

The rhetoric of “We are the 99 percent” has in fact been dangerously self-serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for inequality.
“Rather than a poverty trap, there seems instead to be more stickiness at the other end: a ‘wealth trap,’ if you will.”

The Friendship of David & Goliath

 @daphnipolis uses to send a weekly newsletter, always interesting but with an editorial I think they do not publish in the internet… so I will, as it is a very good article, interesting as it backs the (not so) new trend accelerators are promoting, some of then even changing their current business model… by Paul Bazin.

Bold emphasis is mostly mine.

Our curse in Europe is that despite all our efforts we are not as sexy as the US with their big champions. That’s understandable: They have built worldwide tech giants since the 80s. Of course, we have our own champions, the “Criteos“ and “Spotifys“, but they don’t have the same visibility across the world to date. 

If you like to look at the bright side of things, you can mention that foreigners are very often surprised by the quality and the energy of the ecosystem. That is exactly what happens to Paul Graham. We might have an undervalued asset to showcase our know-how: France's multinational corporations represent 8% of the biggest companies in the world. And guess what: As they are well-known throughout the world, they could be really good ambassadors. 

But to do so they should be real actors of the tech ecosystem, you say? That’s right! They should be and they need to be.  

We often consider that startups and big corporation are the David and Goliath of an economic battle. Big corporations are seen as the old generation. The expert one, where you needed to be the biggest know-how in a specific field to work your way up. Startups are at the opposite. In order to have a new look you need to think different, thus you need to have a global and broad knowledge. Brian Chesky never worked in the hospitality domain before disrupting it with Airbnb. Startups bring this fresh and new look that big corporations desperately need. Meanwhile, to share this vision, startups need money, visibility, worldwide networks, facilities, the list goes on… 

 

There are two types of startups that interests MNCs:
• The competitive: The ones that are attacking big corporations head on by capturing market share. Those provide the new vision.  

•The mutualistic: The ones that are offering tools and technology to reinvent themselves. Startups can benefit from big companies by using them as a distribution channel (think what Apple did to the mobile industry) or clients (think of many B2B SaaS companies), big enterprises are using startups to reinvent themselves by making better use of their data, being more efficient, more customer centric, the list goes on... Those escort MNCs in their digital transformation.  

Startups and big corporates should be viewed in a co-evolution process. The morphology and behaviour of the one is impacting the other. 

Bottom line: Goliath needs David and David needs Goliath.
Big corporations should provide visibility, know-how, money in exchange of a fresh vision, and tools for their digital transformation.  

This way of seeing the relationship implies a big mentality shift: MNCs must be seen as a leverage opportunity to scale, and not as the enemy anymore. Having international players close to us is a chance for the ecosystem to grow.

Co-workers and makers: New public policies and corporate strategies for the city

LSE Business Review – Co-workers and makers: New public policies and corporate strategies for the city

Our seven propositions to make communities more open, sustainable and inclusive:

1. More emphasis should be put on ‘infra-organisations’, i.e. transparent platforms designed for independent entities to share identity and governance.‘Infra-organisations’ provide infrastructural services without searching for the increasing returns likely to lead to a monopoly (Google). They benefit both citizens and entrepreneurs. The growth of each sub-unit is limited to the governance can remain highly collaborative. Framasoft in France best illustrates this new trend;
2. An ‘inclusive label’ could be organised by collaborative communities and collaborative movements themselves: the label would work like a brand to signal a product’s social and ethical quality (respect for the rights of workers and the environment) and be operated by a combination of public and private structures;
3. Mega-spaces could be opened in all cities to let expressions of creativity flourish: collaborative spaces can coordinate broader movements. The whole city could periodically be turned into an urban-planning ‘hackathon’ to mobilise a diverse set of individuals from a given area. Such involvement can strengthen the social fabric of a territory.
4. Academic presence in the city should be reinvented towards more urban and rural mobility. Academics could be made to serve and spread knowledge geographically and socially. Collaborative spaces can serve their mobility;
5. Ephemeral labs could be multiplied and supported by public authorities and private companies. Mobile labs or maker spaces can help revive rural areas and connect isolated communities together;
6. Open innovation should be made more open. Innovation involves numerous external and internal stakeholders. Why not push open innovation initiatives in the space of the city itself (e.g. with fablab trucks)?;
7. Finally, better global digital infrastructures should be developed for coworkers, remote workers, and nomads, which requires the support of public policies, at the national and EU levels.

10 Revealing Statistics About Compensation And Benefits You Should Know

@officevibe is always interesting, check this infographic. You have deeper explanations on each issue and links @ the end of the original post:
10 Revealing Statistics About Compensation And Benefits You Should Know



This infographic was crafted with love by Officevibe, the engagement software that shows you how to be a good leader for your employees.

Trump y los negocios en USA

 algunas notas de la interesante charla en la Fundación de Estudios Bursátiles y Financieros "La era Trump y los negocios en USA" (a cargo de Ramón Trénor, de Garrigues NYC).

Lo divertido y alternativo ya no es pedir cerveza artesana, sin Coca Cola mexicana

Refugiados: Reducción a 50.000 (el problema es que se habla de motivos "religiosos"… y no parece que se hable de todas las religiones)

Va a haber una mayor complejidad en los visados extranjeros para trabajar:

Se quiere hacer desaparecer el H1B (el de los "investigadores" y "científicos" y el de muchos técnicos en Silicon Valley, el de "personas extraordinarias por su conocimiento o preparación")

L1, E1 y E2 se van a complicar – hay que demostrar que la persona es difícil de sustituir por un norteamericano y que va a ser "rentable" para USA

Medidas fiscales: reducción impuestos federales

El muro: se va a cargar un arancel del  20% al producto Mexicano para pagar muro

El presupuesto que baraja Trump los expertos lo multiplican x2 ó x3

La negación de la ratificación TPP que supone el 40% PIB mundial

Quiere renegociar NAFTA

La lucha contra el cambio climático va a dejar se user prioridad y se va a destinar el presupuesto a crear empleo

Amenaza con represalias contra China por manipuladora y debería prestar que tiene la mayor de reserva de deuda americana

Respecto a las reducción de impuestos, ya Stiglitz dice que no entrará tanto como para pagar lo que quiere invertir. Actualmente el tramo mas alto, 40% quiere reducirlo al 33% y dejar dos tramos más de 25% y el 12%

Además quiere reducir el impuesto de sociedades.

Se habla de un nuevo New Deal, aunque el New Deal tuvo muchos cambios y fue un proceso prueba-error. Esa (necesaria) mejora en infraestructuras va a tener costes uy elevados.

GANADORES
Farmacéuticas (por derogación Obama care)
Gas y petróleo (se quiere utilizar para potenciar la "reactivación industrial")
Infraestructuras (se quiere invertir en ellas)
Defensa (parque obsoleto)
Prestadores de servicios –outsourcers– (privatización cárceles)

PERDEDORES
Telecom y Media (mercados lat-am)
Renovables … dijo que es "cara y mata muchos pájaros" (no parece que eso les brinde un brillante futuro)
Automóviles con mucha fuerza de coreanos, japoneses y europeos  (muchas piezas se hacen en México, si van a tener que importarse con arancel… mal; si consigue repatriar la producción, quizá no tan mal futuro) 
México

50% 
Banca y Aseguradoras (liberalización de comisiones, pero problemas en su crecimiento en lat-am)
Aerolíneas y navieras
Retail y consumidor

PSED: Todo el problema… cortoplacismo

Me ha dicho que se pide aval de socio porque el dinero se le anticipa a la empresa, no al cliente de la empresa: "entonces, yo he visto que el cliente es solvente y lo acepto (el factoring) pero el anticipo requiere aval del socio en cualquier caso por la razón indicada.

Normativa del Banco de España, que si ve que no se ha hecho así les obliga a llevarlo a pérdidas, sin más (aunque vayan a cobrarlo seguro –que supongo que entonces lo sacan de pérdidas y pasa a "recuperados"–). 

Con aval no se lo hacen llevar a pérdidas.

Ese es todo el problema… cortoplacismo en los resultados (de los bancos).

Interpelado el dtor. de la oficina sobre si hacer lo que diga el banco de España, no conduciría a considerar entonces a toda la banca de carácter público en lugar de privado… me ha indicado que es la normativa, endurecida tras los años locos que causaron (se descubrieron) la crisis. 

Ahora las normas impiden esos desmanes y puede que sean demasiado rígidas.

Le he dicho que una entidad privada debería hacer lo que quisiera, prestar o no con o sin aval según su entender… pero, claro, si salía mal no debía venir nadie a rescatarlo (no una entidad púbica, al menos).

Me he quedado a gusto, pero no servirá de nada.

(conversación con un director de oficina… no concienzudo estudio con detalle de las normas y reglamentos)

Pensamiento

Sin

Elaborar

Demasiado

Algunas ideas sobre exportación

El desayuno Go Global organizado por IVACE, tuvo lugar el martes 11 de octubre tuve la suerte de asistir a un desayuno en formato mesa-redonda (las de los comensales, los ponentes de la mesa redonda se sentaron en realidad en una mesa rectangular en el estrado) sobre la experiencia de cuatro empresas valenciana en exportación.

LA IMPLANTACIÓN EN EL EXTERIOR, CUÁNDO CÓMO y POR QUÉ. CLAVES PARA EL ÉXITO.


Afortunadamente, el moderador de la mesa hizo un breve resumen de "apuntes" que me pareció muy acertado y que tengo el gusto de compartir.

• Parece que la tendencia actual es buscar modelos de nicho en lugar de modelos de mercado. Se busca más un tipo de cliente en todos los países donde se cree que se le puede encontrar, por contra a considerar un "mercado" (más abstracto) y su potencial.

• Lo importante en las implantaciones "fuera" es el equipo humano y la protección (y "normalización" añadiría yo) del saber hacer.

• Es de vital importancia trabajar con gente "sana", lo que supone aprendizaje, conviviencia y tiempo. Hay que ser pacientes.

• No hay una receta para decidir en una implantación en el exterior entre equipo local o "desplazado". Es una cuestión de mezcla y oportunidad.

• De una época en la que se buscaban agentes y distribuidores, hemos pasado a una época en la que se cree en las joint-ventures. Conocer un mercado requiere cinco años… paciencia, con aliados locales lo podremos acelerar.

• Factores de éxito para exportar:

          –Saber hacer bien las cosas
          –Tener sentido común
          –Ser humilde (no lo sabemos todo)
          –Ser resilientes
          –Tener ilusión

• Dos de los principales errores:

          –Equivocarse con los acompañantes
          –No proteger el saber hacer (y no necesariamente con patentes)

• Principales cambios que han de darse:

          –Conocer y aceptar otras culturas
          –Se necesita formación
          –Aprender idiomas
          –Pasar del comercio internacional a la internacionalización

• Si en el proceso de internacionalización no respetamos la filosofía de la "central" tendremos negocios en el exterior, no una empresa internacional/globalizada.

• Hay que perder el miedo a la fórmula de la implantación en otros mercados.

Sólo me queda una cuestión, la implantación fuera, sobre todo en procesos industriales intensivos en personal ¿no genera el riesgo de no crear empleo local (en origen) y de no generar ingresos fiscales?

Tech Slowdown Threatens the American Dream

Tech Slowdown Threatens the American Dream

For the records…

Entrepreneur, startups, founders… cuestión de matiz (y moda)

by @bfeld Do We Need A New Word For Entrepreneur? - Feld Thoughts

A raíz del "agotamiento" por exceso de uso del término emprendedor, Brad Feld plantea una serie de ideas interesante sobre la evolución del lenguaje.

In 2010, the Startup America Partnership finally got the US government to separate the notion of "small businesses" and "high growth businesses" The word "startup" was firmly introduced into our lexicon as shorthand for "high growth business" and now is a comfortable one.

Esta idea me ha recordado mucho a la entrada del cuento sobre 2 emprendedores.

For example, I think we are finally starting to differentiate between local businesses (your local restaurant, coffee shop, bookstore, gas station, movie theater, clothing store, art store, or anything else that sells to your local community) from a startup business (a company that might be small, but is selling to anyone anywhere in the world). … 

And then there are a several words trying to characterize different stages of startups. A scaleup is a startup that is scaling quickly. A gazelle, a word that has been around for a while and is becoming popular again, is a startup that has achieved critical mass and is a rapidly growing company, kind of like a scaleup, but falling comfortably into the animal taxonomy that seems to include unicorns and dragons.

Estas otras ideas me recuerdan el impresionante post de Paul Graham que habla también sobre que no es startup si no puede crecer MUCHO.

El CEO de BlackRock se queja del cortoplacismo…

“We believe that U.S. tax policy, as it stands, incentivizes short-term behavior"
BlackRock’s Chief, Laurence Fink, Urges Other C.E.O.s to Stop Being So Nice to Investors - NYTimes.com

“The effects of the short-termist phenomenon are troubling both to those seeking to save for long-term goals such as retirement and for our broader economy”

“innovation, skilled work forces or essential capital expenditures necessary to sustain long-term growth”

"a discouraging message about a company’s ability to use its resources wisely and develop a coherent plan to create value over the long term”

“Investors need to focus on long-term strategies and long-term outcomes,” Mr. Fink said, suggesting we’re currently living in a “gambling society.”

“We believe that U.S. tax policy, as it stands, incentivizes short-term behavior. Since when was one year considered a long-term investment? A more effective structure would be to grant long-term treatment only after three years, and then to decrease the tax rate for each year of ownership beyond that, potentially dropping to zero after 10 years.”

"In short, tax reform that promotes long-term investment will benefit both the companies who rely on capital markets and the hundreds of millions of people saving for retirement.”

To Mr. Fink, the shortsightedness that pervades corporate America is just a symptom of a larger issue. “This is not just a corporate problem,” he said. “It’s a societal problem, whether it’s health care or politics or business.”

Despite his protestations, Mr. Fink said, “There is nothing inherently wrong with returning capital to shareholders in a measured fashion.” He added, “Nor are the demands of activists necessarily at odds with the interests of other shareholders.” But it’s when it is taken to extremes — such as it seems to be in the current marketplace — that has Mr. Fink concerned.

Para pensar…

La Mentira en que Vivimos… The Lie We Live - YouTube

Aunque últimamente no estoy por la labor de fomentar demasiado los videos con titulares "conspiranóicos"… este tiene un serie de hechos y de afirmaciones que sí creo.

Efectivamente, el autor no ofrece soluciones –ni yo pienso hacerlo– pero la cosa me parece que es bastante creíble y estoy de acuerdo en que el cambio ha de venir de las personas.

Respecto a eso de las personas, ayer pensaba que somos 7.000 millones en el mundo… estas personas tan malas de las corporaciones, política en el peor sentido, corruptos, incluso los asesinos por cualquier fanatismo… no pueden ser muchos ¿no?
¿Cuántos? ¿40 millones? ¿100 millones, 200?

No se si quiero saber el número…

Pero creo que somos bastantes para intentar tomar decisiones que permitan corregir nuestros errores.

Desigualdad en el reparto de la riqueza en USA (gráfico animado, 2102)

 Aunque ya tenga algo de tiempo, no deja de ser muy interesante…

▶ Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

Tax Havens for Spain

Vía @Forbes_es…