Sunday, October 7, 2012

The Kondratieff Wave

The Kondratieff Wave

The Kondratieff Wave is an economic theory that states that Western capitalist economies are susceptible to extreme performance volatility as they expand and contract over the years. Unlike what is referred to as the business cycle, the Kondratieff Wave holds that these fluctuations are in fact part of a much longer cycle periods known as “super cycles” that last between 50-60 years or longer depending upon factors such as technology, life expectancy, etc. and thus must be examined over their entirety to be best understood.

It is our strong belief that today’s economist and market pundits are far too short-sighted in their approach in that their analysis is derived principally from recent segments of these super cycles and fails to recognize the hidden suspended tension accruing underneath that could unwind in a vicious manner as history has shown time and again.
The primary catalyst could be a single extraneous shock or the arrival of an inflection point that accumulated excesses are no longer able to be contained. Fresh signs of such excesses are now evident each passing week as the escalation of debt in the public and private sectors reveals the systemic weakness across many of the major credit market segments- mortgage backed securities, asset backed commercial paper, leveraged loans, and others. The contagion is approaching such a point that now more than ever we must come to understand the nature of these super cycles so we can mitigate the fallout of a mighty nuclear Kondratieff Winter. To proceed otherwise would render history unable to repeat itself.
The articles below each contribute a special component to the nature of the Kondratieff Wave theory.

Who Was Kondratieff?

Article from www.kwaves.com
To introduce the Kondratieff Theory, we must go back over seventy years and examine a remarkable story in economic history, encompassed within the life of one still little known man. I am certain that, in time, Kondratieff will rank with the giants of discovery as Einstein and Newton. Like these men, his insights have begun to alter radically and permanently our perceptions of economic history. The Kondratieff wave cycle goes through four distinct phases of beneficial inflation (spring), stagflation (summer), beneficial deflation (autumn), and deflation (winter). Since, the last Kontratyev cycle ended around 1949, we have seen beneficial inflation 1949-1966, stagflation 1966-1982, beneficial deflation 1982-2000 and according to Kondratieff, we are now in the (winter) deflation cycle which should lead to depression.

Professor Nickolai Kondratieff ( pronounced “Kon-DRA-tee-eff”) Shortly after the Russian Revolution of 1917, he helped develop the first Soviet Five-Year Plan , for which he analyzed factors that would stimulate Soviet economic growth. In 1926, Kondratieff published his findings in a report entitled, “Long Waves in Economic Life”. Based upon Kondratieff’s conclusions, his report was viewed as a criticism of Joseph Stalin’s stated intentions for the total collectivization of agriculture. Soon after, he was dismissed from his post as director of the Institute for the Study of Business Activity in 1928.
He was arrested in 1930 and sentenced to the Russian Gulag (prison); his sentence was reviewed in 1938, and he received the death penalty, which it is speculated was carried out that same year. Kondratieff’s major premise was that capitalist economies displayed long wave cycles of boom and bust ranging between 50-60 years in duration. Kondratieff’s study covered the period 1789 to 1926 and was centered on prices and interest rates. Kondratieff’s theories documented in the 1920’s were validated with the depression less than 10 years later.
Today, we are faced with another Kondratieff Winter (depression) when the majority of the world anticipates economic expansion. Each individual needs to weigh the risk of depression in light of Kondratieff’s work.
Accumulation and Consumption
U. S. wholesale prices dating back to 1800 show several periods of accumulation followed by periods of over consumption. Because these periods are statistically difficult to measure our outline follows historical events, pinpointing major changes in trend. During periods of relatively cheap prices, assets accumulate. As prices increase, the consumption of assets are necessary to maintain a standard of living. When new production fails to keep up with consumption, due to relatively high prices, the economy begins to decline to another period of cheap prices, and a new growth cycle begins.
Four Phases of One Cycle A Kondratieff cycle consists of four distinct phases, or distinguishable, dramatic mood changes, the tone of which determines the actions of individuals involved in the economy. The awareness of these characteristics allows for the anticipation of the change in the economy and the psychological mood that will prevail.
SPRING – Inflationary Growth Phase A common premise among business cycle economists supposes inflation as an inevitable part of growth. Government becomes a passive participant in the inflation cycle. Growth begins from a depressed economic base and expands in an ever-increasing spiral. The interaction of the participants within the economy causes wealth, as represented by savings, and the production of capital equipment to be accumulated for the future. The expansion of production and affluence causes prices to rise, and the increased volume of goods requires a higher velocity of money, thus creating a higher price structure.
Historically, the growth phase requires 25 years to complete. During this time, unemployment falls, wages and productivity rise and prices remain relatively stable. The mood of the growth phase is one of accumulation and the desire for new product manufacture.
Accompanying growth is a shift in social demands. As wealth is accumulated and new innovation introduced great upheavals and displacements take place. The process of social unrest builds with growth culminating in massive shifts in the way work is defined and the role of the participants in society.
SUMMER – Stagflation (Recession) Eventually, the continuation of exponential growth reaches its limits. Excess capital produces a shortage of key resources and the economy enters a period where growth creates a shortage of resources. An economy will only support expansion to the limits of its resources, both human and material.
The mood of affluence also brings a change in attitude towards work. As an economy gets closer to its limits inefficiencies build up
The imbalances of this period have been historically exaggerated by what can be labeled a “peak war”. Examples such as War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and Vietnam, came at the end of a very affluent period. These Wars produce strains on the economy increasing the impact of inflation. A dramatic drop in output, rapid rise in unemployment and unusually severe recession characterize this period. Although this primary recession is short lived lasting only three to five years, it is key in altering perceptions and the structure of the economy. No longer does excess create an abundance. The “Limits to Growth” now define a maximum level of economic activity that traps the economy into consolidation and tight bounds for the next 20-25 years. With the change comes a conservative shift in the popular mood reinforcing the limits.
AUTUMN – Deflationary Growth (Plateau Period) The primary recession occurs out of an imbalance forced upon the economy by real limitations. The rapid rise in prices and changes in production correct this imbalance — at least temporarily. The change in price structure, along with the mood of a population used to consumption accompanied by the vast accumulation of wealth from the past 30 years, causes the economy to enter a period of relatively flat growth and mild prosperity. Due to structural changes and the limits of the existing paradigm the economy becomes consumption oriented.
Excesses of an unpopular war, along with fiscal liberalism, cause popular reaction toward stability or normalcy. A mood of isolationism permeates . The plateau period generally lasts seven to ten years and is characterized by selective industry growth, development of new ideas ( both technological and social ) and a strong feelings of affluence, terminating in a feeling of euphoria. The inflated price structure from the primary recession, along with the desire for consumption, produces a rapid increase in debt. Eventually, wealth consumption expands beyond all practical limits, and economy slips into a severe and protracted depression.
WINTER – Depression Excesses of the plateau period effect a collapse of the price structure. This exhaustion of accumulated wealth forces the economy into a period of sharp retrenchment. Generally, the secondary depression entails a three year collapse, followed by a 15 year deflationary work out period. The deflation can best be seen in interest rates and wages that have shown a historic alignment with the timing of the Long Wave – peaking with and bottoming at the extremes.
Kondratieff viewed depressions as cleansing periods that allowed the economy to readjust from the previous excesses and begin a base for future growth. The characteristic of fulfilling the the expectations of the previous period of growth is realized within the Secondary Depression or Down Grade. This is a period of incremental innovation where technologies of the past period of growth are refined, made cheaper and more widely distributed. Incremental innovation consolidates industries.
The Down Grade sees one final period of recession before transitioning to a new period of growth. The final recession is mild with very low inflation and appears far more severe than it will be remembered for later in the Growth Cycle.
Within the Down Grade is a consolidation of social values or goals. Ideas and concepts introduced in the preceding period of growth while radical sounding at the time become integrated into the fabric of society. Often these social changes are supported by shifts in technology. The period of incremental innovation provides the framework for social integration.
It is important to realize the Long Wave as global. While global issues are of prime importance today with increased air travel and communication, the Long Wave defines a time table for geo political events. The Growth Period is one of political stability. Staring a the peak old alliances become challenged. Through the process of the Down Grade old alliances fail and new alliances are formed. The final stages of the Down Grade is a period of coalescing or “quickening” of the alliances that will govern the next period of growth.
Current Economic Cycles With four distinct phases in the K-wave a number of analysts have compared them to the seasons. Spring (inflationary growth, expansion), summer (stagflation, recession), autumn (deflationary growth, plateau) and winter (depression).
Our chart below summarizes the generally accepted phases since 1784 in the United States. We have noted the significant wars that accompanied the recession (price peak) and depression (trough) phase. We have also noted the tag name for the Autumn periods that were characterized by massive debt growth and speculative bubbles.

Many have argued as to whether the Kondratieff wave is valid for the post WW2 economy given the fiscal and monetary tools of a modern economy. Others have argued that trough of the K-wave has already passed. Their count is from the stock market trough of the Great Depression in 1932. Add the average 54-year K-wave period and we are in the spring expansion of the new K-wave.
But what the Kondratieff wave is about is a study of long cycles of debt buildup and repudiation. It is not exclusively about price inflation and deflation periods. Deflation is caused in part by the debt collapse. It is also a generational thing as the next cycle of debt buildup and collapse is renewed every 2-3 generations as the previous generation that went through comparable periods dies off. The old adage that “this time it is different” means the circumstances are different, yes, but they fail to recognize that the previous period was the same in terms of excesses and therefore the end result is the same.
Most analysts take the last K-wave to have made its final trough in 1949 when interest rates and prices bottomed. The effects of the Great Depression were softened by WW2 and it was in the 1950’s that the world firmly started to shake off the long two decades of depression and war. The K-wave has followed quite true to form with the solid growth and low inflation of the 1950’s and 1960’s followed by the commodity/price inflation and recession driven 1970’s. Commodity prices peaked in 1980.
Following the steep secondary recession of the early 1980’s the markets embarked into the Autumn K-wave plateau. We had stock market and real estate bubbles, a collapse in commodity prices, a collapse in interest rates and low inflation. But we also had a huge build up in debt that allowed us to buy our way out of the recessions of the early 1980’s and early 1990’s. Each succeeding recession required higher levels of debt to purchase an additional dollar of GDP.
Now the debt has become unsustainable and the ability to buy our way out of further problems is severely compromised. One only needs to look at the decade long nightmare of Japan to see that zero interest rates and all the stimulation in the world has failed to bring it out of its slump. We are witnessing merely the beginning of the debt implosion that inevitably follows the excesses.
The collapse of the tech market and NASDAQ, Enron, Aldelphia, K-Mart, Global Crossing, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson and numerous others are the corporate face of the scandals and the debt collapse. On the country side we have the implosion of Argentina and possibly Brazil, which would imperil all of Latin America. African countries never seem to be out of bankruptcy. As the job losses mount the consumer driven economy will fall into a deep funk and the consumer will go through their own debt implosion.
As occurred at the end of previous Autumn plateau K-wave’s (1920-1929) the winter that followed revealed numerous financial scandals. This one has been no different. Enron and WorldCom are big and visible but are they merely the tip of the iceberg? The Autumn plateau K-wave brings on excesses in both the stock market and the board room. Even the early part of the Autumn plateau K-wave had its share of scandals and debt implosions with the insider trading scandals of the 1980’s followed by the debt implosion and scandals of the Savings & Loans. If the 1990’s were a decade of loss of faith in government for its excesses of debt buildup then the first decade of the millennium will see the same occur with capitalism and the corporation.
One of the more intriguing characteristics of a K-wave winter is the buildup of sinister forces that are religious in nature. The 1930’s saw the rise of Nazism that led to WW2. But in an earlier generation K-wave winter in the latter quarter of the 19th century we saw the rise of the Klu Klux Klan as a backlash to the South losing the Civil War.
Today it is the so-called war on terrorism led allegedly by Muslim fundamentalist fanatics. There is a titanic religious war being played out. The Arab/Palestinian/Israeli conflict has the attention and imagination of conservative evangelistical religions in the United States. It is their belief that the current conflict was ordained in the Bible and will ultimately lead to the apocalypse. The President of the United States George W. Bush owes his election to these same conservative religious groups (as was Ronald Reagan before him). Many of his key aides are cut from the same cloth. Thus the many references to God and evil empires that dot President Bush’s speeches.
The religious right firmly backs only Israel in the conflict. They view Israel as integral to their fermentations of the coming apocalypse (Time Magazine – The Bible and the Apocalypse, July 1, 2002 Vol. 160). On the other side conservative fundamental groups, some of whom see glory in suicide bombings, are swaying the Muslim world.
We have entered the downside of the current K-wave. This wave could last anywhere from nine to twenty years as we saw in earlier winter K-waves. The K-wave is the rise and fall of a generation and covers both the social and economic life of the period. The ancient Mayans knew of the inevitability of the cycle and took steps to mitigate its effects (although ironically in the end it did not save them). Our challenge will be to see that we come through so that once again we can rebuild.
The current winter K-wave is still young. We have noted in the past that following a speculative bubble things have a tendency to return to where they started or stated another way the gains of the previous period are wiped out. Already some stocks such as Nortel Networks have fallen 98%. Other big names are just disappearing period. We highly suspect that the NASDAQ will ultimately lose at least 90% of its value from the top. That means a fall to at least 500 over the next decade. We have already fallen about 75%.
For the Dow Jones Industrials, in theory at least that could translate into a fall back to 1000. While that may be only for some super bears vivid imagination we believe that at a minimum the Dow Jones Industrials will ultimately fall at least 50%-60% or down to around 5000. The highs of January 2000 are but a dream for years to come.
The current 4-year stock cycle is coming to an end. Some thought it ended last September 21, 2001. It may still be in play and could bottom in early July 2002 although we suspect it will, following a summer rally, bottom later in the fall of 2002. That should set up a decent run in 2003, which should allow for graceful exits for those still caught in the malaise of the first big drop. That would set the next cycle bottom for around 2005/2006, which could be the ultimate low for the markets. Time of course will tell.
The Winter of the K-wave is a dangerous period. But it will be eased for those holding gold or gold stocks. That new bull market is still in its infancy and may yet face a significant shakeout to make its final bottom. But we would all be wise to hold at least a little gold. The winter of the K-wave is upon us.

THE KONDRATIEFF WAVE
Peaks and troughs are associated with major political or cultural events.

Summary Probably Kondratieff’s greatest contribution to the science of investment is not his observation the world economy operates in long cycles. Cycles would suggest a repetitive nature to events. While the underlying economic conditions will repeat over time due just to the physical nature of our world, our reactions will always be tempered by knowledge and experience. The history of man has been one long climb higher. Kondratieff recognized progress as the irreversible trend.
Imposed upon our progressive nature are the physical limits of life. It is the interaction of these physical limits with our dreams and aspirations that creates the constant push pull of the economy known as the Long Wave.http://kondratieffwinter.com/blog/?page_id=71

B.O.B. and Nicki Minaj’s “Out of My Mind” or How to Make Mind Control Entertaining

Again HOW can so many different actors/artists be in ????..............we r waking up !...

B.O.B. and Nicki Minaj’s “Out of My Mind” or How to Make Mind Control Entertaining


“Out of My Mind” is considered to be an upbeat and funny song about B.O.B. being completely crazy. A closer look at the song’s lyrics and video however reveal that it is yet another attempt to glamorize one of the elite’s most despicable practices: Mind Control Programming. We’ll look at B.O.B. and Nicki Minaj’s “Out of My Mind” and how it refers to Monarch Mind Control.

B.O.B.’s Out of My Mind is about him being a crazy so, fittingly enough, the video takes place in a mental institution. While most would stop their analysis there, a closer look at the song and video reveal that B.O.B. is getting a specific type of “treatment”. Some people are “out of their minds” due to mental health problems, but others are there by force. Those that have mental health problems usually get treated by competent people while those who “lost it” by force get treated extremely badly. They are violently abused and traumatized by sadistic handlers until they completely dissociate from reality – literally going “out of their minds”. This is what we call ritual abuse, the basis of Monarch Mind Control (for more information read the article Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control). Out of My Mind is a caricaturized, yet blatant, illustration of the process of Mind Control.
As we’ve seen in previous articles on Vigilant Citizen, making Monarch programming cool, fashionable and, ultimately, acceptable is an important part of the elite’s Agenda. On a regular basis, we see popular artists releasing material that is rife with Mind Control and Illuminati symbolism, in order to keep the elite’s Agenda fresh and new  – making sure it stays on TV, radio and getting plenty of hits on YouTube. Performed by two of rap’s hottest artists, Out of My Mind gives Mind Control imagery yet another go at the airwaves. Despite its disturbing nature, the video is presented in a lighthearted, sexy way, which comes across as positive and attractive to young viewers. Let’s look at the video’s main scenes.

B.O.B. is Not Receiving Proper Treatment

The video begins with B.O.B. and Nicki Minaj locked inside a cell and acting all crazy. On the wall behind them are carvings that appear to be made by someone that is crazy and paranoid, but, on closer look, one can decipher words and symbols directly referring to Illuminati mind control. There are several All-Seeing Eyes, a symbol that not only represents the occult elite, but is central in actual mind control programming. This ancient occult symbol is at the center of systems used to program MK slaves and was even used by the father of mind control, Josef Mengele.
“The All-Seeing Eye is placed in the center of Star’s systems, just like Mengele would put in an All-Seeing Eye.”
-  Fritz Springmeier, The Illuminati Formula to Create a Mind Control Slave
Behind B.O.B. are weird carvings such as the All-Seeing Eye inside a spaceship. There are also unsettling phrases such as “They are us” and “We are them”. Who are “They”? Is this a reference to the elite controlling these artists and making them their pawns? Hence …”We are them”?
Not only does the All-Seeing Eye represent the occult elite, it also represents constant surveillance and monitoring, that there is no escaping the handler’s grasp. For this reason, many MK slaves become obsessed with the symbol and find themselves drawing it everywhere.
“Because the slave is monitored from so many different unseen methods, it does begin to seem hopeless to some to ever be free of Big Brother. If you add to all this, that the slave has been programmed repeatedly that there is no escaping their All-seeing eyes, then it is easy to see why so many slaves acquiesce & just comply.”
- Fritz Springmeier, Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula
At the bottom left, we see a carving saying “They see” with a creepy eye in between. Who are “They”? Maybe the symbol right next to it bears the answer: An eye inside a triangle, symbol of the Illuminati.
While B.O.B. is jumping around in his cell, some unfriendly looking fellows, who do not appear to be caregivers, march toward his cell. At the center of them, an evil-looking, Josef Mengele-type appears ready to program the rapper.
Looking like a sadistic mad scientist, the man in the middle brings B.O.B. a straitjacket. He is accompanied by four agents dressed in riot gear.
At this point, it should be clear that B.O.B. is not at a typical mental health institution. He is at programming site, run by high level “scientists” and heavily armed governmental agents. As seen in previous articles, normalizing police state agents is also part of the Agenda.
B.O.B. is taken by force somewhere to probably be abused and tortured by the creepy scientist who is coldly looking over in the back.
Of course, the video sugarcoats the dark reality behind it, by making every appear fun! and sexy! Therefore, the tools used to torture B.O.B. are brought in by nurses in outfits that are .. .non-regulatory.
While Monarch programming is atrociously cruel, videos like this one make the concept trivial and even unconsciously positive to young, unaware viewers.
B.O.B.’s lyrics in the first verse refer to him being evaluated by “they” and even names classic mind control techniques. Here’s part of it:
“My brain is on vacation, they telling me
And I’m bi-polar to the severity
And I need medication, apparently
And some electrocompulsive therapy”
The main goal of mind control is to traumatize victims severely enough to cause them to completely dissociate from reality. Once this is accomplished, handlers can program new alter personas into the blank slate that their brain has become. While dissociated, MK slaves are literally “out of their minds”. In B.O.B.’s verse, the phrase “My brain is on vacation, they telling me” aptly describes an MK slave that has dissociated from reality. The lines “And I need medication, apparently/ And some electrocompulsive therapy” refer to two important techniques of Mind Control: The usage of drugs (“medication”) and electroshock torture.
“Another basic component of the Monarch program is lots of electroshock. Stun guns, staffs with hidden electric cattle prods, and cattle prods are frequently used on the slaves. Electroshock is used to create the dissociation from trauma during the programming, and later it is used to remove memories after the slave has carried out a mission, or to instill fear and obedience in a reluctant slave. Slaves generally carry horrible body memories of excruciating electro-shock tortures to their entire bodies. As the slaves begin a therapeutic deprogramming process they will recover these horrible memories, not to mention many other painful memories.”
- Ibid.
As if to emphasize the importance of this technique in the song, we hear an electroshock sound effect during B.O.B’s verse – a sound that probably terrifies actual MK victims.

Dr. Minaj

The next part of the video is B.O.B.’s “Psych Evaluation”, performed by “Dr.” Minaj. We soon realize that she is not there to hear about B.O.B’s feelings, but rather to practice a technique that is extensively employed by mind control handlers: To humiliate, insult and demean victims to further their trauma. Minaj proceeds to diss the hell out of B.O.B. and his career, making the rapper come close to tears. In this excerpt, she ridicules one of B.O.B’s hits:
“Now can we pretend them airplanes in the night skies
Are like shooting stars?
Well, you gon’ really need a wish right now
When my goons come through and start shooting stars”
Of course, in actual programming, handlers are a lot more cruel, sadistic and hurtful but the basic concept is nevertheless present.
Minaj then goes into stripper mode and hints to the fact that she might be under mind control herself.
Dr. Minaj removes her white coat to reveal a sexy outfit with a prominent leopard print pattern. In mind control, feline prints are used to identify Sex Kittens – products of Beta programming. Minaj’s stripper-like demeanor confirms her being a Sex Kitten.
It has been reported that MK handlers are often under mind control themselves and this scene appears to describe this fact.
Towards the end of her verse, Minaj says:
“You know, I graduated Summa Cum Laude
That’s why they thinking I’m Illuminati”
It is rather odd to refer to these “crazy Illuminati rumors” while playing the role of a MK slave/handler in a video promoting Monarch mind control. Also, nobody with even a little knowledge believes that Nicki is “part of the Illuminati”. Rather, she is one of the several pawns used by the industry to promote an Agenda … and she will probably be dropped as soon as her “cool factor” is gone, like hundreds of other pop stars before her.
In what appears to be a moment of lucidity, Minaj offers to free B.O.B. from his shackles. Her handler alter however appears to kick back in and she leaves the room somewhat confused and embarrassed.

Parole Board

After his weird encounter with Dr. Minaj, B.O.B. is taken to the parole board.
B.O.B. enters the room pushed by an over-armed police guy and with his head covered so he doesn’t know where he is. I’m pretty sure they don’t do that in regular mental institution. However, keeping victims confused and in the dark is a common tactic used Monarch programming.
While B.O.B. raps before the parole board, one of the judges gets all hot for B.O.B., asking him to call her. Yes kids, being a MK slave is very attractive.
The video ends with B.O.B. and Minaj looking lost and confused, asking repeatedly “If I’m here … and you’re there … and I’m here … and you’re there”. Hmm, are they confused about who they are? About their core and alter personalities? That’s how MK slaves feel. B.O.B. then whispers to Minaj: “Shhh … they might be listening”.

In Conclusion

At first glance, Out of My Mind appears to be a fun song about being wild and crazy, but a closer look at the lyrics and the video reveals that it actually refers to extremely specific aspects of Monarch Mind Control. Once this fact is known, the song suddenly stops being fun and turns into a disturbing case of normalizing and glamorizing of the cruel practice that is Mind Control. We see and hear references to trauma, dissociation, being drugged, electrocuted, roughed up by government agents and even manipulated by handlers. While all of this sounds horrible written out, catchy rhymes and sexy nurses make the pill easy to swallow for young viewers who will probably jump around screaming “I’m out of my f*cking mind!”.
In the end, Out of My Mind is yet another example of the elite’s Agenda being marketed to young music fans. Mind control is heavily used by the elite to keep a stronghold on various areas of power, particularly the entertainment industry. While not all pop artists are victims of Mind Control, most have signed contracts that make them pawns of the occult elite, and force them to give up control of their creative creations. While rappers used to be about “fighting the power” and “representing the streets”, they are now seen in cells, confused, and abused by cops and mad scientists, talking about being electroshocked. The music industry has been hijacked, folks … and while videos like this may make it obvious to some, most will just laugh and say “You’re out of your mind”...............................http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/b-o-b-and-nicki-minajs-out-of-my-mind-or-how-to-make-mind-control-entertaining/

Mass Media Promoting Transhumanism: the “Mind-Blowing Benefits of Merging Human Brains and Computers

Mass Media Promoting Transhumanism: the “Mind-Blowing Benefits of Merging Human Brains and Computers”


Ray Kurzweil in Time Magazine
We’ve seen in previous articles (notably in The Transhumanist and Police State Agenda in Pop Music) that the concept of transhumanism, which can be defined as the merging of humans and robots, is being abundantly promoted in music videos, movies and video games. On top of this “indirect” kind of promotion, transhumanism is being sold through more direct channels such as documentaries, television features and news reports. The main face of the movement is the American inventor Ray Kurzweil who has recently been on a massive PR campaign to promote what he calls “Singularity” (a term that is probably less threatening than “transhumanism”).
Kurzweil is however not a lone nut with a crazy futuristic dream. He works in collaboration with the world’s most powerful people in business and politics. For example, in February 2009, Kurzweil collaborated with Google and the NASA Ames Research Center, to create the Singularity University training center for corporate executives and government officials. The University’s self-described mission is to “assemble, educate and inspire a cadre of leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies and apply, focus and guide these tools to address humanity’s grand challenges”. It is safe to say that transhumanism is not only the goal of one man but of the entire global elite. For this reason, the merging of humans and robots is not only promoted as something “cool” and positive in mass media, it is announced, despite its potential pitfalls, as an inevitability.
Here’s an article from the Daily Mail about Singularity. It bares the typical “overwhelmingly-positive-but-with-a-hint-of-obligatory-criticism-to-appear-objective” tone most mainstream news sources use when covering the issue.

Hitler would have loved The Singularity: Mind-blowing benefits of merging human brains and computers

Of all the tall tales in the science-fiction TV series Star Trek, what impressed me most when I was a  little boy was the Vulcan mind meld.
Laying his hands on the head of a human (or, in one of the films, a humpback whale), Mr Spock could, for a moment, dissolve the distance between two living things.
Each experienced everything the other felt, thought, knew and saw.
Now it seems scientists are about to make the Vulcan mind meld a reality – and go far beyond it.
Ten years ago, the US National Science Foundation predicted ‘network-enhanced telepathy’ – sending thoughts over the internet – would be practical by the 2020s.
Brain
Man and machine: Computers could soon be hardwired into the human brain and unlock amazing powers
And thanks to neuroscientists at the University of California, we seem to be on schedule.
Last September, they asked volunteers to watch Hollywood film trailers and then reconstructed the clips by scanning their subjects’ brain activity.
‘We’re opening a window into the movies in our minds,’ Professor Jack Gallant announced.
Last week, the scientists boldly went further still. They charted the electrical activity in the brains of volunteers who were listening to human speech and then they fed the results into computers which translated the signals back into language.
The technique remains crude, and has so far made out only five distinct words, but humanity has crossed a threshold.
We can now read people’s minds. On Star Trek, the Vulcan mind meld had medical benefits, curing a nasty imaginary infection called Pa’nar syndrome.
Science fact soon?: The Vulcan mind meld
Science fact?: Harnessing the power of the mind was a favourite of science fiction, including Star Trek's Vulcan mind meld
But the new breakthroughs promise to deliver much greater – and real – benefits.
No longer need strokes and neurodegenerative diseases rob people of speech because we can turn their brainwaves directly into words.
But this is only the beginning. Neuroscientists are going to make the mind meld look like child’s play. Mankind is merging with its machines.
The process began centuries ago with simple devices such as eyeglasses and ear trumpets that could dramatically improve human lives.
Then came better machines, such as hearing aids; and then machines that could save lives, including pacemakers and dialysis machines.
By the second decade of the 21st Century, we have become used to organs grown in laboratories, genetic surgery and designer babies.
In 2002, medical researchers used enzymes and DNA to build the first molecular computers, and in 2004 improved versions were being injected into people’s veins to fight cancer.
By 2020 we may be able to put even cleverer nanocomputers into our brains to speed up  synaptic links, give ourselves perfect memory and perhaps cure dementia.
But inserting technology into human brains is not the only thing going on. Some scientists also want to insert human brains into technology.
Since the Sixties, computer chips have been doubling their speed and halving their cost every 18 months or so.
If the trend continues, the inventor and predictor Ray Kurzweil has pointed out that by 2029 we will have computers powerful enough to run programs  reproducing the 10,000 trillion electrical signals that flash around your skull every second.
They will also have enough memory to store the ten trillion recollections that make you  who you are.
Adolf Hitler
Dangerous technology: The huge potential unlocked by the technology raises frightening prospects if it were to be used by evil dictators like Adolf Hitler
And they will also be powerful enough to scan, neuron by neuron, every contour and wrinkle of your brain.
What this means is that if the trends of the past 50 years continue, in 17 years’ time we will be able to upload an electronic replica of your mind on to a machine.
There will be two  of you – one a flesh-and-blood animal, the other inside a computer’s circuits.
And if the trends hold fast beyond that, Kurzweil adds, by 2045 we will have a computer that is powerful enough to host every one of the eight billion minds on Earth.
Carbon and  silicon-based intelligence will merge to form a single global consciousness.
Kurzweil calls this ‘The Singularity’, a moment when ‘the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep . . . that technology appears to be expanding at infinite speed’.
At that point, we will have  left the Vulcan mind meld far behind. But even this may not be the end of the story.
Much of the research behind last week’s breakthrough in brain science was funded not by universities but by DARPA, the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency.
It was DARPA that brought us the internet (then called the Arpanet) in the Seventies, and DARPA’s Brain Interface Project was a pioneer in molecular computing.
More recently, DARPA’s Silent Talk programme has been exploring mind-reading technology with devices that can pick up the electrical signals inside soldiers’ brains and send them over the internet.
With these implants, entire armies will be able to talk without radios. Orders will leap instantly into soldiers’ heads and commanders’ wishes will become the wishes of their men. Hitler would have loved it.
Thing of the past: Advances in technology could revolutionise the way armies communicate
Thing of the past: Advances in technology could revolutionise the way armies communicate
U.S. Special Forces soldier
Cyborg-soldier: The defence industry could soon try implanting computer technology into the brain of soldiers
Some of the clearest thinking about the new technologies has been done in the world’s departments of defence, and the conclusions the soldiers draw are alarming.
For example, US Army Colonel Thomas Adams thinks that military technology is already moving beyond what he calls ‘human space’, as robotic weapons become ‘too fast, too small, too numerous, and . . . create an environment too complex for humans to direct’.
Technology, Col Adams suspects, is ‘rapidly taking us to a place where we may not want to go, but probably are unable to avoid’.
As goes war, so,  perhaps, goes everything else. The merging of mankind and its machines that Kurzweil predicts for the mid-21st Century may, in fact, turn out just to be a lay-by on the way to a very different destination.
Later in the century, what we condescendingly call ‘artificial’ intelligence might replace us humans just as thoroughly as we humans once replaced all our evolutionary ancestors.
All this will come to pass . . .  unless, of course, it doesn’t. Maybe the trends Kurzweil and Col Adams identify will slow down, or even stall altogether.
And maybe the critics who mockingly call the Singularity ‘the Rapture for Nerds’ will be proved right.
But on the other hand, maybe the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Richard Smalley is closer to the truth when he points out: ‘When a scientist says something is possible, they’re probably underestimating how long it will take.
But if they say it’s impossible, they’re probably wrong.’
The University of California’s neuroscientists have taken us one more step towards a final frontier far beyond anything dreamed of in Star Trek.
- Source: Daily Mailhttp://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/mass-media-promoting-transhumanism-the-mind-blowing-benefits-of-merging-human-brains-and-computers/

Economics Of Abundance Getting Some Well Deserved Attention

Thomas Jefferson, who famously said:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property..........

Economics Of Abundance Getting Some Well Deserved Attention

from the about-time dept

It's great to see Chris Anderson getting lots of attention for his recent talk on "the economics of abundance," because it's exactly the type of thing that a lot of people have been discussing for a while -- but still hasn't permeated the mainstream. In fact, it's quite similar to the talk I gave at the Cato Institute back in April in discussing why certain people seemed to have so much trouble grasping the economics of the digital age. Basically, it's the problem that occurs when people focus too hard on the idea that economics is the study of resource allocation in the presence of scarcity. That only makes sense when there's scarcity -- and in digital goods, scarcity doesn't exist.

Dave Hornik has a wonderful post about Anderson's talk while Ross Mayfield is also discussing how he's come to realize that the economics of scarcity doesn't apply digitally. Now, if we stuck with the focus on "scarcity," then I should be upset that these two are basically repeating the "idea" I discussed back in April. Those who keep harping on the importance of "property" and love to say that you can "steal" content might even say that this idea was "stolen." That, obviously, is ridiculous. These are basic ideas that we have all realized is fundamental and a truth of economics. And, it's hardly a new idea (which is why my one quibble with Anderson's own post is his decision to call the idea of the economics of abundance a "radical attack"). Mayfield talks about those who helped him realize it, from Jerry Michalski to Howard Rheingold. In the comments to that post, Julian Bond brings up the ideas of Buckminster Fuller and and Alan Cooper. In my case, the inspiration came from many different people, including the teachings of Alan McAdams (my old mentor and professor) and the writings of Brian Arthur (who focused on "increasing marginal returns" rather than diminishing ones) and even back to Thomas Jefferson, who famously said:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

So, no, it's not a new idea at all -- and yet, many people still don't seem to want to understand it. They don't believe that the free market can function with a lack of scarcity. It's understandable why that could make some uncomfortable -- but, it's a fundamental misunderstanding based on this desire to force scarcity where there is none, just so economics can continue to be the study of scarcity. It's this inability to get rid of that scarcity thinking that's holding back a number of developments these days, and the more people who realize this and the more people talking about this, the better. And it is fitting with the theory of abundance. The more abundant this discussion is, the more likely people will grasp it. And, it's especially exciting that someone like Chris Anderson is pitching it, because of his ability to take complex economic ideas and make them easy to understand, while getting people to listen. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a widespread discussion about this topic....http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061026/102329.shtml

Inside the (Increasingly American) Start-up Boom in Brazil Taxes are prohibitively high, and the red tape is miles long. But a growing number of American entrepreneurs and VCs are putting down roots in Brazil. They want you to join. sao paulo shutterstock images Sao Paulo, Brazil 207 inShare If you're an American entrepreneur starting a company in Brazil, chances are you've heard of Kimball Thomas and Davis Smith. Last October, the two cousins founded Baby.com.br, an e-commerce site that's often compared to Diapers.com in the United States. After just nine months in business, they might be considered newbies by Silicon Valley standards, but in São Paulo, Thomas and Smith are already becoming part of the old guard. With 115 employees and $21 million in funding, Baby is widely considered to be the poster child for American entrepreneurial success in this nascent tech start-up scene. As such, Thomas and Smith have become a valuable lifeline for other ex-pat entrepreneurs struggling to navigate the bureaucratic hell that is starting a business in Brazil. "Down here," Thomas says, "relationships are currency." Brazil is a notoriously difficult place to start a business. It is ranked No. 126 on the World Bank's list of best places to do business. By the World Bank's measure, it would be much easier to start a business in, say, Ethiopia (No. 111). In Brazil, business owners spend 2,600 hours each year preparing their taxes, and simply registering your business can take 119 days. Still, over the past few years, a rapidly expanding group of entrepreneurs and investors are finding that the opportunities for growth in Brazil are worth withstanding the bureaucratic migraine. As this ecosystem expands, launching a business in Brazil is becoming a much less scary prospect. In fact, it's quite an attractive one. Add to that the fact that Brazil is now the second-biggest market for Facebook and Twitter, and is home to more mobile phones than people: Really, it's no wonder entrepreneurs are packing up and moving to São Paulo. For starters, the Brazilian middle class now accounts for more than half the population of the country. Although just 40 percent of Brazilians currently use the Internet, Brazilians reportedly spend some $13 billion a year on e-commerce. Add to that the fact that Brazil is now the second-biggest market for Facebook and Twitter, and is home to more mobile phones than people: Really, it's no wonder entrepreneurs are packing up and moving to São Paulo. The money's flowing in, too. A source close to Sequoia Capital reports the venture capital firm is currently setting up an office in Brazil, and last week, the global venture capital firms Redpoint and e.ventures made headlines when they closed a $130 million fund that will focus exclusively on Brazil. "The country's at a really interesting inflection point," says Yann DeVries, who's heading up the Redpoint e.ventures fund. "Since there's a relative lack of experienced Internet entrepreneurs here, those who have built businesses in Silicon Valley and elsewhere now have the opportunity to bring their know-how to Brazil." Thomas and Smith, in many ways, embody that blueprint. In 2010, they were both in M.B.A. programs at Ivy League schools--Thomas at Harvard and Smith at Wharton. Having previously founded one successful business called PoolTables.com (which sold, of all things, pool tables), they were itching to start something new. After a chance conversation with a Brazilian classmate about how tough it is to find baby products in Brazil, Smith called Thomas to ask what he thought about launching a baby-focused e-commerce site in Brazil. They spent a year researching the market, and in July of last year, Thomas and Smith moved to São Paulo, along with their wives and children, to launch Baby. "At that point, we were still pretty early for expat entrepreneurs," Thomas says. "We didn’t really have a touch point in Brazil yet." Without a clearly defined model to follow, the two co-founders ran into obstacle after obstacle. For example, they launched Baby while still on tourist visas. According to Thomas, they were certain that their working visas would arrive before their six months as tourists were up. Not quite. Just three months after Baby.com.br went live, Thomas and Smith were forced to return to the United States and spend the entire month of January waiting for their visas to clear, thousands of miles from their brand-new business. "We've had to learn the hard way how to get things done around here," Thomas says. "We’re trying to pass those lessons on to other newcomers." Thomas and Smith have now turned Baby's São Paulo headquarters into something of an informal incubator. Since last year, it has provided free office space to seven new businesses, including three founded by Americans. In a city as expensive as São Paulo, free work space is valuable, and the advice Baby's staff freely offers to newcomers is priceless. Florian Hagenbuch and Mate Pencz began working out of Baby's offices when they moved to São Paulo in May to co-found Printi, an online printing service. According to Hagenbuch, when he was transferring Printi's seed capital from the United States to Brazil, the Brazilian bank he'd been working with reneged on its offer to do business with Printi at the last minute. Afraid he wouldn't have enough money to pay Printi's suppliers and employees in time, Hagenbuch asked Baby's CFO for help. Within an hour, Baby's own bank manager arrived at the office. Three hours later, Printi's account was cleared. "It was absolutely unbelievable," Hagenbuch says. "We were able to complete the transfer in time and would never have been able to pull it off without them." Daniel Hatkoff, founder of Pitzi, a subscription repair service for mobile phones, agrees. "There are so many resources down here that didn't exist a couple years ago," says Hatkoff, who also launched his business out of Baby's headquarters. "There's a chain of knowledge now that makes it easier for newcomers to get off the ground." Recommended Videos How a Disaster on Everest Inspired an Entrepreneur Leader in Motion: How Choreographer Bill T. Jones Collaborates Intuit's Scott Cook on Failed Global Expansion: 'We Should've Known Better' Of course, Brazilian entrepreneurs are also a key part of that ecosystem. Rio de Janeiro is now home to an incubator called 21212, which is modeled after Y Combinator. Co-founded by an American, Benjamin White, along with Brazilian entrepreneur Marcelo Sales, 21212's mission is to bridge the gap between native and foreign business owners. According to White, there is no shortage of local talent within the country. What's lacking are connections to established investors. The goal is to keep promising talent from leaving the country in search of those contacts, as was the case when São Paulo native Mike Krieger set off for Stanford in 2004, only to co-found Instagram a few years later. Instead, 21212 hopes to bring those contacts to Brazil, and part of that process will involve matching local entrepreneurs with talented expats. "Trying to set up a company as a foreign entrepreneur is difficult stuff, so I think if you can team a Brazilian entrepreneur who can navigate the environment with a foreign entrepreneur with contacts in the U.S., it’s a perfect mix," White says. In March, 21212 held its first demo day, and though the majority of the 19 companies had Brazilian founders, White says he expects to see many more Americans flock to the incubator in the coming year. "As more capital gets deployed in the consumer Internet space, it'll have a dramatic impact on how quickly the ecosystem evolves," White says. "Everyone knows the wave is coming, and if you're not in the water, you're never going to catch it.

Guess "WHO" they are starting to move towards?(BRIC) .....

Inside the (Increasingly American) Start-up Boom in Brazil

Taxes are prohibitively high, and the red tape is miles long. But a growing number of American entrepreneurs and VCs are putting down roots in Brazil. They want you to join.
sao paulo
Sao Paulo, Brazil
 
207
Share
If you're an American entrepreneur starting a company in Brazil, chances are you've heard of Kimball Thomas and Davis Smith.
Last October, the two cousins founded Baby.com.br, an e-commerce site that's often compared to Diapers.com in the United States. After just nine months in business, they might be considered newbies by Silicon Valley standards, but in São Paulo, Thomas and Smith are already becoming part of the old guard. With 115 employees and $21 million in funding, Baby is widely considered to be the poster child for American entrepreneurial success in this nascent tech start-up scene.
As such, Thomas and Smith have become a valuable lifeline for other ex-pat entrepreneurs struggling to navigate the bureaucratic hell that is starting a business in Brazil.
"Down here," Thomas says, "relationships are currency."
Brazil is a notoriously difficult place to start a business. It is ranked No. 126 on the World Bank's list of best places to do business. By the World Bank's measure, it would be much easier to start a business in, say, Ethiopia (No. 111). In Brazil, business owners spend 2,600 hours each year preparing their taxes, and simply registering your business can take 119 days. Still, over the past few years, a rapidly expanding group of entrepreneurs and investors are finding that the opportunities for growth in Brazil are worth withstanding the bureaucratic migraine. As this ecosystem expands, launching a business in Brazil is becoming a much less scary prospect. In fact, it's quite an attractive one.
Add to that the fact that Brazil is now the second-biggest market for Facebook and Twitter, and is home to more mobile phones than people: Really, it's no wonder entrepreneurs are packing up and moving to São Paulo.
For starters, the Brazilian middle class now accounts for more than half the population of the country. Although just 40 percent of Brazilians currently use the Internet, Brazilians reportedly spend some $13 billion a year on e-commerce. Add to that the fact that Brazil is now the second-biggest market for Facebook and Twitter, and is home to more mobile phones than people: Really, it's no wonder entrepreneurs are packing up and moving to São Paulo.
The money's flowing in, too. A source close to Sequoia Capital reports the venture capital firm is currently setting up an office in Brazil, and last week, the global venture capital firms Redpoint and e.ventures made headlines when they closed a $130 million fund that will focus exclusively on Brazil.
"The country's at a really interesting inflection point," says Yann DeVries, who's heading up the Redpoint e.ventures fund. "Since there's a relative lack of experienced Internet entrepreneurs here, those who have built businesses in Silicon Valley and elsewhere now have the opportunity to bring their know-how to Brazil."
Thomas and Smith, in many ways, embody that blueprint. In 2010, they were both in M.B.A. programs at Ivy League schools--Thomas at Harvard and Smith at Wharton. Having previously founded one successful business called PoolTables.com (which sold, of all things, pool tables), they were itching to start something new. After a chance conversation with a Brazilian classmate about how tough it is to find baby products in Brazil, Smith called Thomas to ask what he thought about launching a baby-focused e-commerce site in Brazil. They spent a year researching the market, and in July of last year, Thomas and Smith moved to São Paulo, along with their wives and children, to launch Baby.
"At that point, we were still pretty early for expat entrepreneurs," Thomas says. "We didn’t really have a touch point in Brazil yet." Without a clearly defined model to follow, the two co-founders ran into obstacle after obstacle. For example, they launched Baby while still on tourist visas. According to Thomas, they were certain that their working visas would arrive before their six months as tourists were up. Not quite. Just three months after Baby.com.br went live, Thomas and Smith were forced to return to the United States and spend the entire month of January waiting for their visas to clear, thousands of miles from their brand-new business.
"We've had to learn the hard way how to get things done around here," Thomas says. "We’re trying to pass those lessons on to other newcomers."
Thomas and Smith have now turned Baby's São Paulo headquarters into something of an informal incubator. Since last year, it has provided free office space to seven new businesses, including three founded by Americans. In a city as expensive as São Paulo, free work space is valuable, and the advice Baby's staff freely offers to newcomers is priceless.
Florian Hagenbuch and Mate Pencz began working out of Baby's offices when they moved to São Paulo in May to co-found Printi, an online printing service. According to Hagenbuch, when he was transferring Printi's seed capital from the United States to Brazil, the Brazilian bank he'd been working with reneged on its offer to do business with Printi at the last minute. Afraid he wouldn't have enough money to pay Printi's suppliers and employees in time, Hagenbuch asked Baby's CFO for help. Within an hour, Baby's own bank manager arrived at the office. Three hours later, Printi's account was cleared.
"It was absolutely unbelievable," Hagenbuch says. "We were able to complete the transfer in time and would never have been able to pull it off without them."
Daniel Hatkoff, founder of Pitzi, a subscription repair service for mobile phones, agrees. "There are so many resources down here that didn't exist a couple years ago," says Hatkoff, who also launched his business out of Baby's headquarters. "There's a chain of knowledge now that makes it easier for newcomers to get off the ground."
Of course, Brazilian entrepreneurs are also a key part of that ecosystem. Rio de Janeiro is now home to an incubator called 21212, which is modeled after Y Combinator. Co-founded by an American, Benjamin White, along with Brazilian entrepreneur Marcelo Sales, 21212's mission is to bridge the gap between native and foreign business owners. According to White, there is no shortage of local talent within the country. What's lacking are connections to established investors.
The goal is to keep promising talent from leaving the country in search of those contacts, as was the case when São Paulo native Mike Krieger set off for Stanford in 2004, only to co-found Instagram a few years later. Instead, 21212 hopes to bring those contacts to Brazil, and part of that process will involve matching local entrepreneurs with talented expats.
"Trying to set up a company as a foreign entrepreneur is difficult stuff, so I think if you can team a Brazilian entrepreneur who can navigate the environment with a foreign entrepreneur with contacts in the U.S., it’s a perfect mix," White says.
In March, 21212 held its first demo day, and though the majority of the 19 companies had Brazilian founders, White says he expects to see many more Americans flock to the incubator in the coming year.
"As more capital gets deployed in the consumer Internet space, it'll have a dramatic impact on how quickly the ecosystem evolves," White says. "Everyone knows the wave is coming, and if you're not in the water, you're never going to catch it.
Taxes are prohibitively high, and the red tape is miles long. But a growing number of American entrepreneurs and VCs are putting down roots in Brazil. They want you to join.
sao paulo
Sao Paulo, Brazil
 
207
Share
If you're an American entrepreneur starting a company in Brazil, chances are you've heard of Kimball Thomas and Davis Smith.
Last October, the two cousins founded Baby.com.br, an e-commerce site that's often compared to Diapers.com in the United States. After just nine months in business, they might be considered newbies by Silicon Valley standards, but in São Paulo, Thomas and Smith are already becoming part of the old guard. With 115 employees and $21 million in funding, Baby is widely considered to be the poster child for American entrepreneurial success in this nascent tech start-up scene.
As such, Thomas and Smith have become a valuable lifeline for other ex-pat entrepreneurs struggling to navigate the bureaucratic hell that is starting a business in Brazil.
"Down here," Thomas says, "relationships are currency."
Brazil is a notoriously difficult place to start a business. It is ranked No. 126 on the World Bank's list of best places to do business. By the World Bank's measure, it would be much easier to start a business in, say, Ethiopia (No. 111). In Brazil, business owners spend 2,600 hours each year preparing their taxes, and simply registering your business can take 119 days. Still, over the past few years, a rapidly expanding group of entrepreneurs and investors are finding that the opportunities for growth in Brazil are worth withstanding the bureaucratic migraine. As this ecosystem expands, launching a business in Brazil is becoming a much less scary prospect. In fact, it's quite an attractive one.
Add to that the fact that Brazil is now the second-biggest market for Facebook and Twitter, and is home to more mobile phones than people: Really, it's no wonder entrepreneurs are packing up and moving to São Paulo.
For starters, the Brazilian middle class now accounts for more than half the population of the country. Although just 40 percent of Brazilians currently use the Internet, Brazilians reportedly spend some $13 billion a year on e-commerce. Add to that the fact that Brazil is now the second-biggest market for Facebook and Twitter, and is home to more mobile phones than people: Really, it's no wonder entrepreneurs are packing up and moving to São Paulo.
The money's flowing in, too. A source close to Sequoia Capital reports the venture capital firm is currently setting up an office in Brazil, and last week, the global venture capital firms Redpoint and e.ventures made headlines when they closed a $130 million fund that will focus exclusively on Brazil.
"The country's at a really interesting inflection point," says Yann DeVries, who's heading up the Redpoint e.ventures fund. "Since there's a relative lack of experienced Internet entrepreneurs here, those who have built businesses in Silicon Valley and elsewhere now have the opportunity to bring their know-how to Brazil."
Thomas and Smith, in many ways, embody that blueprint. In 2010, they were both in M.B.A. programs at Ivy League schools--Thomas at Harvard and Smith at Wharton. Having previously founded one successful business called PoolTables.com (which sold, of all things, pool tables), they were itching to start something new. After a chance conversation with a Brazilian classmate about how tough it is to find baby products in Brazil, Smith called Thomas to ask what he thought about launching a baby-focused e-commerce site in Brazil. They spent a year researching the market, and in July of last year, Thomas and Smith moved to São Paulo, along with their wives and children, to launch Baby.
"At that point, we were still pretty early for expat entrepreneurs," Thomas says. "We didn’t really have a touch point in Brazil yet." Without a clearly defined model to follow, the two co-founders ran into obstacle after obstacle. For example, they launched Baby while still on tourist visas. According to Thomas, they were certain that their working visas would arrive before their six months as tourists were up. Not quite. Just three months after Baby.com.br went live, Thomas and Smith were forced to return to the United States and spend the entire month of January waiting for their visas to clear, thousands of miles from their brand-new business.
"We've had to learn the hard way how to get things done around here," Thomas says. "We’re trying to pass those lessons on to other newcomers."
Thomas and Smith have now turned Baby's São Paulo headquarters into something of an informal incubator. Since last year, it has provided free office space to seven new businesses, including three founded by Americans. In a city as expensive as São Paulo, free work space is valuable, and the advice Baby's staff freely offers to newcomers is priceless.
Florian Hagenbuch and Mate Pencz began working out of Baby's offices when they moved to São Paulo in May to co-found Printi, an online printing service. According to Hagenbuch, when he was transferring Printi's seed capital from the United States to Brazil, the Brazilian bank he'd been working with reneged on its offer to do business with Printi at the last minute. Afraid he wouldn't have enough money to pay Printi's suppliers and employees in time, Hagenbuch asked Baby's CFO for help. Within an hour, Baby's own bank manager arrived at the office. Three hours later, Printi's account was cleared.
"It was absolutely unbelievable," Hagenbuch says. "We were able to complete the transfer in time and would never have been able to pull it off without them."
Daniel Hatkoff, founder of Pitzi, a subscription repair service for mobile phones, agrees. "There are so many resources down here that didn't exist a couple years ago," says Hatkoff, who also launched his business out of Baby's headquarters. "There's a chain of knowledge now that makes it easier for newcomers to get off the ground."
Of course, Brazilian entrepreneurs are also a key part of that ecosystem. Rio de Janeiro is now home to an incubator called 21212, which is modeled after Y Combinator. Co-founded by an American, Benjamin White, along with Brazilian entrepreneur Marcelo Sales, 21212's mission is to bridge the gap between native and foreign business owners. According to White, there is no shortage of local talent within the country. What's lacking are connections to established investors.
The goal is to keep promising talent from leaving the country in search of those contacts, as was the case when São Paulo native Mike Krieger set off for Stanford in 2004, only to co-found Instagram a few years later. Instead, 21212 hopes to bring those contacts to Brazil, and part of that process will involve matching local entrepreneurs with talented expats.
"Trying to set up a company as a foreign entrepreneur is difficult stuff, so I think if you can team a Brazilian entrepreneur who can navigate the environment with a foreign entrepreneur with contacts in the U.S., it’s a perfect mix," White says.
In March, 21212 held its first demo day, and though the majority of the 19 companies had Brazilian founders, White says he expects to see many more Americans flock to the incubator in the coming year.
"As more capital gets deployed in the consumer Internet space, it'll have a dramatic impact on how quickly the ecosystem evolves," White says. "Everyone knows the wave is coming, and if you're not in the water, you're never going to catch it.

Pro t Leak? Pre-Release File Sharing and the Music Industry

http://www.serci.org/2012/Hammond.pdf                       ......................................Great Read!

Is there really quantifiable evidence that piracy is doing the kind of harm …

SOPA, Internet regulation, and the economics of piracy

Is there really quantifiable evidence that piracy is doing the kind of harm …

Earlier this month, I detailed at some length why claims about the purported economic harms of piracy, offered by supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA), ought to be treated with much more skepticism than they generally get from journalists and policymakers.  My own view is that this ought to be rather secondary to the policy discussion: SOPA and PIPA would be ineffective mechanisms for addressing the problem, and a terrible idea for many other reasons, even if the numbers were exactly right. No matter how bad last season's crops were, witch burnings are a poor policy response.  Fortunately, legislators finally seem to be cottoning on to this: SOPA now appears to be on ice for the time being, and PIPA's own sponsors are having second thoughts about mucking with the Internet's Domain Name System.
That said, I remain a bit amazed that it's become an indisputable premise in Washington that there's an enormous piracy problem, that it's having a devastating  impact on US content industries, and that some kind of aggressive new legislation is needed tout suite to stanch the bleeding. Despite the fact that the Government Accountability Office recently concluded that it is "difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the net effect of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy as a whole," our legislative class has somehow determined that—among all the dire challenges now facing the United States—this is an urgent priority. Obviously, there's quite a lot of copyrighted material circulating on the Internet without authorization, and other things equal, one would like to see less of it. But does the best available evidence show that this is inflicting such catastrophic economic harm—that it is depressing so much output, and destroying so many jobs—that Congress has no option but to Do Something immediately? Bearing the GAO's warning in mind, the data we do have doesn't remotely seem to justify the DEFCON One rhetoric that now appears to be obligatory on the Hill.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance—a kind of meta-trade association for all the content industries, and a zealous prophet of the piracy apocalypse, released a report back in November meant to establish that copyright industries are so economically valuable that they merit more vigorous government protection. But it actually paints a picture of industries that, far from being "killed" by piracy, are already weathering a harsh economic climate better than most, and have far outperformed the overall US economy through the current recession.  The "core copyright industries" have, unsurprisingly, shed some jobs over the past few years, but again, compared with the rest of the economy, employment seems to have held relatively stable at a time when you might expect cash-strapped consumers to be turning to piracy to save money.

Decreasing creative output?

Since the core function of copyright is to incentivize the production of creative works, it's also worth looking for signs of declining output associated with filesharing. Empirically, it's surprisingly hard to find an effect. Rather, a recent survey study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee of the Harvard Business School concluded that "data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers" from producing more works, at least in the US market.
So, for instance, Nielsen SoundScan data shows new album releases stood at 35,516 in 2000, peaked at 106,000 in 2008, and (amidst a general recession) fell back to mid-decade levels of about 75,000 for 2010. That's against a general background of falling sales since 2004—mostly explained by factors unrelated to piracy—which finally seems to have reversed in 2011. The actual picture is probably somewhat better than that, because SoundScan data is markedly incomplete when it comes to the releases by indie artists who have benefited most from the rise of digital distribution.
Most entertainment industries continue to operate on a "tournament" or "lottery" model, where a few hits generate jackpot revenues, sufficient to make up for losses on the majority of new products
If we look at movies, the numbers compiled by the industry statistics site Box Office Mojo show an average of 558 releases from American studios over the past decade, which rises to 578 if you focus on just the past five years. The average for the previous decade—before illicit movie downloads were even an option on most people's radar—is 472 releases per year. (As we learn from a recent Congressional Research Service report, it's weirdly hard to detect a strong overall correlation between output and employment in the motion picture industry, which actually fell slightly from 1998 to 2008, even as profits and CEO pay soared. One reason is the growing trend in recent decades for "Hollywood" features to actually be produced in Canada or Australia.)
That's all very nice, one might object, but wouldn't these heartening numbers be even higher if labels and studios could recapture some of the revenue lost to illicit downloads? Well, they surely might—but it's not nearly as clear as you'd think.
One reason is that they already are recapturing much of that revenue through "complementary" purchases. As Oberholzer-Gee observes, recording industry numbers show large increases in concert revenues corresponding to the drop in recorded music sales. That suggests that, as people discover new artists by sampling downloaded albums online, they're shifting consumption within the sector to live performances. In other words, people have a roughly constant "music budget," and what they don't spend on the albums they've downloaded gets spent on seeing that new band they discovered.  For the firms that specifically make their money from the sale of recordings, that may seem like cold comfort, but if we're concerned with the music industry as a whole, it's a wash. Something similar might occur with respect to purchases of merchandise based on licensed film properties.
Another factor is that, notwithstanding projections of a "long tail" effect resulting from lower search and distribution costs in the digital era, most entertainment industries continue to operate on a "tournament" or "lottery" model, where a few hits generate jackpot revenues, sufficient to make up for losses on the majority of new products.  Unsurprisingly, the most heavily pirated movies each year tend to be the ones that are also highly successful at the box office and in DVD sales, with similar patterns in album downloads. In other words, bleeding revenue to piracy is going to be a problem to the extent that your product is a hit, in a market where the core uncertainty about this crucial fact (at the time when the decision whether to greenlight production is made) looms a lot larger than the marginal loss from illicit downloads if you are successful.
It's a tricky but more or less tractable problem to estimate roughly how many full-time jobs you'll need regionally to support one additional $150 million movie production next year. It's a totally different question how aggregate sectoral employment in a volatile and evolving industry changes based on investor responses to a $150 million across-the-board drop in the size of the total film jackpot, especially given that arcane financial arrangements are one place Hollywood does show a genius for constantly adapting its business model. If you want to know how many people are getting laid off when McDonald's revenues drop, it makes a difference whether it's each of 13,000 franchises earning $100 less per year, or one franchise earning $1.3 million less, even though the total reduction is the same.
Finally, more demand for content being captured by the content industries is not always the same thing as demand for more content, in the sense of "a greater variety of output." I noted earlier that the past few years have seen a significant spike in the number of movie titles released annually. But as the Los Angeles Times reported in 2008, studio executives soon began complaining about a "glut" of new movies, many of which were targeted at the same demographics, and therefore cannibalizing their own audiences. As one executive suggested, that meant that (at least in a market dominated by a few huge distributors) releasing fewer titles could yield higher profits—and, indeed, the number of titles released in the following two years dropped back to mid-decade levels.
The key point here is that shifting some portion of the pirate audience to some form of legal viewing doesn't necessarily change this basic calculus, because there's an upper bound to the number of hours most people are going to spend watching (say) racing movies, whether they're paying for the privilege or not. Rising demand can just as easily, for instance, bid up star salaries for a fixed number of films.

Still seeking a real, quantifiable link

The point here isn't that piracy by American consumers is somehow completely independent from output or employment rates in the content industries—though, again, that's not at all the same thing as the overall US employment rate. Obviously, at some level it has to have some effect. But the link is, to use the technical economic term, weirder than in many other sectors of the economy. In many industries, the relationship between consumer spending and job creation is relatively straightforward. If demand for widgets or restaurant meals rises, satisfying that demand requires a roughly linear increase in widget factories and restaurants, in hiring of widget-makers and cooks and waiters, and in purchases of the raw material inputs for those goods. Distribution of copyrighted content—and in particular digital distribution over the Internet—is a bit more complicated, for precisely the same reason piracy is an issue: once the first copy of a work has been created, an unlimited number of additional units (of the digital product) can be produced at effectively zero cost.
No doubt piracy is costing the content industries something—or they wouldn't be throwing so much money at Congress in support of this kind of legislation
Let's imagine, implausibly, that a measure  like SOPA did manage to reduce online piracy by US consumers by some meaningful amount. A small portion of that reduction, the minority of downloads representing legal purchases displaced by file sharing, would translate into sales for the content industries. What form would these take? It seems reasonable to suppose that the majority of people who were previously getting their music and movies from The Pirate Bay are not typically lining up to buy shiny plastic discs at Wal-Mart. Rather, they're probably disproportionately displacing legal digital downloads from venues like iTunes and Amazon, or subscription services like Netflix and Spotify, which are pretty clearly where the overall market is quickly going anyway.  (Apparently, literal thieves don't even bother stealing physical media anymore.) For movies, there's probably also some displacement of theatrical ticket sales, though as the theatrical experience is in many ways a distinct good, it's hard to say how much substitution it's reasonable to expect.
In the very short term, increased legal purchases of digital content wouldn't seem likely to generate many additional jobs. If spending in the physical retail sector jumps 20 percent, shops need to hire more clerks, and their suppliers more manufacturing workers, to meet the increased demand. If spending in the iTunes store jumps 20 percent, Apple probably needs to pay a few bucks more for bandwidth and electricity, but basically everyone just gets to smile and pocket the extra profit. The jobs effects estimates we're seeing tossed around, however, are coming from a 2007 study that would have had to employ, at the most recent, adjustments made several years before that to the benchmark multipliers the Bureau of Economic Analysis developed in 2002.
Even leaving aside its many other problems, then, the job impact estimates in that study would have been largely based on legacy assumptions from a brick-and-mortar economy. (The loss estimates relied on would also, necessarily, fail to account for the recent rise of popular, legal streaming services that have likely lured many consumers back from the pirate market. There is, alas, no very good data here, but I'd wager Hulu and Netflix have done exponentially more to reduce piracy losses than enforcement crackdowns ever will.) In any event, you'd expect the most immediate effect of consumer spending shifts from widgets and restaurants to digital downloads would be, if anything, fewer net jobs. The output and employment effects, rather, would show up in the longer term as lower returns reduce incentives to produce new content—and hire the workers needed to support that production.  For some of the reasons discussed above, though, empirically there's just not much evidence for a dramatic effect of this kind.
No doubt piracy is costing the content industries something—or they wouldn't be throwing so much money at Congress in support of this kind of legislation. If we could wave a magic wand and have less piracy, obviously that would be good.  But in the real world, where enforcement has direct costs to the taxpayer, regulation has costs on the industries it burdens, and the reduction in piracy they're likely to produce is very small, it seems important to point out that the credible evidence for the magnitude of the harm is fairly thin.
As a rough analogy, since antipiracy crusaders are fond of equating filesharing with shoplifting: suppose the CEO of Wal-Mart came to Congress demanding a $50 million program to deploy FBI agents to frisk suspicious-looking teens in towns near Wal-Marts. A lawmaker might, without for one instant doubting that shoplifiting is a bad thing, question whether this is really the optimal use of federal law enforcement resources. The CEO indignantly points out that shoplifting kills one million adorable towheaded orphans each year. The proof is right here in this study by the Wal-Mart Institute for Anti-Shoplifting Studies. The study sources this dramatic claim to a newspaper article, which quotes the CEO of Wal-Mart asserting (on the basis of private data you can't see) that shoplifting kills hundreds of orphans annually. And as a footnote explains, it seemed prudent to round up to a million. I wish this were just a joke, but as readers of my previous post will recognize, that's literally about the level of evidence we're dealing with here.
In short, piracy is certainly one problem in a world filled with problems. But politicians and journalists seem to have been persuaded to take it largely on faith that it's a uniquely dire and pressing problem that demands dramatic remedies with little time for deliberation. On the data available so far, though, reports of the death of the industry seem much exaggerated.
Julian Sanchez is a research fellow at the Cato Institute, where he focuses primarily on issues at the busy intersection of technology, privacy, civil liberties, and new media. He was formerly Ars Technica's Washington Editor, and his writing has appeared in The Los Angeles Times, The American Prospect, and Reason, among other places. He also blogs regularly for The Economist's Democracy in America.................http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/internet-regulation-and-the-economics-of-piracy/