MarkFord.net

Culture > Logic

July 31, 2017 No Comments

Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian economist, had a unique view of free market economics. He had an insight that some of his best fellow economists were blind to. He understood that economics is ultimately not about supply and demand or about financial rewards but about culture. Culture always trumps rational analysis. Otherwise, why would the poor be willing to serve the rich by dying in war?

Schumpeter was right in thinking that capitalism would eventually yield to socialism. Not, as Karl Marx had predicted, because of economic needs but because the culture of the powerful and educated classes would demand it. What he was not aware of was the force of the culture of countries that owned slaves or had colonies that did. They will have to deal with that problem for another two hundred years.

Miscellaneous Essays

The Best Way to Get Funding For Your Business

September 18, 2013 No Comments

Last week, I suggested that it takes more than an idea – even if it’s a really fantastic idea – to attract potential investors. You need to prove that your idea has legs by turning it into a working model.

But then what? Once you’ve got a working model, where do you go for the money you need to turn it into a business?

In general, there are four sources of capital: venture capital firms, government agencies, commercial banks, and private investors or partners.

If you think your idea might be of interest to venture capitalists, check out the National Venture Capital Association (nvca.org). But for the average entrepreneur, venture capital isn’t a possibility.

As Paul Lawrence explained in his article “Raising Capital for Small Business Ventures”:

Yes, some venture capital firms will invest in new businesses, but such businesses are usually involved in technology or some other high-growth area. Frankly, for most small businesses, venture capital isn’t even an option. It’s rare for a small-business concept to have the kind of mammoth payoff venture capitalists look for.”

Plus, the cost of doing business with these companies is high. It’s basic economics. Their risk is high, so their reward must also be high. Even if you were to interest a venture capital company in your business, you’d be aghast at what they’d want in terms of their ownership position.

What about government grants? Tim Berry, author of Hurdle: The Book on Business Planning, points out that government funding agencies usually have “social” agendas. Grants and loans are available to minorities – especially minority businesses engaged in education, antidiscrimination projects, community services, fine arts, and other politically popular objectives.You can find out if your business idea might be a candidate for government money by checking into any of the government agencies whose purpose is to stimulate entrepreneurship. The best known is the Small Business Administration.

I wouldn’t advise taking this route, though. It requires too much bending to bureaucracy. Too much artificiality. Too much red tape. Getting these loans and grants takes months (or years) of filling out forms. And there are all sorts of reporting and regulatory requirements – enough to slow down even the most patient person. Plus, government-funded business projects have an extremely high failure rate once the funding is withdrawn. That’s because they begin with an idea, not a working model. And the idea isn’t good to begin with because it is based on social policy instead of being connected to profits – which is, after all, what fuels a business.

As for getting money from a commercial bank, I can make this short: Forget about it. The only way a bank will lend you money these days is if (a) you have excellent credit and (b) you can collateralize your loan with assets. If you have good credit and tons of money, you don’t need a bank loan. You can loan yourself the money.

This brings us to the fourth and final option…

Miscellaneous Essays

The Broken Window Fallacy

December 19, 2012 No Comments

This interview was originally published in the October 4th issue of The Palm Beach Letter.

Tim Mittelstaedt: Let’s talk about books. What is the best book on economics or investing you’ve ever read?

Mark: Gee, I haven’t read all that many. But I’d have to say that the book that had the greatest impact on my thinking was Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson.

Tim: A classic. How did that affect you?

Mark: It was one of those “eureka!” moments. It was like coming up from a murky basement into a bright room. The book gave me a clear, common-sense explanation of why things were the way they were. I could finally see the fallacies that supported so much stupidity that passed for economic science.

Tim: Such as?

Mark: Such as why public works are so often wasteful, why government credit diverts production, why technological advances are good, not bad, for employment, why spread-the-work schemes inevitably fail, why government price fixing and tariffs make us poorer, etc.

Tim: So what is the most important thing you got from reading Economics in One Lesson?

Mark: That you can’t understand any economic policy unless you look at the whole picture. It’s not enough to see the immediate, localized consequences of any public action. You must see its long-term effect on the entire economic community. Hazlitt says that nine tenths of the economic fallacies that politicians use do so much harm because they ignore this lesson. After reading the book, I can’t help but agree.

Tim: That’s a little abstract. Can you explain?

Mark: Hazlitt explains it beautifully in the second chapter, entitled “The Broken Window.” It goes like this: A hoodlum throws a rock through a baker’s plate glass window. A crowd gathers and talks about what a shame it is. But someone suggests that it is actually a blessing. He points out that the $250 the baker must pay for a new window will make the glazier $250 richer. And the glazier will use that $250 to spend with other merchants. The smashed window, according to this theory, will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles.

The logic is that the hoodlum who threw the brick was not a menace at all, but a public benefactor. The crowd agrees.

Tim: It does seem like a compelling argument.

Mark: It does. Yet, it’s a logical fallacy.

Tim: So what’s the fallacy?

Miscellaneous Essays

How the “Big White Lie” of Investing Almost Cost Me My Retirement

October 4, 2012 No Comments

Originally published in the October 2011 issue of “The Palm Beach Letter“

I consider myself to be an expert of sorts on retirement. Not because I’ve studied the subject, but because I’ve retired three times.

Yes, I’m a three-time failure at retiring. But I’ve learned from my mistakes. Today, I’d like to tell you about the worst mistake retirees make.

It’s a very common mistake. Yet, I’ve never heard it mentioned by retirement experts. Nor have I read a word about it in retirement books. The biggest mistake retired people make is giving up all their active income.

When I say active income, I mean the money you make through your labor or through a business you own. Passive income refers to the income you get from social security, a pension, or from a retirement account. You can increase your active income by working more. But the only way you can increase your passive income is by getting higher rates of return on your investment (ROI).

When you give up your active income, two bad things happen:

First, your connection to your active income is cut off. With every month that passes, it becomes more difficult to get it back.

Second, your ability to make smart investment decisions drops because of your dependence on passive income.

Retirement is a wonderful idea: put a portion of your income into an investment account for forty years, and then withdraw from it for the rest of your life. Once you retire, you won’t have to work anymore. Instead, you will fill your days with fun activities: traveling, golfing, going to the movies, and visiting the kids and grandkids.

It’s a great idea. But it never actually worked.

Miscellaneous Essays

How Every Decision You Make Can Make You Richer – or Poorer

September 26, 2012 No Comments

You go to lunch with a colleague. Everything is good. When the waiter puts the bill on the table, the total is $26.

Do you pick it up? Do you wait and hope he does? Or do you suggest you split it?

On the surface, this is a minor decision. But in truth, it is one of a million chances you’ve had, and will have, to become wealthier.

A cheapskate might look at it this way:

If I pay the whole bill, I’ll be $26 poorer.
If we split the bill, I’ll be $13 poorer.
If I can get him to pay it, I’ll be $13 richer.

To the cheapskate, the best decision is obvious. So when the bill arrives, he gets up to “go to the bathroom,” hoping he’ll be $13 richer when he returns.

But I have a different view. Wealth building, like quantum mechanics, often operates according to laws that seem contrary to what is “obvious.”

Paying the tab, in other words, might actually make you richer. Because the $13 you spend on your lunch partner might give you a return of much more than $13.

Your generosity might signal to him that you are the kind of person he can trust. It might tell him you are someone who is willing to give first without demanding recompense. If he sees you in that light, a relationship might be seeded by this small investment on your part. A year later – it is possible to imagine – he might recommend you for a promotion when he himself gets promoted to head up your department.

It depends on your assessment of his character.

If he impresses you as a person who believes – as you do – in reciprocity, you will know that the $13 is a wise investment. If, on the other hand, he shows you that he is a person who believes in exploiting others, the wise move might be to pay only your share of the bill and not develop the relationship any further.

In either case, you are richer.

Miscellaneous Essays

Obama Versus Romney Who Will Win? And Does It Matter?

August 29, 2012 No Comments

Over the past several weeks, readers have expressed their interest in the upcoming presidential election and its impact on America’s future. More particularly, many readers see this election as a contest between freedom and capitalism and some newfangled version of socialism… and they are worried that if Obama wins, they will become a lot poorer.

Well, here’s what I think. As far as your financial future is concerned, it doesn’t matter who is elected. Despite differences in ideology and rhetoric, our next president will take essentially the same path in terms of “saving” the economy.

I’m not saying that there is no difference between the candidates’ economic views. Obama wants to redistribute wealth. Romney wants to diminish social spending. But neither of them will make much long-term headway at realizing their ambitions. What they will succeed at is what both Republicans and Democrats have been doing nonstop since World War II: expanding the federal government by increasing its debt.

I’m not an economist. In analyzing our country’s economic policies, I take a businessman’s perspective. Businesses have many goals, some altruistic and some selfish, but they are all ruled by the logic of the balance sheet. Without a positive balance sheet, no business can last.

The Economy Is Out of Control

Our economy, I’m sure we can agree, is in ruins, and our federal government has unprecedented levels of debt. On top of our outstanding debts, we keep spending more money than we’re taking in. But only a partisan fool would suggest that this is due to Obama. The national balance sheet was already $9.9 trillion in the red when he took office. He has done a good job of pumping that up to $15.9 trillion. But had McCain been elected in 2008 we would be in roughly the same place.

The reason for that is simple. Every modern-day president knows that his only chance of being elected or re-elected depends on the economy. If the electorate believes that the president is “doing a good job” with the economy, it will re-elect him. If it believes he has made things worse, it will elect his opponent, who will be arguing that he can fix it.

But today there is no way to fix the economy.