Year End Prognostications – Apple

By Frank | December 18, 2011

It has become fan-boy heaven to predict and have “insider” information to know better where Apple is going.  The easy part is to predict newer processors A4 – A5 – (what do you think comes next) or since we know Intel’s roadmap for the next 2+ years that also helps.

But what about the real innovation you will see in the product line.  Well I am going to lay down some suggestions and you can come back to me in 1-2 years and see how it went -

• first the laptops will become more like MacBook Airs as they drop the CD/DVD drives forever.  And there will certainly be some sort of MacBook Air/iPad hybrid that runs OSX in one config and iOS in another config but uses a single file system.
• In the hardware front, what would make these systems so much nicer is to always have some large SSD or solid state disk drive.  But why only that, why not a mix of Flash and rotating storage.  One that is blazing fast and one that is both huge and lasts for very long time.  And make the file system so that the users don’t see it as 2 drives.
• For that matter, why not make all 3 drives in such systems or the 2 drives that most systems have today?  2 drives you say?  yes, the cloud is drive #2 and it will grow … yes it is slow but so what, it is only used for small content storage from computer to cloud.  Users just don’t create that much content.
• Next, it would be so nice for there to be an iPad that was really structured for older people.  Simple, never any issue about peripherals, back ups, syncing, updating and other things.  Optionless computing for those of the pre-computer generation and others who really only want web browsing and such.  Problem now is iPad is still a techy toy.
• iPad may be marginalized compared to the other 2 platforms.  iPhone is clearly for talk +++, but not for content creation.  Mac is for content creation and when needed lugging around.  iPad is for ??? or reading.
• iPhone moves to become your wallet and not a moment too soon.  The wallet is the last thing that I still have in my pocket (except for chapstick).  But in doing this I think it has to include more than NFC and what this will be is biometric level security.  What we lack today is a device that consistently authenticates that I am me … period.  Imagine if the iPhone had finger print recognition and maybe even layered on top of that is retina scanning by the internal camera.  Unless coercion was involved this would be a very much safer version of the wallet.  Passports next anyone?  iPhone could even unlock your computer, car, house, etc.

As an aside, the book “Daemon” is a must read for people who think computer security is just about virus, spam and phishing.  It is so much more and there are unreported attacks now that are deeply disturbing but are being kept from the news carefully by corporations who have been deeply hacked.

• The other threads out there are about Apple moving into other forms of consumer electronics – TVs, gaming?, etc.  But in a sense they are already there.  Gaming?  I bet it is the major use for iPads today in terms of use time.  TV?  Sure if you want to pay too much for something that is already pretty well done.
• Finally, iCloud will be so deeply embedded into the Apple community in 2-3 years but so transparent that you will wonder what you did before.  Like today how 3.5″ floppy drives feel compared to Flash thumb drives.

Glad there is not a time machine so that my mistakes cannot be written about tomorrow.  Ha!

So there are my predictions.

Topics: Essays, Singapore Incubator, StartUp Ideas | No Comments »

Milestone Reached!

By Frank | December 11, 2011

On Friday, December 9, 2011, Small World Group Incubator received approval in principle for our 10th company.  Fortuitously, we had already schedule a party at our new HQ for the companies,  our staff and partners and for our friends we have made since coming here more than 2 years ago.  So probably about 100 people showed up over the 3-4 hours of the party.

We handed out “party favors” and here is a photo of the new SWG Coffee mugs!

The office space can support more than 50 people and up to 10 companies (not all of the companies chose to locate in the space with us but most do) and we have sufficient conference rooms, a coffee machine, fridge and other amenities.

While we are obviously proud of the progress, we are also very glad to say that 3 of our starts are closing second round funding as this is being written and all should be closed by end of January.  But we note that all of the term sheets are approved and so the deals now await funding or paperwork but have agreements in principle.

What a great way to end the year!  Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to all of you out there.

Topics: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

A Growing Program in Singapore

By Frank | November 27, 2011

It has been 2 years since we start the Small World Group Incubator.  Much has evolved and much has stayed the same too.

We started with Dean Haritos and I as partners in this endeavor and both of us are still here.  But we have added Chong Chiet Ping and Kent Pavey as well as a junior member of our team Ken Lee.  The group works very well together and each of these people are integral to our success today.

We have funded nearly 10 companies and our pipeline remains strong and actually is strengthening in terms of interesting opportunities.  We have funded some companies outside of Singapore – notably Spinlectrix.

Our funding partner, the Singapore National Research Foundation (NRF) has remained steady and together we continue to evolve this program to enhance its success.  For example NRF is seeking to expand the program to include new incubator managers along with the existing pool.  Some of the originally selected groups have become less active but the program, I believe, is being quite successful.

Some challenges have begun to emerge from the program as follow on investing is now beginning to loom for the earliest funded companies.

So what we have is a precocious 2-year-old, one who is growing but also teething and transition from walking and crawling to running.

Stay tuned.

Topics: Essays, Green Perspectives, Investing, Personal Stories, Singapore Incubator | No Comments »

Amazing Korean Internet Access

By Frank | October 13, 2011

Tonight from my hotel (The Grand Intercontinental Seoul Parnae) I achieved by far the fastest internet access I have ever seen.  Totally amazing.

Here is the graphic showing the actual results using www.speedtest.net -

This is what fiber optic communications should be doing for us all.

Service providers have become very proficient about quoting speeds that they never deliver.  This is so totally the opposite.

Frickin’ Amazing.

Topics: Optical Technology, Personal Stories | No Comments »

World Wide Acceleration

By Frank | October 8, 2011

When the world wide web (www.abc.xyz) was birthed in the early 1990s, over the next few years it was clear just how pervasive its influence could be.

I went to the keynote talk at the Optical Fiber Conference (OFC) in 1995 where Bran Ferren talked and gave an early perspective on the emerging internet.  Here is a talk by Bran.  In the talk in 1995 he asked a very interesting question: “This Internet thing, its really important right?  But is it as important as the fax machine or as fire”.   The invention of the fax machine nearly killed FedEx because the need for delivery of overnight letters died over night.  So it was very important.  But compared to “[man's control of] fire” which was clearly one of the big inventions of all time!

When Bran asked that audience most of the engineers there voted for fire but a few of us said fire.

Bran said its FIRE – and his reasoning was crystal clear.  The internet would fundamentally change the way humans tell each other our stories and the ability to tell stories was one of the fundamental defining elements of being human.  Wow.  Clear.

Well there is emerging another really dynamic means of changing the world and it is the global use of venture capital, risk capital, private equity (all names for the same basic idea) to transform countries, societies, cultures.

As readers of this Blog know, I live in Singapore and lead an incubator here working to improve the standing of start up companies, entrepreneurs and such here.  Small World Group Incubator, PTE LTD, does this in partnership with the Singapore National Research Foundation and so far we have started approximately 10 companies over the last year.  All are still thriving, thank goodness; all have pretty much open futures for success still.

Over the last year we have talked directly to small groups in the Czech Republic, Thailand, Indonesia, India and we have relationships through YouNoodle and other groups that work around the world, mainly in what in the past were thought of as “third world countries” but today literally there are perhaps 50 countries that have strong, unique entrepreneurial government sponsored pushes to transform their economies and create businesses that will engage the country and their citizens with the wider world.

Here are some examples – CzechInvest, StartUp Chile, StartUp Korea, NASSCOM, CBS (no not the network) …

You get the idea.

So what is happening is that governments are spending what appears to be large sums of money (at least to individual people and startups) but in actuality they are spending small amounts compared to their overall federal budget and with this money they are trying to transform their economies.

And they are getting Venture Capitalists involved.  All of this is causing a dramatic acceleration of ideas, new companies, new business and such all around the world.

So here is the simple message of this column … if Singapore, Chile, Czech Republic can start such programs, what does that mean to similarly sized groups of economically linked people who don’t have such programs or a willingness to engage this way?

Watch out!

Topics: Essays, Investing, Singapore Incubator, StartUp Ideas | No Comments »

A View from Iraq

By Frank | September 9, 2011

I have a friend that is a somewhat recent West Point graduate who is now on his second tour of duty in Iraq.  This time he works on the staff of a Brigadier Genereal of the Army.

He recently wrote many of his family and friends a letter where he talks about Iraq, what we are doing there and his feelings.  What I like best is that he clearly loves the people there and their resolution and courage.  But he also sees the challenges that cannot be solved quickly and maybe not at all by the USA military.  I liked his letter so much I asked and received permission to share it with the readers of this Blog.  His name is Walter and he is a Captain in the US Army.

There is food for thought here for all elements of the political spectrum.

His words begin here …

What is America doing here [here being Iraq, in case you didn’t read the last e-mail]?

The United States Forces – Iraq is hellaciously busy planning. While our diplomats negotiate with the Iraqis concerning an extension of American troops past the deadline of 31 December, the herculean task of moving all our equipment and soldiers out of the country continues. If you read the news, you’ll notice the new talk is of leaving 3,000 soldiers here instead of the 10,000 that dominated discussion for most of the summer. Either way, most of the actual training is being done by contractors, and that’s what will likely continue after 2012 anyway. What is truly fascinating is watching the military bureaucracy at work. USF-I has myriad staffs, working groups, committees, meetings to prepare for other meetings… it is impressive. It also means that egos, organizational stove pipes, different groups working at cross efforts or unwittingly tackling the same problem, and of course having too many chiefs and not enough Indians make things difficult. And that’s before you start coordinating with the Department of State while preparing to make everything their responsibility. Nonetheless, the people working here are bright, committed, and trying to make a difference. I’m almost universally impressed by the General Officers here as well, which is certainly heartening.

American forces are also busily training the Iraqis, especially on the sweet big ticket defense items we’ve sold them (we could probably solve our employment issues by selling the entire world our last generation of defense technology). These include an old variant of the Abrams battle tank, the M113 armored personnel carrier, and M198 and M109 artillery pieces. Only a few of Iraq’s divisions will be outfitted with this modern equipment, but the challenges are nonetheless substantial, especially since religious tensions come into play on deciding which divisions receive which toys. We have to teach the Iraqis how to operate and maintain complex machinery that is not only completely new to their military, but greatly stresses a fractured and fledgling logistical capability. The Iraqis will be the first to tell you that this is not one of their strengths, and culturemay have something to do with it. That link delves into greater detail than I can, and right or wrong is a very interesting read. On the other hand, I was present for the first firing of Iraqi artillery since the invasion, and the amount of sheer joy expressed by our Iraqi counterparts of all ranks was immeasurable. The Americans who have been here multiple times over are very proud of the progress Iraq has made.

 

What do you think of the Iraqis?

My last time here I interacted with them at the small unit level and was impressed by the generosity and hospitality of the Iraqi people. I should note that my soldiers who had fought against and lost friends to Iraqi insurgents on previous tours were far less forgiving. Now I talk almost exclusively to Iraqi generals (as the “schedule man” to BG Mealer, according to one of them). They are just like our Army, with some extremely competent leaders and some that leave you scratching your head at how they got their stars. The best ones invariably speak excellent English (a trait reciprocated by none of our senior leadership that I’m aware of), display a strong sense of humor, are fierce patriots, and realize how much work lies ahead of them. To a man, they desire American forces to stay beyond December. They also see Iran as the greatest threat to Iraq. During a discussion on the Abrams training program, we told one that it takes 10 years before an American is considered a fully qualified tank instructor. The Iraqi replied that we should call and tell Iran to wait 10 years, then. Another one remarked that “in all the world, the weak, nobody listen to him, everybody want bite from him. If you leave now you leave us in the mouth of the lion.” Today I sat in on a meeting with an Iraqi four star general who I swear was educated at Oxford. He began the meeting discussing the Arab Spring, and likened the transition from American troops to Department of State as reminding him “of the morning flower. It blossoms at the beginning of the day and closes at the end of the evening.”

Even more fascinating is Kurdistan. First of all, the animosity the Kurds bear towards Arabs means it is by far the safest region of Iraq (unless you count the Turks and Iranians pursuing separatists across national borders). While American soldiers don’t leave the International Zone in Baghdad, the cities of Erbil and Sulaimaniyah are so safe that you can walk around unarmed. However, they have seen their comparative advantage vis-à-vis the Iraqi military decline significantly, especially because American efforts to strengthen the central Iraqi state mean their own Peshmerga lack the heavy weaponry of normal Iraqi Army units. The Kurds still love us, but they are deeply worried that once we leave they will suffer again. One of them summarized it this way: “We need money for construction because our country has been destroyed. We are relying on our friends the Americans to help us… for the past seven years you have been giving the Iraqis all the money, and now they have what they want, they have the power, and we have a destroyed country… Please understand we are very thankful. In the name of the […] the Kurdish people, we thank you. We blame the decision makers. They don’t like us because we are different. Everything happening now is the same as under Saddam.”

 

What is Walter’s corner of USF-I doing in Iraq?

My piece of this puzzle has moved from the original posting, Iraq Train and Advising Mission – Army, to the USF-I J5 (Plans). This staff is responsible for strategy, assessments, and most everything taking place in the future. BG Mealer has already been here for over a year, but GEN Austin (currently vying with GEN Odierno for tallest 4 star general) extended her tour to make her the Deputy of this particular staff. The Director is BG (P, which means he’s been selected for 2 stars) Snow, who served as the ITAM-ARMY Director beforehand. They’re both exceptionally bright, driven, and wrestling with what seems like a million different working groups and meetings that attempt to keep the ship of our nation’s efforts here sailing on a smooth line. Interestingly, we’re teaching the Iraqis pretty well in that regard. At the end of a meeting today, the Iraqi conclusion was to form several working groups and hold semi-annual conferences. If that isn’t success, I don’t know what is!

 

What is Walter actually doing in Iraq?

I’m still working as the aide-de-camp for BG Mealer, who brought me with her to the J5. Does  this show her to be a poor judge of character? Absolutely. However, nobody is perfect. I do the important things, like keep her calendar, ensure she arrives to meetings on time and prepared (Heaven forbid the PowerPoint slides aren’t present), coordinate her travel, and of course do her laundry (much less menial than it sounds, since we’ve contracted for laundry services that take care of that). I spend my free time reading, exercising, and studying German, Chinese, and Arabic as well as Army Doctrine. You might want to ask, does Walter have too much free time? In response I ask you to do a word count on this e-mail.

 

What is Walter’s opinion of how this ends?

I should qualify this by stating that my opinion isn’t worth much. First of all, I don’t trust anything a 25 year old says about national strategy, and neither should you. Then again, the same could be said for many 52 year olds. I’m just an aide and don’t sit in the top level meetings or talk to the principal Iraqi policy makers besides saying hello and goodbye. Equally important is that a soldier’s job involves the execution of foreign policy, not forming it. At least, that’s what I remember from Huntington. What’s more, my opinion is difficult to nail down, and it often depends on my mood, the temperature (finally dropping, by the way), and of course the alignment of Saturn and Jupiter. To trot out the old cliché, where you stand depends on where you sit. Looking at the same data set through a different perspective can lead you to wildly different conclusions. To illustrate this fact, I’ve written two sample op-eds you might find in a mediocre newspaper *cough* AtlantaJournalConstitution *cough*.

1.     “Our failed imperial adventure draws to a conclusion.”

As the date for the complete removal of US troops from Iraq nears, the current spike in violence, political gridlock, and sectarian tensions underline how little our invasion accomplished. It’s true that we overthrew a brutal dictator who killed thousands of his own people. But what have we actually achieved in the time hence to either make Iraq a better country to live in or – in line with the original justification for the invasion – increased our own national security? Not much. Despite seven years pumping trillions of taxpayer dollars into the country, Iraq’s residents still deal with critical infrastructure shortfalls. Anbar province, cited as a success story because of the Sunni Awakening widely seen as crucial to the success of the “Surge,” has less than 8 hours of electricity a day. Roughly a third of Iraq’s citizens lack access to sewage services. Many provinces, including Baghdad, have unemployment of 25% or higher. When you place these stark facts against the backdrop of ongoing violence that leaves hundreds dead every month it is easy to understand why Iraqis are losing faith in their government.

 

The messy political system that replaced Saddam has proven equally unresponsive to the will of the people. Prime Minister Maliki left the crucial posts of Minister of Interior and Defense empty for months on end to maintain his grip on the levers of power, stalling much-needed reform and development projects. His chief rival, Allawi, went so far as to accuse him of torture, dictatorial tendencies, and gross mismanagement in a recent article published by the Washington Post. Political posturing notwithstanding, one thing is for certain: President Bush grossly miscalculated in invading Iraq and prosecuting the ensuing conflict. America and Iraq have suffered astronomical costs in blood and treasure to the advantage of the region’s true malign influence, Iran. The mullahs continue to provide Shiite extremist groups with sophisticated weaponry to bomb our convoys, attack our bases, and force more and more of the Iraqi elite to follow their de facto representative, Muqtada al Sadr.

 

Looking back over the last decade, it’s impossible to keep from thinking that America’s war of choice in Iraq likely cost us victory in Afghanistan. To add insult to injury, the Arab Spring adds further proof that a country’s populace has the power to accomplish what no amount of GIs and American Provincial Reconstruction Teams can match. What’s more, it has helped bring about our current financial distress, exhaust our military, and led to renewed calls for American isolationism. It’s time to forego foreign adventures and start dealing with the aftermath of short-sighted and duplicitous policy.

 

2.     “Glimmers of Hope in the Cradle of Civilization.”

Excluding the possibility of a new agreement between Iraq and the United States, America’s combat soldiers are mere months from completely withdrawing from the country. As they turn over America’s partnership with the Iraqis to the Department of State, they can do so knowing they made a crucial difference in the lives of millions. Despite initial failures, President Bush had the courage to double down on Iraq, and in David Petraeus found a general able to help the military relearncounterinsurgency. Since the “Surge” broke the insurgency’s back, the partnership between Iraq and America has yielded tangible security benefits. Of Iraq’s 18 provinces, only two still see enough violence to qualify as unstable.

 

Despite a historical trend for increased violence during Ramadan, August was the first month since our invasion that not a single American soldier was killed in action. The volatile region between Kurdish and Arab Iraq maintains a tenuous truce despite the removal of American soldiers from the Combined Security Mechanism. Prime Minister Maliki finally ended political gridlock by appointing Ministers of Interior and Defense. What’s more, the Arab Spring proved that yearning for democracy comes just as naturally and is felt just as powerfully throughout the Arab world as in other parts of the globe. Iraq’s military now boasts powerful Abrams battle tanks, APCs, and artillery that combine with expert American training to shape it into an effective guarantor of both national sovereignty and a convincing counterweight to Iran. Just as important, with the price of oil still over $100 a barrel and the world’s second largest proven oil reserves, Iraq has the resources to invest in the infrastructure it so desperately needs.

 

As Syria’s Assad continues to machine gun demonstrators and Egypt’s military struggles to manage a transition to democracy, the region can look to Iraq for valuable lessons learned. Was everything done as well as it should have been? No, but great undertakings are rarely perfect from the start. One of the proudest American traditions is reinvention, and our success in Iraq proves that it is alive and well. Even after a decade of war and no matter what some people say, the United States hasn’t lost its soft power appeal: we are still considered the coolest country in the world by far. Seeing the difficult road in Iraq to completion is a testament to our men and women, both uniformed and civilian, tirelessly striving to make a difference. History will show that they have.

 

— end of letter  —

 

Thanks Walter for the insights and unexpected view of a far away place.

 

Topics: Essays, Personal Stories, Spiritual Threads | No Comments »

New Rule for Modern Democracy?

By Frank | August 28, 2011

The political debate in both Europe and the USA today really centers on an issue that the framers of our constitution and those who framed the rules by which the democracies in Europe operate never considered including because the issue never occurred to them.

In the 1930s a new modern economic theory was used to help the USA (and the world) mitigate the effects of the world wide recession/depression.  Keynesian economic theory advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a moderate role of government and public sector.  This mixture envisions times when the government borrows from its citizens (and today the whole world) to stimulate the economy and implicitly also envisions good times when these loans are paid back.

In practice this happened pretty well from the 1930s to perhaps the 1970s but sometime after that things began to fall apart.  Here is a graph that shows that history (admittedly, it is unfair as it is not show with respect to GDP nor on a log scale) -

 

The question that I pose today is whether this is the central failure of modern democracies?

Since that is intentionally provocative, let me explain and limit it as best I can.

Any economic entity that borrows sometimes and pays back others has been common for a very long time.  What is different today in the USA and has happened other places and at other times is the strong borrowing without really a commitment or understanding about what it means to pay this borrowed money back.

Now to the core of what concerns me.

Modern democracies elect representatives on the basis of their ability to adjust broad expenditures and policies to help the people that elected them.  Sometimes they do this on an even broader basis and help all of the citizens or even all of the people in the world  (e.g. national defense or support for the United Nations are examples of each).  But more often the legislatures operate more “partisan” than altruistic.

Today the USA constitution has no provision to protect the economic rights of generations to come.  It is possible to borrow money today and require that people who are not yet born to pay back these loans that allow people today to live better by forcing (implied) burden on those who have no representation.

In the past, I am sure if you asked Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams or Washington if this seems fair they would say no.  My intuition is that they would not even understand the question without some extensive explanation of what was implied and what was envisioned.

So the question now is … Do we need to add another rule to modern democracies?

And if so, how do we do this in a way that leaves us with some financial flexibility in the short term, while requiring fairness to future generations in the long term?

By the way, the same thinking applies to all arguments surrounding CO2, global warming, environmental sustainability.

All of these are very thorny questions.  There are even some people who argue that humans as a species are not evolved to be able to make good decisions along these lines!

Topics: Essays, Green Perspectives, Investing, Spiritual Threads | 3 Comments »

Viral BioEngineering … Kill All Mozzies?

By Frank | July 16, 2011

Of all the animals on earth, I think that I could definitely live without mosquitoes.  What do you think?

Mosquitoes account for many deaths attributed to malaria and dengue fever among others.  Imagine the problems we would have if a mosquito bite could transmit HIV/AIDS which is a blood carried disease?  Fortunately the HIV virus cannot live in the gut of a mosquito.

Over the years, there have been many ways humans have tried to minimize the effects of mosquitoes.  DDT was originally developed as a means to fight them.  Today still in may tropical places there is weekly fogging for them, like right outside my apartment in Singapore every Monday afternoon.

Another way that today is being tried is to release genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes.  The way this works is that only male mosquitoes are released and they seek out female partners with which to mate.  As they GM males mate successfully, then the female lays eggs that hatch in to non-viable adult mosquitoes which die before they can fly.  An experiment using these in Haiti caused the mozzie population there to drop temporarily by 80%!

So here is my question.  Suppose that instead of causing the female to lay eggs that will never grow into adults, instead a GM mosquito male was developed which when it fertilizes a female, she only lays eggs that produce viable adults which are only male and with the same capabilities as their Dad’s?

In this case, what would happen is that the population of male mosquitoes would balloon up to the point where every female would probabilistically mate with such a male and soon there would be no female mosquitoes at all.

Did you know that the Hawaiian Islands did not have mosquitoes until there were brought there by English ships?  How idyllic!  It could be that way again.

If you can invent such a GM mosquito male, release even one that mates and it multiplies for a few weeks, then probably in less than 3 months you would absolutely wipe out all mosquitoes there and be back to where you were 500 years ago.

Now the question is should we do this?  And can it be done?

Wow!

Topics: Essays, Green Perspectives, Spiritual Threads | 5 Comments »

Democracy’s Challenge

By Frank | June 19, 2011

There are many elements of society and government that the USA shares with Singapore.  These include -

• rule of law
• common language – English
• high value on higher education
• broad home ownership as a way to promote strong middle class
• open financial system

And Singapore argues for its form of democracy.  The last election here, for the first time, an opposition party won all the seats in an entire ward.  But for the most part the democracy here is rule by a single party.  And this allows Singapore to make decisions that many times may not be popular but are practical and logical.

In the USA right now there is intense debate about how to reduce the national government budget deficit.  In this debate there is wringing of hands about so many ways to cut defense, to cut education.  But if you could ask anyone in Washington behind closed doors they all know how it can be done and be done fairly.

You must strongly cut entitlements – social security, medicare, medicade.  Why here?  Because these are the largest elements of the budget.  The way to make the cuts is also clear.  You re-adjust the retirement ages, the ages for different payouts from the system and you limit the payouts on the medical side on a per person basis for their lifetime.

Simple put, people live much longer today than when the system was set up.  Perhaps on average another 15-20 years.  But we have kept the structure the same in spite of this huge demographic shift.  If we raised the retirement age to 72 from 62-65 it would mean that our citizens pay into the system for another 7 years and take out 7 years less.  The financial impact of this shift is massive.

Same with medical payments in medicare and medicade.  We now spend more on the last few years of life than we do on the first 20 years.  So we are investing more in the dying than the education of our young people.  To fix this we have to agree that at some point we will not do everything possible to prolong life, at least not with taxpayer dollars.  We cannot afford it.

But in both of these cases we can now see the problem.  It is easier for politicians to destroy their opponents who favor such changes by labeling them killers of the old, breakers of a promise that has stood for decades.  And so get elected.  Today both Republicans and Democrats refuse to take these steps because they know the outcome.

And now we find ourselves competing with “democracies” in Asia where such decisions are made differently.  They are made by single party systems where it is possible to take the politically difficult but economically essential steps.

I wonder if the case can be made that as democracies mature and offer their citizens broad and committed input to the system and its future, if at that moment they are opening the door to the long term problem of the citizens of today using this same political system to pay themselves benefits and rob future generations of theirs.  It is politically possible and convenient to do just this.

Which approach is best?  Still not clear.  But it is clear that in the USA we are using the political process to borrow now to pay our selves and to stick the bill with future generations who we have under educated and under funded just to keep the current generation alive for a few extra months.

Ouch.

Topics: Essays, Personal Stories, Singapore Incubator, Spiritual Threads | 1 Comment »

Top Down Singapore and Change

By Frank | May 26, 2011

As many of you know, I live a majority of my time in Singapore.  Singapore is a city-state that has transformed itself over the past 45 years since being founded in 1965.  Like many Asian countries the system of government is a single party democracy.  And more importantly, it is a a country that has very strong central planning.

Centrally planned countries, economies and such involve careful top down planning.  And that approach to governance and growth has served Singapore very well.  But I believe that this must change.

Top down planning works best when you have the ability to study the results of others and select solutions from among those that have worked for others.  You look at education and pull some from Japan, some from the USA some from the UK.  Hopefully the best from each place.  Top down or central planning is VERY efficient when the models you adopt are clearly successful.  You can have public debate or not, you can engage in discourse but ultimately you can make difficult decisions, ones that may not be short term popular but which you know are long term effective for transforming your country and its economy.

Where the top down approach fails is when the path is not well known.  For example, one of the stated or public goals for Singapore is to transform itself from a “skills” based to a “knowledge” based economy.  Translated this means that Singapore has progressed from being a country that has a large manufacturing sector to one that wants to do more inventing, creating and design instead.  Driving this is the fact that Singapore has been so successful that now they are a leading first world country and as such have GDP per capita and incomes that no longer allow manufacturing to be competitive here.  Manufacturing plants move out of Singapore to nearby Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines.  A skills based economy implies manufacturing but a knowledge based economy implies something more like Silicon Valley.

So now Singapore has embarked upon a series of initiatives to encourage their population to become more entrepreneurial.   What Small World Group does here is operate and manage an incubator for small companies as a part of this transformation mission.  We are much like the mouse in the Aesop fable of the lion and the mouse.  We are small but perhaps our steady limited actions can be a helpful part of the overall solution.  To complete this metaphor, we gnaw away to set the lion free by starting little high tech companies in the area of clean tech.  And our presence here and our work was enabled by top down planning.

But …

Top down planning won’t work if the ecosystem which they hope we help to create has to be planned.  This has to grow organically.  And it has to be free to take technology in directions that the startups and their entrepreneurial leaders feel is significant, can be profitable, etc.

The act of starting a company is filled with missteps, changes of directions, pivots and such.  Entrepreneurs feel their way in to success.  As Steve Blank likes to say – “no business plan survives first contact with customers”.

Moreover as this transformation occurs – moving from a skills to a knowledge based economy – overall the entire country will be come less manageable by top down methods.  That is why the USA and Singapore are so very different.  The USA is planned bottoms up.  It can pivot surprisingly fast for a country of 350M people.  If something is not working we can all agree to drop it.  But in a centrally planned top down approach – like the now defunct Soviet Union – quick pivots result in no change or revolution.

In the USA we don’t have to have a revolution in order to make fast changes.

So as I finish this essay, I wonder what is in the future for Singapore as they embrace this more unpredictable and certainly less planned future?

 

Topics: Essays, Investing, Personal Stories, Singapore Incubator, Spiritual Threads | No Comments »

« Previous Entries