Maybe Apple killed it. I have been trying out two recent releases on my Intel laptop, Slackware 12 and Mandriva 7 and am driven to maddness with the differences. Configuring Apache is easy on the former, virtual hosts and hence private web directories fail on the latter, the config file is totally paranoid. Perl/Tk runs on the latter, only Tcl/Tk on the former. You have to be root on the former to mount devices, there is a totally inscrutable message from Konqueror if Joe User tries to access a device. It is lack of configuration or standards which is going to kill Linux, especially when the same things run on Mac OS X with little pain.
Or maybe Linux won't die after all. If we live in conservative times, where people's focus is on control and preserving their jobs, Linux will flourish for the same reason Java will flourish. It is because of the paranoid engineer at Mandrake who composed httpd.conf; obfiscate things enough, don't document, or create security by complexity or obscurity and you will have guarenteed your position as a developer or system admin., until, that is, someone makes all the complexity unnecessary. If Apache2's design has become too complex, it may defeat web site
hackers, but it will no longer be used, eventually getting replaced by something easier to use.
The idea that complexity is a good thing made more by obscurity and elitism is a negative attitude in a negative time where fear rather than possibility drives things, power and control win out over openness and clarity.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Going Through the Motions
It seems to be an age-old experience that given the chance people will wiggle out of obligations and promises as soon as they get the chance. They may have said that they can deliver more than they really can or may have said so to close a deal and never intended to fully deliver the goods.
There are some organizational tactics that support this non-performance, even denial of service. The oldest tricks are what I call the "Tech Support Rule" and the "politician" rule. The first says that if you have a captive audience you can relax your deliveries. The second says that have the best intentions but fail to deliver resources, i.e. funds. In the first. your customers give you power, buy a service contract, and you have them in a captive situation where you can get away with much non-delivery of service. The irony is that the purchaser believes that he is getting more by having the force of the contract to be able to get solutions. Most of the time he is not getting top-notch service. This is why most support operations hire entry-level people. The person can save money overall by spending the time himself to learn how to manage and troubleshoot the system himself. Either he learns this or he terminates the support when he finds even the escalated trouble case does not get him a solution, let alone a timely one. It takes out and out fraud to end these relationships sometimes.
In the case of the politician, the executive or legislator can state the best of intentions and be perceived as having heard of a need, but when the citizens aren't watching, he can non-perform in the budget process by not funding or adequately funding some program he is on record for supporting.
The failure to discharge responsibility or to spend resources appropriate to a solution is a hallmark of organizational operation everywhere. It is manifest in the
complexity of regulations that govern a transaction. As a general rule. the more complex the rules the greater the disadvantage of the individual. Complexity favors big organizations with teams of analysts and the individual client is always at a disadvantage regardless of the stated mission of the service. This is one of the main avenues of power and corruption in government and business. It doesn't matter if the organization is your wirelss provider, a lender, or a government agency such as the Social Security Administration.
Such complexity is often used by legislators not just to thwart fraud, which may cost the government more than actual fraud or prevent efforts at fraud if it actually delivered, but complexity often results in a denial of service. Since ancient times "Jumping through hoops", that is the sequence of petty steps needed to do business with government and also with businesses not in the government, discourages some of the clients presumably served by the offered service, and "Falling through the cracks" is due to either out right failures of the system of services or to disconnects and denial of service based on a lack of persistance,
the attitude being "If you want this bad enough, you have to work for it." It is the oldest trick in existance for a legislator to not adequately fund a program and let the language of the law create a set of barriers to actually delivering on its stated aims. The Politician gets to look good while not actually delivering on the promise. One way for oversight to combat this, is to "Show me the Money", which means that an independent analysis says that the funding meets the goals of the program.
Reagan era politicians loved to attack layers of agencies in government and privatize public programs. Nowadays this is manifest in the large numbers of non profit groups contracted to government. This trades one form of self-interested for another form of self-interested middle man who are less accountable. At least the legilsature could review the mission of an errant agency, now the only check is contract renewal and that is more disconnected from performance. The effectiveness of the relationship between a government agency and the non profit rests on an allignment of the mission statement of the agency and the interests of the non profit. There could be a disconnect. One area in which this middleman relationship leads to bloat and self-interest, just as in managed health-care, is self-interested vending of services and in advocacy created by regulatory complexity. In order for a client to get services, he needs the middleman of the advocacy non-profit to manage the morass of forms and regulations, the complexity designed to prevent fraud and activate denial of service. The client does not know if the middleman is motivated in his service or self-interest and not their own.
The result of all of this is that many people in business and government alike go through the motions of offering and delivering services, but don't really deliver. They are controlled by the complexity of the rules that define their work and because they are often powerless, or have given up the power to actually make sure the service was delivered, they work, but with no attachment to the outcome. This is why some of the glaring failures of services that were supposed to deliver, especially in times of crisis, could occur.
Complexity and its role in denial of service is one of the hallmarks of a decadent society, one destined for revolution. In a society that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, such a revolution would consist of a reduction of complexity, either by abandoning fixations, such as "How many angles can fit on the head of a pin", or by consciously simplifying the body of law, a Constitutional Conventon, and a purging of case law.
There are some organizational tactics that support this non-performance, even denial of service. The oldest tricks are what I call the "Tech Support Rule" and the "politician" rule. The first says that if you have a captive audience you can relax your deliveries. The second says that have the best intentions but fail to deliver resources, i.e. funds. In the first. your customers give you power, buy a service contract, and you have them in a captive situation where you can get away with much non-delivery of service. The irony is that the purchaser believes that he is getting more by having the force of the contract to be able to get solutions. Most of the time he is not getting top-notch service. This is why most support operations hire entry-level people. The person can save money overall by spending the time himself to learn how to manage and troubleshoot the system himself. Either he learns this or he terminates the support when he finds even the escalated trouble case does not get him a solution, let alone a timely one. It takes out and out fraud to end these relationships sometimes.
In the case of the politician, the executive or legislator can state the best of intentions and be perceived as having heard of a need, but when the citizens aren't watching, he can non-perform in the budget process by not funding or adequately funding some program he is on record for supporting.
The failure to discharge responsibility or to spend resources appropriate to a solution is a hallmark of organizational operation everywhere. It is manifest in the
complexity of regulations that govern a transaction. As a general rule. the more complex the rules the greater the disadvantage of the individual. Complexity favors big organizations with teams of analysts and the individual client is always at a disadvantage regardless of the stated mission of the service. This is one of the main avenues of power and corruption in government and business. It doesn't matter if the organization is your wirelss provider, a lender, or a government agency such as the Social Security Administration.
Such complexity is often used by legislators not just to thwart fraud, which may cost the government more than actual fraud or prevent efforts at fraud if it actually delivered, but complexity often results in a denial of service. Since ancient times "Jumping through hoops", that is the sequence of petty steps needed to do business with government and also with businesses not in the government, discourages some of the clients presumably served by the offered service, and "Falling through the cracks" is due to either out right failures of the system of services or to disconnects and denial of service based on a lack of persistance,
the attitude being "If you want this bad enough, you have to work for it." It is the oldest trick in existance for a legislator to not adequately fund a program and let the language of the law create a set of barriers to actually delivering on its stated aims. The Politician gets to look good while not actually delivering on the promise. One way for oversight to combat this, is to "Show me the Money", which means that an independent analysis says that the funding meets the goals of the program.
Reagan era politicians loved to attack layers of agencies in government and privatize public programs. Nowadays this is manifest in the large numbers of non profit groups contracted to government. This trades one form of self-interested for another form of self-interested middle man who are less accountable. At least the legilsature could review the mission of an errant agency, now the only check is contract renewal and that is more disconnected from performance. The effectiveness of the relationship between a government agency and the non profit rests on an allignment of the mission statement of the agency and the interests of the non profit. There could be a disconnect. One area in which this middleman relationship leads to bloat and self-interest, just as in managed health-care, is self-interested vending of services and in advocacy created by regulatory complexity. In order for a client to get services, he needs the middleman of the advocacy non-profit to manage the morass of forms and regulations, the complexity designed to prevent fraud and activate denial of service. The client does not know if the middleman is motivated in his service or self-interest and not their own.
The result of all of this is that many people in business and government alike go through the motions of offering and delivering services, but don't really deliver. They are controlled by the complexity of the rules that define their work and because they are often powerless, or have given up the power to actually make sure the service was delivered, they work, but with no attachment to the outcome. This is why some of the glaring failures of services that were supposed to deliver, especially in times of crisis, could occur.
Complexity and its role in denial of service is one of the hallmarks of a decadent society, one destined for revolution. In a society that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, such a revolution would consist of a reduction of complexity, either by abandoning fixations, such as "How many angles can fit on the head of a pin", or by consciously simplifying the body of law, a Constitutional Conventon, and a purging of case law.
Going Through the Motions
It seems to be an age-old experience that given the chance people will wiggle out of obligations and promises as soon as they get the chance. They may have said that they can deliver more than they really can or may have said so to close a deal and never intended to fully deliver the goods.
There are some organizational tactics that support this non-performance, even denial of service. The oldest tricks are what I call the "Tech Support Rule" and the "politician" rule. The first says that if you have a captive audience you can relax your deliveries. The second says that have the best intentions but fail to deliver resources, i.e. funds. In the first. your customers give you power, buy a service contract, and you have them in a captive situation where you can get away with much non-delivery of service. The irony is that the purchaser believes that he is getting more by having the force of the contract to be able to get solutions. Most of the time he is not getting top-notch service. This is why most support operations hire entry-level people. The person can save money overall by spending the time himself to learn how to manage and troubleshoot the system himself. Either he learns this or he terminates the support when he finds even the escalated trouble case does not get him a solution, let alone a timely one. It takes out and out fraud to end these relationships sometimes.
In the case of the politician, the executive or legislator can state the best of intentions and be perceived as having heard of a need, but when the citizens aren't watching, he can non-perform in the budget process by not funding or adequately funding some program he is on record for supporting.
The failure to discharge responsibility or to spend resources appropriate to a solution is a hallmark of organizational operation everywhere. It is manifest in the
complexity of regulations that govern a transaction. As a general rule. the more complex the rules the greater the disadvantage of the individual. Complexity favors big organizations with teams of analysts and the individual client is always at a disadvantage regardless of the stated mission of the service. This is one of the main avenues of power and corruption in government and business. It doesn't matter if the organization is your wirelss provider, a lender, or a government agency such as the Social Security Administration.
Such complexity is often used by legislators not just to thwart fraud, which may cost the government more than actual fraud or prevent efforts at fraud if it actually delivered, but complexity often results in a denial of service. Since ancient times "Jumping through hoops", that is the sequence of petty steps needed to do business with government and also with businesses not in the government, discourages some of the clients presumably served by the offered service, and "Falling through the cracks" is due to either out right failures of the system of services or to disconnects and denial of service based on a lack of persistance,
the attitude being "If you want this bad enough, you have to work for it." It is the oldest trick in existance for a legislator to not adequately fund a program and let the language of the law create a set of barriers to actually delivering on its stated aims. The Politician gets to look good while not actually delivering on the promise. One way for oversight to combat this, is to "Show me the Money", which means that an independent analysis says that the funding meets the goals of the program.
Reagan era politicians loved to attack layers of agencies in government and privatize public programs. Nowadays this is manifest in the large numbers of non profit groups contracted to government. This trades one form of self-interested for another form of self-interested middle man who are less accountable. At least the legilsature could review the mission of an errant agency, now the only check is contract renewal and that is more disconnected from performance. The effectiveness of the relationship between a government agency and the non profit rests on an allignment of the mission statement of the agency and the interests of the non profit. There could be a disconnect. One area in which this middleman relationship leads to bloat and self-interest, just as in managed health-care, is self-interested vending of services and in advocacy created by regulatory complexity. In order for a client to get services, he needs the middleman of the advocacy non-profit to manage the morass of forms and regulations, the complexity designed to prevent fraud and activate denial of service. The client does not know if the middleman is motivated in his service or self-interest and not their own.
The result of all of this is that many people in business and government alike go through the motions of offering and delivering services, but don't really deliver. They are controlled by the complexity of the rules that define their work and because they are often powerless, or have given up the power to actually make sure the service was delivered, they work, but with no attachment to the outcome. This is why some of the glaring failures of services that were supposed to deliver, especially in times of crisis, could occur.
Complexity and its role in denial of service is one of the hallmarks of a decadent society, one destined for revolution. In a society that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, such a revolution would consist of a reduction of complexity, either by abandoning fixations, such as "How many angles can fit on the head of a pin", or by consciously simplifying the body of law, a Constitutional Conventon, and a purging of case law.
There are some organizational tactics that support this non-performance, even denial of service. The oldest tricks are what I call the "Tech Support Rule" and the "politician" rule. The first says that if you have a captive audience you can relax your deliveries. The second says that have the best intentions but fail to deliver resources, i.e. funds. In the first. your customers give you power, buy a service contract, and you have them in a captive situation where you can get away with much non-delivery of service. The irony is that the purchaser believes that he is getting more by having the force of the contract to be able to get solutions. Most of the time he is not getting top-notch service. This is why most support operations hire entry-level people. The person can save money overall by spending the time himself to learn how to manage and troubleshoot the system himself. Either he learns this or he terminates the support when he finds even the escalated trouble case does not get him a solution, let alone a timely one. It takes out and out fraud to end these relationships sometimes.
In the case of the politician, the executive or legislator can state the best of intentions and be perceived as having heard of a need, but when the citizens aren't watching, he can non-perform in the budget process by not funding or adequately funding some program he is on record for supporting.
The failure to discharge responsibility or to spend resources appropriate to a solution is a hallmark of organizational operation everywhere. It is manifest in the
complexity of regulations that govern a transaction. As a general rule. the more complex the rules the greater the disadvantage of the individual. Complexity favors big organizations with teams of analysts and the individual client is always at a disadvantage regardless of the stated mission of the service. This is one of the main avenues of power and corruption in government and business. It doesn't matter if the organization is your wirelss provider, a lender, or a government agency such as the Social Security Administration.
Such complexity is often used by legislators not just to thwart fraud, which may cost the government more than actual fraud or prevent efforts at fraud if it actually delivered, but complexity often results in a denial of service. Since ancient times "Jumping through hoops", that is the sequence of petty steps needed to do business with government and also with businesses not in the government, discourages some of the clients presumably served by the offered service, and "Falling through the cracks" is due to either out right failures of the system of services or to disconnects and denial of service based on a lack of persistance,
the attitude being "If you want this bad enough, you have to work for it." It is the oldest trick in existance for a legislator to not adequately fund a program and let the language of the law create a set of barriers to actually delivering on its stated aims. The Politician gets to look good while not actually delivering on the promise. One way for oversight to combat this, is to "Show me the Money", which means that an independent analysis says that the funding meets the goals of the program.
Reagan era politicians loved to attack layers of agencies in government and privatize public programs. Nowadays this is manifest in the large numbers of non profit groups contracted to government. This trades one form of self-interested for another form of self-interested middle man who are less accountable. At least the legilsature could review the mission of an errant agency, now the only check is contract renewal and that is more disconnected from performance. The effectiveness of the relationship between a government agency and the non profit rests on an allignment of the mission statement of the agency and the interests of the non profit. There could be a disconnect. One area in which this middleman relationship leads to bloat and self-interest, just as in managed health-care, is self-interested vending of services and in advocacy created by regulatory complexity. In order for a client to get services, he needs the middleman of the advocacy non-profit to manage the morass of forms and regulations, the complexity designed to prevent fraud and activate denial of service. The client does not know if the middleman is motivated in his service or self-interest and not their own.
The result of all of this is that many people in business and government alike go through the motions of offering and delivering services, but don't really deliver. They are controlled by the complexity of the rules that define their work and because they are often powerless, or have given up the power to actually make sure the service was delivered, they work, but with no attachment to the outcome. This is why some of the glaring failures of services that were supposed to deliver, especially in times of crisis, could occur.
Complexity and its role in denial of service is one of the hallmarks of a decadent society, one destined for revolution. In a society that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, such a revolution would consist of a reduction of complexity, either by abandoning fixations, such as "How many angles can fit on the head of a pin", or by consciously simplifying the body of law, a Constitutional Conventon, and a purging of case law.
I Got the last laugh on ReFi Spam
A few posts ago I complained about spam I got from refinancing and mortgage lenders. I now have the last laugh on those idiots in the midst of the credit crunch which could unravel the U.S. Economy. I never believed any of this crap; that one could live off mortgage equity and come out ahead or not be totally burned by APR loans. People are so stupid; they believe that their jobs and the economy is going to grow forever even though the companies and the government are up to their ears in debt. Ours is now one of the most mismanaged and vulnerable economies in the world, ripe for the reaping. Maybe it is because of the war in Iraq, or the fact that Bush let the plutocracy get a tax break paid for by the American Middle Class, which is rapidly going extinct, or the fact that the Dollar is propped up by Chinese holdings of US Currency which they could easily cause to crash if they lose faith in American consumers or some unforeseen disaster overtakes their economy, like corruption and mismanagement, or eco-disaster.
Jingle in Nightly Business Report
The Jingle in PBS's Nightly Business Report which is a jagged descending melodic motive sounds to me like "Greedy Bastards Buy", or "Sell" whether the market went up and down. As I think there is now a disconnect between the fortunes of the average American, not withstanding their vulnerable investments, and whether the DJA goes up or down, I can do the puns of the hosts of that show one better by singing this nasty ditty to the music of the show.
Next CEO who says "LIve Your passion" gets my fist!
Regularly, some CEO or other business-type gets up and spews about you finding and living your passion, now that is sound advice as far as it goes and I would like to slam my fist down the throat of the the next smug bastard who says this, for it is what he is not saying about opportunities created by the investment environment that tells you if it is possible to pursue any passion you may have and be able to survive doing so.
The fact is the environment that pays for what people have to offer as skill and passion has few places that reward it, and fewer as time goes on. This is due to a real loss of opportunity created by integration of ownership and leveraging of reward, a "winner take all" effect, like American Idol, a pseudo-democracy driven by marketing. You will notice that there are no Classical musicians on that show and so if Classical Music is your passion, as it is mine, then either your passion has no place in the market, or you must work much harder to find your place. What these guys who say "Live Your Passion" are really telling you is: "Look, I happen to love making money in a way that is obviously rewarded by the Market." that is NOT "I have this love of something which I can pursue and also survive." The instinct to fit into a market need or a need I can create in the market, is what he is talking about, not having a preexisting love and finding a niche, or it just so happens that HIS passion matches a market niche. What he is actually talking about is that most people have to find a place in the market and do something they have no passion about because the market doesn't support their passion, not that they don't have any passion. The reason fewer passions are filled is because investors are a Conservative and largely clueless lot, who are more and more restricted to sure-bets, low hanging fruit, and who are districted by sales pitches because they haven't a real clue as to value.
There are fewer niches today than there were several years ago. This would be fixed by disintegration of the oligarchies that control things now. This may happen as a collapse of the world economy, and if we get through that calamity, we may be able to find those that support our passion, for we can't be heard over the din of the monopolies.
Of course, another choice is to take a vow of poverty and say that I'd rather consume much less from the economy for the freedom to spend time on my passion. That should send a chill down the spine of the marketers and corporations who want to dictate demand and create addicted consumers; the idea of someone thumbing their nose at the power structure and checking out. If more people did that, their power would be gone. Eco-disaster will destroy the status-quo, anyway. You might as well live your passion.
The fact is the environment that pays for what people have to offer as skill and passion has few places that reward it, and fewer as time goes on. This is due to a real loss of opportunity created by integration of ownership and leveraging of reward, a "winner take all" effect, like American Idol, a pseudo-democracy driven by marketing. You will notice that there are no Classical musicians on that show and so if Classical Music is your passion, as it is mine, then either your passion has no place in the market, or you must work much harder to find your place. What these guys who say "Live Your Passion" are really telling you is: "Look, I happen to love making money in a way that is obviously rewarded by the Market." that is NOT "I have this love of something which I can pursue and also survive." The instinct to fit into a market need or a need I can create in the market, is what he is talking about, not having a preexisting love and finding a niche, or it just so happens that HIS passion matches a market niche. What he is actually talking about is that most people have to find a place in the market and do something they have no passion about because the market doesn't support their passion, not that they don't have any passion. The reason fewer passions are filled is because investors are a Conservative and largely clueless lot, who are more and more restricted to sure-bets, low hanging fruit, and who are districted by sales pitches because they haven't a real clue as to value.
There are fewer niches today than there were several years ago. This would be fixed by disintegration of the oligarchies that control things now. This may happen as a collapse of the world economy, and if we get through that calamity, we may be able to find those that support our passion, for we can't be heard over the din of the monopolies.
Of course, another choice is to take a vow of poverty and say that I'd rather consume much less from the economy for the freedom to spend time on my passion. That should send a chill down the spine of the marketers and corporations who want to dictate demand and create addicted consumers; the idea of someone thumbing their nose at the power structure and checking out. If more people did that, their power would be gone. Eco-disaster will destroy the status-quo, anyway. You might as well live your passion.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
The Problem is Clueless Investors
We are told of the wisdom of markets, of the foresight of people to enter into ventures, of people to put money into them, and of consumers to buy goods and services. And we are told of the consequences of not performing as well as we can as businesses, investors, and consumers in our self-interest. This is reasonable provided the game is fair and everybody is well-informed and reasonable. In reality human weakness make this perfectly running, perfectly free market system quite a bit less than ideal. People often behave with great short-sightedness whether out of greed, stupidity or ignorance, and sometimes all three. We are also often told the myth that government is somehow basically in conflict with free markets and that the less government the better, as by Libertarians and some Republicans, or by Conservatives in general. The historical fact is that government plays a basic role in establishing and protecting markets by providing seed resources to overcome the risk of starting new industry and by protecting the economic system from instability and threats. It has done so from the beginning of nations. In addition Government mitigates some of the risks of doing business, both for producers and consumers. That is wny most real-world economies are "mixed" and not totally deregulated. Even when that word was in fashion noone really wanted a return in America to the government non-involvement of the beginning of the 20th Century and even when Robber Barons and Social Darwinists in Capitalism ran the show, they did so with the help of corrupt politicians.
When we think of problems in our economy, large and small, we must put much of the lack of insight on the shoulders of investors, whether institutions, investment bankers, or individuals, because it is the question of whether money can be raised that mostly determines if a given venture can go forward. It is not either the desire to start a business or the needs of consumers. Alerting investors to a need is pretty inefficient. They must wait for proposals for ventures, so in that part of the process, the consumer is often the last served; ideas for ventures can come from people who happen to see a need of consumers, but dissatisfaction from the public at the quality of services has to be seen as such. The proposals often are first presented in business plans that emphasize return or investment rather than the question of
whether the public is being served. This is why so much money has to be wasted on marketing, because business have to sell consumers on the business plan supported by their investors, not what consumers obviously need.
I'll give you an small example in the town I live in. About ten years ago there was one of those family-style breakfast places that did a land-office business because its food was excellent, reasonably priced, and it had been at that location for 40 years. The restaurant was good sized and there was lots of parking. The owners retired and the place went out of business. Within the next few years there had been a succession of much more pricey fish and steak places, at that location none of which survived more than a year or two. In the meantime a popular cafe opened that was not really a full-serve restaurant but did serve breakfast, hot and cold sandwiches, other pre-made entrees. It is still there. The problem is that the place is overcrowded on weekends, especially in the mornings and especially in wet weather. The seating in the place is all small tables. It is not really suitable for large parties especially with little children. There are other restaurants that serve breakfast but each has its own set of issues, size, parking, and in one case closing on Sunday probably because of religious convictions. I am amazed that no one has seized the opportunity to take advantage of this situation. The town where I live is not poor. It has a Chamber of Commerce, there are banks and investment bankers and institutions aplenty; in fact they are displacing business that offer tangible goods and services.
This little local story shows the disconnect in market systems and it can be seen at a larger scale whenever people go unserved for any length of time. The information that a need to be filled is not getting communicated. Either the people who want to do business in the area don't see it, or don't care, or they do and can't get investors to start them up. The odd thing is that the restaurant business is inheritly risky and yet there were people who were more than willing to throw their money at up-scale menus that had a far greater chance of failing than does a breakfast menu that is relatively inexpensive and caters to families, like the place that was there for 40 years. That location is still there, the building and parking spaces are still there going under utalized. What amazes me is that there are people who are supposed to know all these things in great supply in this town and yet none of them has come forward. I guess that they would rather put up with the crush and noise at the cafe rather than see that a good family-style breakfast place large enough to hold many large parties and with plenty of parking go into a venue that already exists down the road. I may decide to move somewhere else rather than put up with the short-sightedness of the people here, and I have less faith in the wisdom of markets as a result.
When we think of problems in our economy, large and small, we must put much of the lack of insight on the shoulders of investors, whether institutions, investment bankers, or individuals, because it is the question of whether money can be raised that mostly determines if a given venture can go forward. It is not either the desire to start a business or the needs of consumers. Alerting investors to a need is pretty inefficient. They must wait for proposals for ventures, so in that part of the process, the consumer is often the last served; ideas for ventures can come from people who happen to see a need of consumers, but dissatisfaction from the public at the quality of services has to be seen as such. The proposals often are first presented in business plans that emphasize return or investment rather than the question of
whether the public is being served. This is why so much money has to be wasted on marketing, because business have to sell consumers on the business plan supported by their investors, not what consumers obviously need.
I'll give you an small example in the town I live in. About ten years ago there was one of those family-style breakfast places that did a land-office business because its food was excellent, reasonably priced, and it had been at that location for 40 years. The restaurant was good sized and there was lots of parking. The owners retired and the place went out of business. Within the next few years there had been a succession of much more pricey fish and steak places, at that location none of which survived more than a year or two. In the meantime a popular cafe opened that was not really a full-serve restaurant but did serve breakfast, hot and cold sandwiches, other pre-made entrees. It is still there. The problem is that the place is overcrowded on weekends, especially in the mornings and especially in wet weather. The seating in the place is all small tables. It is not really suitable for large parties especially with little children. There are other restaurants that serve breakfast but each has its own set of issues, size, parking, and in one case closing on Sunday probably because of religious convictions. I am amazed that no one has seized the opportunity to take advantage of this situation. The town where I live is not poor. It has a Chamber of Commerce, there are banks and investment bankers and institutions aplenty; in fact they are displacing business that offer tangible goods and services.
This little local story shows the disconnect in market systems and it can be seen at a larger scale whenever people go unserved for any length of time. The information that a need to be filled is not getting communicated. Either the people who want to do business in the area don't see it, or don't care, or they do and can't get investors to start them up. The odd thing is that the restaurant business is inheritly risky and yet there were people who were more than willing to throw their money at up-scale menus that had a far greater chance of failing than does a breakfast menu that is relatively inexpensive and caters to families, like the place that was there for 40 years. That location is still there, the building and parking spaces are still there going under utalized. What amazes me is that there are people who are supposed to know all these things in great supply in this town and yet none of them has come forward. I guess that they would rather put up with the crush and noise at the cafe rather than see that a good family-style breakfast place large enough to hold many large parties and with plenty of parking go into a venue that already exists down the road. I may decide to move somewhere else rather than put up with the short-sightedness of the people here, and I have less faith in the wisdom of markets as a result.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)