One of the handy pages from the America the Beautiful website –
I just think its nifty . . .
My Note –
I was watching the GPS show on CNN with Fareed Zakaria last night or this morning or whenever it was this weekend and wrote down a couple notes from it including the fact that the Google founder during his interview stated that, “1 in 10 or 1 in 20” tech startup companies make it. That means, 50 out of 1000 companies started in the US with everything going for it (particularly in innovative and tech fields), actually succeed and the rest – some 950 out of every thousand fail.
Something is very wrong with that picture. And, most of the people interviewed for the show from large corporate players that are doing well, stated that the US continues to innovate and then those innovations, inventions and successes are lost to other countries. Well, that has certainly been happening for awhile.
But, what if part of the problem is that a cycle has been created which serves the investment community whose money is underwriting these startups and then, two years later when those investment dollars are pulled out – it is bankrupting these companies? What if the investors are demanding and receiving 3 – 5 times their investment dollars as noted on many venture capital association websites within a two – three year timetable, at which time their money and profits from the use of their money are being withdrawn? That cycle would literally be taking the rug out from under these startups long before they could sustain themselves or make a profit.
One of the executives on the Fareed Zakaria show noted that there is no sense of urgency in America to fix any of this, or to create companies, or to create innovations or to bring our level of education up to compete with the rest of the world (roughly paraphrased). Now, considering that the odds of success are 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 (or 50 in 1000, 100 in 1000) – why would anybody do it?
Something is very wrong with that picture.
I had wondered why people who are out of work for the last two years (or longer) that actually did have the savings and equity in their homes to use – didn’t start their own businesses. And, now I can see why. I see why they are wary of it. Let’s say that I take fifty things from the tech sector which ought to make money easily and out of those fifty – although the research is sound, the product is good, the needs for the product are there, the money for seed capital is acquired – the patents established, and franchise or licensing to the university whose initial research it is based upon are arranged and paid – the marketing done effectively, and every thing is done right – the odds of any of those fifty things working are still lower than reality would suggest. That is why innovation isn’t happening. Why should it?
And, then once those things fail, their assets, patents, copyrights, trademarks and other goodies, including their creative business model – is sold off to the international marketplace. What’s the point?