condor

Agreed, it looks like the breakdown for '49-07 is $53B military $30B economic. I have no idea how that was committed etc., but it shouldn't be discounted the unique position Israel has been on the US Aid side, and what affect that could have on spurring economic (and start-up) growth for a nation of 7MM people. That shouldn't take away anything from the qualitative characteristics mentioned in the article, just another data point.

"Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having recently been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

I can imagine that has some trick-down effects on the "financing of ideas"-side of the equation. Smart people are one thing, smart people with a lot of resources, another.

the way I look at it, ambition is your own personal goal/view/desire (directed inward) . . . arrogance is when you push your ambitions on others (directed outward).

The actual staff report linked in that article is well worth the read.

These companies are basically running shady private tax schemes. No value-added.

I'm glad the senate report provides a list of the 'partner' commerce companies that have made over $1MM using these schemes. I'll be thinking twice about giving any of them my business. [PDF]http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/111609EXHIBITSTOSTA...

"The last 3 years was a process you had to go through to get to where you eventually want to be. A very efficient process that not too many others ever get a chance for."

Why not actually try to be what you 'eventually want to be', now . . . choose you're own adventure, now. You don't need to put up with feeling like you're being taken advantage now, so that later you can feel you're getting what you're worth. I don't believe there are any standard, efficient processes that you 'have to do' to get where you want to be. You figure out, thats part of the learning process.

"Do you have any idea what the current financial situation would have looked like if the government had just let the banks collapse?"

No, and neither do you. That's why its called a free-market. It's free to do anything. It's not a free-market thats only free to take the form of what our expectations are.

Goldman's business was subsidized by the Government, in the form of funding Goldman's transaction partners, so that they could pay Goldman what was owed.

In normal business if my customer goes bankrupt, even if I made the sale and was owed money, I would take a loss on that transaction., and if the loss was large enough it would affect all of my employees, who in turn took the risk of working for me. I took the risk of selling to that customer, I was in the best position to judge their stability, and so would have to deal with the consequences. Goldman didn't have to deal with the consequences of transacting with unstable partners, the Government (in the form of the taxpayers) stepped in to deal with those consequences, and that is why in large part Goldman is able to exist, earn a profit, and pay bonuses.

couldn't agree more . . . just because something exists in a market doesn't mean it should. Capitalism is a system/strategy, how you apply that depends on your values (or what you value).

and again those are decided numbers, someone was convinced of those figures.

Only if you CHOOSE to ACCEPT outside investors, and CHOOSE a board that doesn't have the same vision for the company as you do. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing if you own your own business, your fiduciary responsibility is to yourself.

I think what Jason's getting at is to look beyond the offer/fiduciary responsibility mindset and to think bigger, to be motivated by passion and have grander ambitions than looking at one's business as "company + product + customer = offer/price".

There are many successful business that truly don't have a number they'd HAVE to take. It's a choice, and that choice doesn't appear to be actively made by this generation's poster-child business leaders.

I do disagree with Jason, I think that there are a lot of unspoken young businsses, not in the spotlight, that do have the passion to take the baton from the previous generation; it's just that they don't seek out the attention, nor does the attention seek them out.

I found it curious that there's an ad unit on the onenote product page http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/onenote/default.aspx .

based on what? we have a sense of prices, but how is the underlying value measured?

it sounds like they they raised a little over $30M, and the last $14M of that was @ a $140M valuation.

What a great resource.

I wonder why steve jobs hasn't spoken at ted? most other great tech leaders appear to have held court there.

does it have to be a choice? why not create value with art, and exchange that value for money.

I think it's mentioned that part of his company was sold to brad greenspan of euniverse/intermix(myspace) fame. I don't know how much this reflects on Andrew and/or mailbits, but brad greenspan and euniverse are know for, among other things, 'legitimizing' the adware business, until most everyone realized it wasn't legitimate. Also euniverse and brad had a pretty well publicized accounting fraud scandal that resulted in him leaving euniverse. Anyone that worked in the LA online advertising business during the late 90s early 00s will know euniverse is about as shady as shady can get, without actually getting thrown in jail.

If I had to guess I'd say vc oversight is part of a larger 'lets watch all the money in the system' initiative. Seeing as how the govt has pledged upwards of $12 trillion to bridge parts of the us financial system, I can understand why the government would want to keep an eye on everything to limit the chances of something in the shadows blowing up and requiring further govt bridging. Will it work, who knows ... personally, I don't agree with it, nor do I agree with any of the bailouts: banking, auto otherwise.

its not an aversion to making money, there's no way to survive without making it. I will never understand the glorification of making money as an end, its so obvious, it should go without saying, yet here we are with yet another big bucks lottery article. the energy and focus should be on making things better, focusing on refining the product, with the obvious profit constraint.

really? I wasn't there, but it sounds more like running ads would ruin the product to them so it wouldn't be something they loved anymore. I'm amazed that the idea one should make money is so novel . . . it's like breathing, it should be assumed, how else does something sustain itself? The focus should be on greatness, making something better, pushing something forward (with the assumption that it should be able to pay its own way), not simply how to angle an extra dollar.

“'You don’t understand,' he told me. 'If I ran ads in it, it would taint my work.'

There were a bunch of email newsletter guys who felt that way. In their stupidity, I found an opportunity."

Amazing, they're stupid because they care more about the product than making money off the product. I wish most companies were that stupid, there would be a lot better products out there.

we already knew that J.F. likes to approach anything to do with 37S from the angle of highest exposure and maximum cheese, that is disappointing, but I wouldn't let the messenger taint the message, those features of get satisfaction are 100% deceptive whether J.F. said it or not.

another great quote . . he even got the timing right

''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''

besides the s&l crisis, the long term capital blowup seems to be another good comp in hindsight.

I love it, everybody has an opinion because in theory everybody is a part owner . . . AIG will be a great case study on why companies are best managed as dictatorships and constrained by a marketplace. It'll be interesting to see what happens when neither of those is in place.

I understand their deal, I just don't think manipulating your customers into making a purchase is a good longterm strategy, even if some of the customers get the joke . . . time will tell I guess. Also, props usually means proper recognition/respect . . . http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=props just sayin . . .

yes props for making each and every one of those customers feel like suckers, brilliant marketing move that's sure to pay off handsomely over the long term . . . although something tells me t-shirt hell's customers don't have a problem with being made to feel like suckers.

I really appreciate his idea on the responsibility of power/success: "I don't think that people have special responsibilities just because they've done something that other people like or don't like. I think the work speaks for itself." Pretty honest. Really implies the responsibility is in the achieving of the success itself. Which I guess contrasts with achieving success in less than responsible ways, and then feeling compelled to be responsible about it after the fact. Very unique approach, something I haven't really considered. I think it makes sense.

checklists are great when combined with independent thought. however they can be a problem when they're relied on instead of independent thought (brainless checking).

never said capital (or access to capital) doesn't influence value creation. it can negatively or positively affect value creation depending on how that capital is allocated. however the act of capital allocation does not create value. why is that so difficult to understand? im not saying capital allocation isn't important, however its one means to an end (value creation).

I agree he allocated resources by buying/selling assets, but nowhere in the purchase/sale of those assets is value created. Prices move, but value isn't created, the underlying assets don't generate anymore than they would have had he not purchased or sold them. GOOG trading at 700 vs 200 doesn't create value, GOOG will still earn the same amount in the future whether it trades at 200 or 700. Please take some time to think about this.