You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Information’ tag.

I told Galvin about my expectations around Apple, Inc. and it’s stocks potential, and why. And, he told the world. I’ll remind you of that by pointing you to:  not what you were thinking.

What did you do?

Then I gave you, all of you, fair (fair) warning with: how Verizon might spank Android.

Now, with the publishing of the story: Could Apple Hit $1,000?, in the venerable Wall Street Journal yesterday, it’s a reasonable bet, the market will drive you and Apple stock towards $1000.

What are you going to do, now?

Come on! Do it!

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork


The fact is most opportunities are not corollary to the obvious.

Ten years will come-and-go quickly. It already has, and it will do so, again. And, along the way, Apple’s stock could well hit one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). You can take my word for it. But, here is additional insight.

As Galvin makes his case, Apple’s revenues may triple in the next ten years. So, the stock could indeed hit $1000. But, the real play is not so obvious, and will likely be in the form of fiber optics – because that is what is needed to pipe the content. But, Data Centers will have their role as well. And, dudes like Bob Twitchell (big smarty pants genius that he is) will help lead the way with emerging technology that makes relative technology faster, more secure, and less costly.

Reactionary investment strategy like reading news briefs off MSN and Yahoo! will kill you. Whereas proactive research will build wealth. So… read between the lines from cross-referenced information. Think in terms of convergence. For example, “Apple”, “Video Anywhere”, “Fiber Optics”, “Data Centers”, and “Venture Capital”.

Follow the money BEFORE the thundering herds sort it out.

It’s about foundational thinking and strategy – relative technologies that make for great strategic partnerships. One element of the formula building off of another.

Now you owe me.

Soon… More insight into being a physical bad-ass at fifty, and great Margarita tips.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

I was reminded of these facts by Craig Larson…

Apparently Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book entitled: The Millionaire Next Door … The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy. You should read it in order to understand a special breed of business person you are likely not. Do it!

In researching the book and then unleashing it upon the public’s senses, they (the authors, not to be confused, necessarily with that, otherwise, insidious and collective “they”) produced a portrait of who America’s millionaires are, and show that, by and large, these are quiet, understated, self-reliant Americans who are committed to hard work, education, and family.

The portrait shows that eighty percent (80%) of our millionaires are first generation affluent. To be clear, this means that less than half received no inheritance, and only nineteen percent (19%) get any income from a trust fund or estate.

Most Americans … In this case, defined at eighty percent (80%), are not self-employed. And, of those that are, two thirds are our nations millionaires. Think “Daddy Warbucks” (to whom I can often relate – but, you don’t know as much about as you thought you did until now – which also part of my point with this blog post).

Meanwhile, Seventy five percent (75%) of these self-employed millionaires are “entrepreneurs”, and the remaining quarter are self-employed professionals like doctors and accounts.

To be sure, we have high profile billionaires in America… However most of our millionaires are the nation’s bread and butter entrepreneurs and small business owners with annual incomes averaging two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) annually.

These are overwhelmingly self-made individuals, by-and-large founders and proprietors of prosaic businesses that might include: welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, paving contractors, etc.

For additional points of reference consider an other post of mine: Entrepreneurs, Intrapreneurs, and them Corporate Fellas.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

It’s been a rather long, tumultuous, and educational experiential journey refamiliarizing myself with the PC (as opposed to Apples), Windows – by way of the Android Operating System – and technology in the form of upheaval; the kind that requires and creates change. “Experiential” is an interesting word for the purposes of this post. The word derives it’s meaning from a learning process at the feet of old philosophers, yet it’s also apropos to a dedicated process of learning something new by, essentially, immersion. And, here we are…

Along the way, I find myself constantly reminded that we’ve become terribly reliant upon the internet for information with it being the uncertain arbiter of truth.

So… It’s become my view that the Internet, or any technology can not, will not, and should not act as a proxy to achieve the dreams and social goals we lack the courage to propose, debate, and legislate.

Thusly, I stand firm the Jeffersonian and Heterodox.

And, not often enough, we’ve discussed what being Jeffersonian means, on this Blog. However, today I’ll add some thought around what it does not mean. There will most certainly be the shaking of fists – and, furiously, that. Possibly the gnashing of teeth. Heated words, to be sure. The portent of change, inevitable.

NOTE: Don’t be overly concerned if you are reading this and come to a bound conclusion that you’ve waded, possibly unsuspecting, into my thinking mid-stream. We must all begin somewhere, and it’s how we finish, and that likely, counts for the most.

In any event, I’ll offer this abstract to maneuver you along:

It is often claimed that Internet technology will revolutionize society by privileging the small and benefiting the individual. We term the utopian tendency to hail a new communication technology as an inherently positive, decentralizing, and democratic force. In a manner of speaking this might be referred to as an example of the: “the Jeffersonian syndrome (named in honor of my hero so often appropriated to identify the decentralized, democratic outcome – the predicted triumph of the many over the few).”

It’s not just me, mind you. Others started it…

“Life in cyberspace seems to be shaping up exactly like Thomas Jefferson would have wanted: founded on the primacy of individual liberty and a commitment to pluralism, diversity, and community” (Kapor, 1993).

And,

“…the social liberalism of New Left and the economic liberalism of New Right have converged into an ambiguous dream of a hi-tech ‘Jeffersonian democracy’. Interpreted generously, this retro-futurism could be a vision of a cybernetic frontier where hi-tech artisans discover their individual self-fulfillment in either the electronic agora or the electronic marketplace” (Barbrook & Cameron, 1998).

Huh? “agora”?

Social critics dislike paucity. For example, society (that collective you), they (the social critics) complain, suffers when there are too few firms in a market, too few political choices, or too little communication. Small numbers of firms coordinate actions to stifle entry and innovation, largely at the expense of consumers. Concentration at the most extreme results in rapacious monopolies that produce inferior products at high prices. Likewise, a small number of political parties limit voter choice, stifle policy change, and produce voter apathy and special interest politics. Society would clearly be better served, so the critics argue, by greater political choice and the accompanying increased voter participation. Too little communication is also bad for society, as limited communication precludes understanding, diversity, and community.

Weep not for the minority, although, it is that collective “they” that hold most of the power, and the wealth, under many definitions, that is part of it.

Social critics often place their hopes in technology to erode the dominance of the few and foster diversity. Many view the internet as a liberating technology. Indeed, they embrace the internet as subversive, a technology that will pry power away from the few – tyrants, censors, robber barons and phone monopolies (let’s not forget Obama, Obamacrats, and that insidious media) and return it to the people. The internet, so the critics claim, will usher in a new era of perfect market competition, more direct democracy, and greater community-building (cf. Dyson, 1997). Ultimately, it will undermine the dominant few in many segments of society, and usher in a more democratic and heterogeneous political and economic system.  A system that will produce infinite consumer choice in the marketplace, deliver true democracy in the political realm, and provide unlimited and enhanced communication in the cultural realm.

This view leads to fallacious expectations about the impact of technology. And, these misguided expectations are cyclic and predictable. Corollary to this might be  a brief historical discussion of earlier communication technologies. Jeffersonian claims about the Internet are rebutted by the three propositions:

1.  New technologies do not operate in isolation from existing organizations and systems;

2.  Valuable information is never cheap; and,

3.  The economics of information markets imply concentrated structures.

And, so… The Internets non-Jeffersonian impact on economic, political, and community structures is discussed using three cases:

1.  The online market for books;

2.  The claims made about direct democracy; and,

3.  And, political parties, and the hopes for computer- mediated communities.

It’s not that I wish to promote an opposite, dystopian perspective, nor do I consider the Internet impotent in terms of societal change.

Instead, I wish to call attention to the Jeffersonian-esque view of technology as a very predictable mis-perception that is a waste of our energies.

First, as a society we must, in reasoned deliberation, conclude that we are in need of one or more of the goals we have discussed here; be it less concentrated markets, greater economic efficiency, more direct democracy, a more decentralized political system, or more participatory and emancipatory communities.

Second, after a rational analysis of our goal and the changes needed in the social, political, and economic domains to approach it (addressing also the question of if and how “the” internet has the potential to aid us in these ends).

Third, and perhaps finally, we need to advance that goal through policy.

The hype surrounding technology is also predictably old: the introduction of the PC ushered in the “PC revolution” quite simply because many analysts expected the technology to usher in just that – a revolution (a revolution of what and how the revolution was to happen was never quite specified). The hype and bluster of the internet and in particular electronic markets is thus just yet another round of new technologies and anticipated revolutions.

Think in terms of what the catapult meant to war nine hundred years ago.

These technologies have had, and may yet have, a broad range of important and far-reaching implications. The question on the table is whether these technologies will deliver on the promised Jeffersonian expectations of decentralization and democratization, or whether this revolution will yet again fail to materialize. As I’ll struggle, here, in my own inarticulate manner, to have made clear, the weight of history leads us to doubt, the present conditions in electronic commerce lead us to doubt, the claims made about direct democracy lead us to doubt, and the idolatry of the computer-mediated community lead us to doubt.

This makes me perhaps not fearful, but certainly watchful of the idyllic, sophomoric generation that sees computers and the internet as the “easy button”.

While this post has approached these domains largely using an economic perspective, I’ll grimly suspect that judicious analysis from other perspectives would also cast the Jeffersonian expectation in an unflattering light. But, stay focused on me. But, as my own Mother expounded: Question everything, and accept nothing until the truth of the day is best known.

Where the drive of the heterodox crosses paths with the passion and intellectual nuance of the Jeffersonian, you’ll find that truth in the light of the seeking heart.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

See yesterdays post: General Motors ON

UPDATE 11/17/2010 @ 1pm: VOILA! – GM Confirms Expanding IPO by 31 percent

I’ll just keep it coming.

Peace be to my Brothers and sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

https://briancork.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/general-motors-on/

It’s no secret that General Motors (“GM”) has it’s Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) this week.

What might be a secret to the masses, however, is it’s truest underlying purpose.

The government lent money to GM. There is some thinking that the government could own as much as sixty-one percent (61%) of GM. And, the big auto-maker, as leading and cutting-edge as it’s vehicles have become, will struggle for decades to pay our thinly stretched United States Treasury back – and, it does not have a prayer of meeting it’s pension obligations.

So, they, that insidious “they” (no doubt led by the pipe-smoking-black-dog), mind you, are going to foist the problem on the American Citizens the very best of the good old fashioned way, certainly time-honored… By manipulating the stock market.

Seriously.

Here is how this particular effort will play-out. You simply need to make the decision if you are going to benefit, or keep getting your collective asses kicked.

The IPO will likely open up around $28.00 a share. Insiders (by many a definition) will pay less. For example, the United States Treasury is going to own shares as will friends of the big brokerage houses. JP Morgan is the syndicate lead and they are making all manner of new friends on Capital Hill with this play. This is not widely publicized for obvious reasons.  In any event, based on the aforementioned loan details, the Treasury will break even when the stock hits approximately $44.00.

So, it’s a good bet the stock will do just that, and then some.

I’m guessing there will likely be close to a $6m billion over subscription of the stock leading up to the IPO. My experience tells me we’ll see about $1 billion in roiling. Then that “over-hang” of back-orders will kick the stock up. After that, it’s all about “management”.

This is not evil. This is simply the way things work. You, why not you, can argue it’s part of the American dream.

I have to say something. It’s one of the many reasons you read this Blog. And, it’s something a Prudent and Optimistic Gentleman finds, required.

Good luck. But, there is little of that actually involved. Fortuna, perhaps, eh Dr. Pappas?

UPDATE 11/17/2010 @ 1pm: VOILA! – GM Confirms Expanding IPO by 31 percent

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters

Brian Patrick Cork

so…

I learned another lesson recently (okay… yesterday, in fact) about things that appear to be important; or, perhaps what we think might be important.

…perspective, if you will.

such a simple thing, really.

I’ve worked for about two weeks, rather strenuously, to research information around an obnoxiously epic post (just scroll down, it preceeds this hardly erudite offering). there are a good number of people that have been waiting for it to see electronic life. this morning I arrived to the offices, fed the fish, and fired-up my computer to start checking out comments. although I don’t approve most; while allowing a few, I enjoy the repartee they offer. in any event, there was an ugly banner (in red, no less) splayed across the top of my control panel. the gist of the message was that I had apparently violated some uncertain policy and my blog was banished. just like that. several years of effort. a lot of caring. stories about Haley Anne and Emma Jo, agonizing cultural commentary – just gone. and, to make it worse, I was deemed bad, possibly evil by the WordPress powers-that-be.

amazingly enough, perhaps only to myself, I found that I was unconcerned. I did some pull-ups and contemplated investigating the new Windows phone (problem is only AT&T currently offers that – so, forget it [see aforementioned epic post]). I decided karma might be a bicth, but God had decided He needed my focus, somehow, elsewhere.

then Anthony, from WordPress itself, sent me an email:

“Hi,

A mistake was made in the system which we have corrected. You didn’t do anything wrong. It’s a mystery. The blog is back just as you left it.

We are really sorry for that happening and the inconvenience it caused you.

Anthony

WordPress.com”

[…]

I failed to hesitate in my response:

“We are useless without some form of forgiveness.

Brian”

[…]

I actually meant it.

I’m a socially awkward person, and this blog helps me. I almost lost it. but, I was okay. I am somehow still connected to all of you. and, I’m a better man for it.

and, I’m grateful for so much in my life. especially for the events surrounding, and relative to last night. only God knows.

meanwhile, my brother Greg recently reminded me there exists a certain poem. I may go into more detail about this later, but have you ever read the The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock?  It’s a classic and wildly complicated poem – a meditation on aging and the aching disappointment of being human (especially male and human) – by T. S. Eliot, arguably the greatest literary observer of the first half of the (or maybe of the whole) 20th Century.

go read it. do it!  Will the mermaids sing to you?

peace be to my brothers and sister.

brian patrick cork

what’s all this about?

I can’t explain what that damn tree means - or, if it might stand for something.

However, here I do discuss events, people and things in our world - and, my (hardly simplistic, albeit inarticulate) views around them.

So, while I harangue the public in my not so gentle way, you will discover that I am fascinated by all things arcane, curious about those whom appear religious, love music, dabble in politics, loathe the media, value education, still think I am an athlete, and might offer a recipe.

All the while, striving mightily, and daily, to remain a prudent and optimistic gentleman.

brian cork by John Campbell

Current Quote

"Perhaps victory can be realized best when the heart changes."

Share This Blog! Do It!

Bookmark and Share

Follow brian on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 111 other followers

Archives

Categories

blog calendar?

March 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Top Clicks

  • None

LinkedIN



View Brian Cork's profile on LinkedIn

about this particular Theme:

I'll warn you now that Tarski is theme of this blog created by Benedict Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson. It is named for the logician Alfred Tarski. I'll recommend his papers ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages’ and ‘On the Concept of Logical Consequence’, both of which can be found in the collection Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics.