Vortex James and mixent. I think you are right in one regard. We are in a rent seeking society. Why? The reason is that we have indoctrinated ourselves to rely on stats, computers and academic wisdom. That is a problem my grand children's children will have to deal with. Credit score is important - not. The whole investment community is on the same track. Models are imposed and if it does not fit so be it. WE will take the sure ones - we leave the big catches to the others as nobody will reward us for the occasional break of the sound barrier but a steady 500 miles per hour gives us more bonuses. The next thing is that everybody has the same model. They all use Excel to make the model based on old stuff. They all have the same model. Now next step, put in LENR or any unknown technology in the model and the answer is "NO CORRELATION". That equals , do not invest. The result for the investment community is that they all do mediocre. They all do the same. Any new ideas will require as much effort in to financing, management, leadership etc. as is spent on the core issue. I understand that most Vortices are critical of Dr. Randy Mills. However, one need to applaud his ability to raise money. It is wrong to say that his investors are stupid or do not understand. He has identified his target investors and even after 25 mllion dollars ?? he is abel to get them to over subscribe. I do not know anything about Axil's ideas - I do not understand more than half of it. I know Peter is a smart guy so I trust Axil has a few ideas worth following up on. There are to problems: 1. Axil does not invoke any trust by being anonymous. 2. One need to talk to farmers in farmer's language and to professor's in professor's language. The last is a Swedish say by the way (not perfectly translated). To Axil or Lixa? there will be very little traction for your ideas without you open up. You need a 'translator' somebody needs to clad the theories in words possible to understand by an investor. 2nd degree differential equations does mean nothing to any ANY investor. I think we have a lot of expertise in Vortex. We do miss people doing experiments as I understand. I am a strong believer of a modern approach to problem solving. Many small entities work together in an per need basis. That is the strengths of the western society. We have all the pieces, building it to a massive organization cannot happen without prior success (or Chinese wager). Then the massive organization relies on the models I mentioned above and they provide soooooooo pooooorly. Exxon lost half a billion dollars on a stupid thing per James. It does not mean anything. I know without having one idea about the project, the people or the timing that everybody has CYA. Nobody suffered and Exxon is anonymous. Life goes on and here we are complaining. I suggest to make some program and confirm the basic ideas and then find the right investors. Hard to find them? Not , really. I do not know anyone of them but I am sure I could smell them out. I guarantee that I am not risk averse. I do not thing there is any shortage of investment money. I do not thing risk taking is unusual in humans - on the contrary. The ten million you need for the eco project, James are available. I have no idea about te project but I know hwy you have had no luck. One need to talk to farmers in farmer's language and to professor's in professor's language.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:54 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Its worse than that. I've seen Exxon blow $600M on a competing technology > that had far less to offer under anything resembling due diligence. The US > government has blown billions on the Tokamak over a period of decades > despite the founders of the program denouncing it. Then there is the Space > Shuttle. > > No, its not being "risk averse" alone that defines "dumb" money. > > The capital structures are constructed by rent seeking: > > Public sector rent seeking: Groups figuring out how to extract money from > the taxpayer and/or Federal Reserve that they they, in fact, use to engage > in more activities targeting the same public sector extraction. > > Private sector rent seeking: Investors looking for natural monopolies aka > network effects aka network externalities while avoiding paying for the > government services that protect their de facto monopoly properties. > > This results in a general capital structure in the economy that is > incapable of doing risk assessment and management in technology development > -- regardless of whether it is risk averse or not. > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In reply to James Bowery's message of Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:34:24 -0500: >> Hi, >> >> Indeed. Humans are very risk averse. They are willing to invest large >> sums in >> things they are tried and true, even if the promised return is only low, >> but >> very unwilling to invest in something completely new, even if the promised >> return is very high. >> This attitude could well be the downfall of civilization. >> >> >As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me >> >define what I mean: >> > >> >I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on >> >nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological >> >footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production >> to >> >the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the >> >agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet >> so >> >rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. >> > >> >When I say "waiting on" I mean it is demonstrated and the production line >> >to manufacture it is already specified. >> > >> >Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by "demonstrated" is >> >that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ >> >profitable. >> [snip] >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> >
