en-us http://www.gongol.com Research on market solutions to today's problems, along with economics and technology news. It's like Fark for capitalists. http://www.gongol.com http://www.gongol.com/assets/top/invisiblehand/logo120x60.png Fri, 02 Feb 2012 00:48:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/02/02/ 1447.7 Among the most interesting take-aways from the filing is that Mark Zuckerberg will have enough voting power to do whatever he wants with the company. The filing says, "As a result of voting agreements with certain stockholders, together with the shares he holds, Mark Zuckerberg, our founder, Chairman, and CEO, will be able to exercise voting rights with respect to [...] a majority of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock following our initial public offering. As a result, Mr. Zuckerberg has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval". So if you have questions about his judgment -- and there is good reason to have those -- you might want to think twice about becoming what is, essentially, a limited partner in his company. Also amusing was this warning: "Likewise, we have a number of current employees whose equity awards are fully vested and shortly after the completion of our initial public offering will be entitled to receive substantial amounts of our capital stock. As a result, it may be difficult for us to continue to retain and motivate these employees, and this wealth could affect their decisions about whether or not they continue to work for us." True, and a little foreboding. Now, one can't blame Zuckerberg for structuring the company the way he has -- retaining a huge share of the Class B stock, each share of which has ten times the voting power of the Class A stock that will be sold in the market -- nor would it be fair to deny that Facebook has become a very popular tool that brings a lot of happiness to people all over the world. But as an investment, it's extraordinarily risky. All of the meaningful control in the company is vested in one person, who then has to get lots of decisions right -- because there's no environment in which competition is more nimble and more fierce than in online services. The stock will probably be very hot upon its IPO, but at some point it will cool, and any bets on how it will perform can only be categorized as speculation, not investment. Fri, 02 Feb 2012 00:48:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/02/02/ 1447.6 With Scotland likely to vote in the next two years on a plan to divorce itself from England, there's a chance Wales could do the same thing. This raises an interesting question: If one were to re-draw the world's political maps based upon what made sense, rather than on historical precedent, what would change? There is, for instance, no really good reason why the United States hasn't added new territory in the last half-century. Not through force, mind you, but through voluntary accession. We should have a giant "Welcome" sign hanging out to say that any city, province, state, region, or country that meets a certain set of eligibility requirements is welcome to accede into the USA. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution says it: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union". Aren't there likely some places around the world where the locals would rather have the protection of the American military, the stability of the American government, and free-trade access to the entire American economy, rather than what they presently have? And as long as they're entering debt-free, with a commitment to the rule of law, republican government, and free enterprise, wouldn't new states be even better than the same number of new individual immigrants? In the UK and the United States alike, we're already bending the rules to make it easier for wealthy people to move in -- why not extend the principle a bit and welcome entire territories? Fri, 02 Feb 2012 00:48:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/02/02/ 1447.5 Fri, 02 Feb 2012 00:48:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/02/02/ 1447.4 Fri, 02 Feb 2012 00:48:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/02/02/ 1447.3 Fri, 02 Feb 2012 00:48:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/02/02/ 1447.2 Fri, 02 Feb 2012 00:48:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/02/02/ 1447.1 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:53:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/20/ 1446.5 But at what cost? Some will argue that the Federal government has actually earned (or will earn) a profit on its "investment" in the company. But that means that there was, presumably, a profit to have been made by the private sector instead -- by people who specialize in capital allocation. The government doesn't specialize in that. Nor should it specialize in bailing out companies just because those companies happen to be major employers. Government's proper role is to establish a fair playing field for the private sector, and to ensure that the things society needs that are difficult or impossible to self-fund are provided. (The private sector tends to do a bad job of providing an Air Force, for instance.) When government turns its attention and resources to "rescuing" companies in the private sector just because those companies are big, then we march directly into dangerous territory. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:53:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/20/ 1446.4 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:53:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/20/ 1446.3 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:53:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/20/ 1446.2 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:53:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/20/ 1446.1 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:36:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/12/ 1445.10 Ever stopped for a minute to think of the blackmail value built up inside Facebook? Not just what you've told, but whose profiles you've viewed...whose pictures you've lingered upon...which comments you made three years ago. It's like everything every mob and oppressive secret police agency has ever tried to collect, all in one database. No matter what their terms and conditions say now, nothing guarantees they won't ever use or sell this information against 800 million people. Just the blackmail value in telling employers which employees were on Facebook during working hours is enough to make one shudder. Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:36:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/12/ 1445.9 Only some of the messages put out under her name will really be originally hers. This hearkens back to recent comments about the need to hear directly, in an unfiltered way, from our public officials. Now, whether the First Lady really does her own Tweeting or not doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things. But to reiterate the larger point: It would be good for society if our leaders actually had the self-discipline and dedication to sit down for ten minutes a day to compose and share their thoughts on the things that matter with the rest of us. Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:36:01 CST http://www.gongol.com/fft/2012/01/12/ 1445.8