Court of Courts ?

The real world is not efficient. There’s a discrepancy of information between parties, there are mistakes and delays, unexpected responses, and many emotions. As a result, when two pirates are going for the same bottle of Captain Morgan, they rock the boat sometimes jeopardizing their lives and everyone else. For example, I read on newser.com that a mother gave her eight year old daughter Botox so she can become a superstar. I’ve heard of online universities that hand students an empty degree and fully-loaded loan. As humans, someone has to sit and imagine a perfect world, and somehow inspire people to move in that direction. They are the ology’s: psychology, sociology, and even zoology.

Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), an economist and political scientist, talked a lot about “creative destruction”. It’s very simple. You got too comfortable with your business process and daily routine. Stop accepting the status-quo, and tell yourself there’s something better out there. Before you even buy the iPhone, know that someone else is developing the next iPhone, and it’s either in design or manufacturing. That’s why I keep to my 2001 Samsung.  Creative destruction is the secret to innovation and progress. The best motivation for creative destruction is competition. That’s why sometime’s I’d like to just wake up and say f u. There’s no equilibrium. The “only constant is change”.

I’m really interested in predicting the future just a little bit. Look. Someone had to design a bridge, and someone has to build it, before we can all cross it. I know for sure, that someone is developing something, for next year that would be awesome! Where they are? What they do? What’s its impact I don’t know. A Russian Investor just has handed 40 start-ups some serious cash. What are those companies going to do? How does it affect us? Some will fail, and some will work. There is not court of courts! There are no text books for entrepreneur about companies they’re yet to build. Even winners, in hind-sight are always correct. There has to be a continuous self-questioning and self-correcting mechanism. Otherwise, you fall to what they call in probability type II error: failing to reject a hypothesis when we should have rejected it.