Coffee Party Nation's blog

by Mike Massey

The first three episodes of STARTO have a lot of interesting fodder for those of us who like to spend our free time thinking about startups and innovation. I keyed in on three points in particular:

1. Computer-related startups are quick, cheap, and getting cheaper (episode #2)
    
2. Existing venture capital avenues have their limitations in funding both larger and smaller startups (episode #1), but “crowdfunding” presents an interesting alternative for creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs (episode #2)
    
3. Innovation requires the vision to map trends into the future, and a culture that facilitates creativity while aligning with core values that must be communicated by the founders (episode #3)

These days, the word “startup” is usually synonymous with “tech startup” which is really just a euphemism for “computer startup,” whether it’s in the field of software, hardware, networking, mobile, etc. I’d like to spend some time examining the other kind of startups: the non-virtual startups in non-”tech” industries — the startups most people don’t think about, or hear about. In the process, I’d like to introduce some potentially unpopular ideas about the very nature of our system for “innovation” in this country.

Earth Day, Richard Nixon, and energy independence

In 1973, in the wake of the “oil embargo,” President Richard Nixon spoke about the importance of United States energy independence. Every President since has made similar speeches. Though his policies primarily focused on increasing development of US fossil fuels, President Nixon also was cognizant of the role of renewable energy for US energy independence and US national security. Watching footage of Richard Nixon speaking about funding for renewable energy nearly 40 years ago is an eerie experience; President Obama could probably use the same words, unedited, today.

This brings us face-to-face with an uncomfortable truth: in some very important sectors, we just aren’t that good at innovation. We’ve known about the importance of energy to our national security for longer than I’ve been alive, yet our energy supply has undergone very little change in that time. We’re basically doing the same thing humans were doing millennia ago when they learned to harness fire: we’re burning stuff to do work.

Energy alternatives do exist, and there is a lively and active debate on why they don’t figure more prominently in our energy supply. For comparison, it took less than 40 years to go from building ENIAC to playing solitaire on the personal computer. One popular argument is that entrenched, monied interests fight to maintain power and control. Another popular argument is that renewables are simply not economically competitive. That’s not an argument I’d like to (re-)rehash here. Instead, I’d like to look at our current system of “innovation” as it relates to fundamental aspects of our lives, and ask the question: “Can we address tomorrow’s problems with today’s system for funding ‘disruptive’ innovation?” “Disruptive innovation” was defined very nicely in some recently-posted essays on businessman/investor/venture capitalist Peter Thiel’s “startup” class at Stanford: going from “0 to 1”–creating something new, rather than going from “1 to n”–imitating something else. This viewpoint probably makes me somewhat unpopular in Silicon Valley, but I would argue that the current model for innovation is in some cases anti-disruption, and is therefore inadequate to address the challenges of our future.

A new book by green economy pioneer Van Jones hits the stores today on the 44th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Rebuild the Dream updates our national conversation and our approach to rebuilding Dr. King’s Dream and the American Dream in the 21st century.  In the excerpt shared below with permission, Jones suggests a way forward to reclaim, reinvent, and renew the American Dream. Order the book here.

CHEAP PATRIOTS VERSUS DEEP PATRIOTS

The time has come to turn things right side up again and declare that America’s honest, hard-working middle class is too big to fail. The aspirations of our low-income, struggling, and marginalized communities are too big and important to fail. The hopes of our children are too big to fail. The American Dream itself is too big to fail.

And we are not going to let these things fail.

Of course, it will not be easy to stop the dream killers. Tax policy that burdens working families and gives the biggest breaks to the super-rich has helped to keep more and more of our national wealth locked in the private safes of the top 1 percent. This alarming economic polarization, combined with the constant flow of good-paying jobs overseas, threatens to end our status as a middle class nation. Too many of our big banks and largest corporations are behaving in a manner that is both irresponsible and unpatriotic. Their conduct makes it that much worse for the many patriotic and responsible businesses—especially small businesses—that follow the rules and provide good jobs to their employees.

Additionally, many well-intentioned people have been recruited into a powerful crusade—the Tea Party movement—that promises the American people economic relief by slashing taxes and taking a wrecking ball to America’s government. The impact of the Tea Party’s reckless policies would be to financially decimate our government, further dismantle America’s middle class, and strengthen the choke hold that the top 1 percent has on the economy. Nonetheless, the Tea Partiers effectively seized the public narrative in 2009 and congressional power in 2010, quelling the wave of hope generated by the 2008 election. They have succeeded at painting their agenda “red, white, and blue.” If we are to have an economy that works for the remaining 99 percent, this kind of “cheap patriotism” must be sidelined in favor of a “deep patriotism”—one that honors the accomplishments of our parents and grandparents. After all, they used the tools of both free enterprise and democratic government to build a society that sets the global standard. [MORE]

Koch Brothers Exposed: a film that reveals the link between the very, very wealthy, and the very, very suggestible (and how the power of this link hurts America).

by Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist for Public Citizen

In the weeks following an explosive 60 Minutes exposé on congressional insider trading, both chambers of Congress nearly unanimously passed the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge" (STOCK) Act. But there is still no law. What's the holdup?

The ball is in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) court. And everyone is waiting for him to decide how to proceed.

It's not like the problem hasn't been well-documented. In congressional hearings, Robert Khuzami, director of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission, acknowledged that the laws against insider trading have not been applied to Congress. "There does not appear to be any case law that addresses the duty of a member [of Congress] with respect to trading on the basis of information the member learns in an official capacity," Khuzami conceded. The same is true for congressional staff.

In addition, academic research showing that congressional lawmakers enjoy an extraordinarily high rate of return in the stock market has been well-publicized. That's why Congress fell over itself to pass a STOCK Act that would apply insider trading laws to itself. The problem is that the Senate and the House passed two different versions, leaving President Barack Obama's promise to sign the STOCK Act into law as soon as it reaches his desk unfulfilled.