Many people write or speak to tell us what we should think. Some want to be believed because they are experts, or think they are. Some want to be believed because they claim to speak for us. Some have had revelations. Others want us to trust them because they communicate through prominent media outlets. Many tell us what we should think. I write to encourage my readers to think for themselves. I write to ask you to inquire. Question me. Have fun.

  
Comment of the Day
The Editorial Board should have no opinion

Jul 11, 2020

The WSJ Editorial Board expressed its opinion about the case of Michael Flynn. It does not matter what they said; in my book, the Editorial Board should have no opinion on any topic. Editorial boards’ job is not to lecture, but to facilitate views from individuals who can present valid arguments. The Editorial Board's job at the WSJ is to guarantee to me, a subscriber, that the different opinions presented are fact-checked. I pay a subscription for the WSJ because I do not have the time nor the means to fact-check whatever is written and posted on the internet. I do not pay for the subscription to be brainwashed by whatever the self-anointed authority of the Editorial Board believes is right. I can make my judgment based on the facts and their interpretation by other individuals.

PREVIOUS COMMENTS
More parenting is needed
Aug 01, 2019
Peter Gray in Psychology Today advises for less parenting. The problem is exactly the opposite: There is not enough parenting. In the past, when most of our ancestors lived in self-supporting households, often a farm, out of necessity, children were an integral part of whatever adults needed to do during their daily life, and they learned that way. Now, we do not need to do as much at home. Work is outside the home, food is brought in, heat is turned on and off, and mysteriously magical, colorful screens are the center of most activities. If we leave children free to explore what they find the most attractive, they will play video games. There might be some educational value in it, but one needs to learn much more. Hence, we need more effort in parenting, with parents doing more in the home than is otherwise required, and spending more time with children outside in order to introduce them to the real world. This realization hit home after I witnessed the surprise of a 7-year old seeing apples on my apple tree.
More
Less fight more work
Jul 30, 2017

The fight over Obamacare repeal is over, at least for now. The GOP can start to work on a new proposal that each of us can look at it, and then compare how my particular health care solution would play in it, as compared to Obamacare. In a television interview, HHS Secretary Tom Price said that Obamacare “may be working for Washington, it may be working for insurance companies, but it’s not working for patients.” Maybe it is time to consider patients’ involvement in the preparation of an Obamacare alternative? It could be that Obamacare repeal failed just because it has been prepared by Washington with consultation from insurance companies. Let us start with addressing 19 health care issues that politicians avoid talking about.

More
How to pay for the wall?
Apr 04, 2017

If you want to build the wall, pay for it with your own money. How much of your own money are you willing to donate? Trump received 62,979,879 votes. If each of Trump’s supporters voluntarily donates at least $1,000, which corresponds to about $42 per month for the next two years, and if we encourage those who are more affluent to double their donations, then Trump can have on hand about $100 billion, which may suffice for a substantial piece of the wall. Hence, all of you who are talking loudly about spending my money on building this wall, stay away from my wallet, but open your own wallet and send money to the “Build the Wall Fund.” Put your money where your mouth is.

More
What is wrong with Russia?
Dec 22, 2015

It appears that Russian leaders cannot free themselves from the medieval concept of regional influence, where weaker neighbors were subdued into becoming serf states. Is anyone capable of explaining to them that in these times of a global economy, any influence comes from economic strength? Russia, thanks to its size, natural resources and well-educated labor force, has everything that it takes to maintain a dominant position in the region, just by maintaining free trade with all its neighbors. It can do so without military interventions in Georgia and in Ukraine. Russia has everything that it takes to be a respected wealthier neighbor, to whom everyone in the region would turn for help when needed. Instead, it is a bully and a hooligan. It would take so little to change that. But it is so hard for Russia to do it. 

More
Closed mind for closed borders
Nov 19, 2015

Known to some as a libertarian, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. speaks against open borders. His argument is that it is an infraction against private property. He misses the point that most people migrate just because Mr. Rockwell’s neighbors want them on their private property – for picking apples, washing the dishes or writing a computer code. Then, Mr. Rockwell wrongly laments that those foreigners invited by his neighbors violate his private property rights by loitering in the public spaces that he frequents. He wants the government to deny the rights of his neighbors to do on their private property whatever they wish, so he will not need to face immigrants in the public spaces. Mr. Rockwell left the train called “liberty” at the station called “xenophobia.”    

More
They do not know…
Sep 14, 2015

Mr. Trump says: “A lot of what I’m doing is by instinct.” I prefer that our President would make decisions based on systematic due diligence. The instinct that guides Mr. Trump in his professional life arrives from his vast experience, starting when he was growing up under the mentoring of his successful father, followed by a solid education and years of practice. Mr. Trump's confidence is misguiding, as it gives his supporters the illusion that someone who mastered real estate dealing can be equally skillful as President. It is similar to the illusion surrounding Dr. Carson, that he can be as good a President as he is a brain surgeon. If both gentlemen were humbler, they would realize that they qualify to be President equally as much as Mr. Trump qualifies to conduct brain surgeries and Dr. Carson to run Mr. Trump’s real estate empire. The problem is not that they do not know many things they should; the problem is that they do not realize that.

More
More Comments

How to become a billionaire quickly …

… by someone who is not a billionaire yet

Photo by micheile dot com on Unsplash

Welcome, aspiring billionaires. Below, you will find the information helpful to fulfill your dreams. Or to realize it likely will not happen.

I am writing this, having been inspired by the book by Jason Calacanis, “Angel: How to Invest in Technology Startups—Timeless Advice from an Angel Investor Who Turned $100,000 Into $100,000,000.” The title of this article, as above, could also be the title of Mr. Calacanis’ book. 

Who is Jason Calacanis?  

He is well-known in the angel investors community, but less so by the broad public. According to Google, he is not a billionaire yet, but he might be worth much more than Google knows. Many of his holdings are in successful businesses that are not publicly traded yet. Doubtlessly, he is much closer to becoming a billionaire than most of us. To his credit, he earned his wealth, in big part, as an angel investor. He may claim that everyone with a humble upbringing can learn from his experience and repeat his success.

This book is for everyone

Calacanis addresses his book primarily to those interested in angel investing, which theoretically applies to individuals worth more than $10 million. But, in the United States, beginning in 2017, on crowdfunding platforms, everyone can invest in startups for as little as $100.

In 2021, Americans spent $105 billion on lottery tickets. With a population of adults of about 200 million, it means an average grown-up in the United States spends yearly about $500 on the lottery. In his book, Calacanis claims angel investment is like buying lottery tickets, but – he explains – “unlike the normal schmucks on the street, I get to buy tickets that are in the top 1 percent of the winning pool.” People who try to get rich by buying lottery tickets can benefit from the Calacanis book. Those who get illusions of a good life by purchasing gadgets or falling into unhealthy addictions can find more fun, satisfaction, and money by spending a few hundred dollars on startups. It is unlikely they will become billionaires soon, but following Calacanis’s advice, they can fare much better.

Founders will find this book priceless

Calacanis writes in great detail about how he makes his investment decisions. Further, I will point out some weaknesses of his approach, but his candidness provides an irreplaceable value for every startup founder seeking an angel investment.

The book narration is juicy, spiced with words our moms told us not to use. It does not arouse repulsion because it reflects high tension, as we saw in “The Wolf of Wall Street” movie, where the risks are huge, but the opportunities to profit are even greater. Every business faces uncertainty, but starting a new one is perilous. Financing those startups is terrifying.  

In angel investing, one should expect more troubles than anticipated. When they come, for a founder, it might look like a disaster; for an angel investor, it is a part of the course. A healthy relationship between an investor and a founder requires the personal integrity of both parties. An investor needs to be the first one, not the last one, informed about unforeseen problems.

Is angel investing upside down?

This was a title of a review of another book about angel investing, which I wrote a few years ago. The author of that book focused on helping founders present their cases to angel investors. I found it odd because most founders start one or maybe a few businesses during their lifetime. Angel investors make their livings out of financing startups. Weekly, they review dozens, if not hundreds, of investment proposals. If they want to succeed, they should develop methods to spot those rough diamonds that, for others, might look like a piece of broken glass.

Most angel investors have formalized the submission process, shielding themselves from worthless investment offers. Ironically, the biggest money-making opportunities are in ideas that no one believes make sense. Unfortunately, it is hard to figure out which of those crazy ones will catch on.

From what Calacanis writes, he is an outcast in the crowd of angel investors. He actively seeks and then reviews even the most bizarre investment proposals. His objective is to find in an early stage an opportunity that, within a few years, turns into a multibillion-dollar venture, making him a billionaire. He has made his email address and cell phone public, so he seems serious about becoming a billionaire by diligently looking for the next big thing. So, why is he not a billionaire yet?

Investment syndicates

To make it easier, angel investors form groups called syndicates. In theory, it is good for everyone. Affluent individuals who have no time or desire to go through the hassle of screening investment opportunities can participate in startups selected by angels like Jason Calacanis. This way, more money goes to angel investing.

It is common knowledge that individuals can be brave, but committees are risk-averse. Angel syndicates tend to invest in mediocre ventures because collective decisions aim at avoiding losses. Calacanis wonders why there are so few new “unicorns” or “decacorns,” startups that grow to be worth $1 billion or $10 billion respectively. I blame the reluctance of syndicates to invest in ambitious ideas, where the chances of success are small but the rewards are great.

I elaborated on this issue in my review of another book mentioned earlier. A friendly operator of an angel investors’ group disagreed with me. He emailed me: “As a fund, our commitment to investors is not to find the ‘unicorn’ or ‘next Facebook’ as you suggest. (…) Our fund product is designed to de-risk early stage investment through diligence and diversification. This way, investors don’t have to pick the next Facebook to get an ROI. We suggest that our investors choose at least 20 companies that we place on our platform to gain the ROI this asset class is capable of returning. We’re not looking for the next Steve Jobs — why would we? Once-in-a-lifetime entrepreneurs are just that.”

In his book, Jason Calacanis repeatedly claims he is different and vigorously seeks the next big thing. He almost convinced me, but he lost me when stating that he invests in ventures with some traction.

Would we have smartphones if cancer had killed Steve Jobs six years earlier?

Apple released the iPhone in 2007. Steve Jobs died in 2011. The concept was not new when Apple started working on iPhone development in 2005. Engineers at other major cellphone manufacturers had tinkered with similar designs, but marketing people convinced their management that the idea of a bulky cellphone with an inconveniently small touch screen would fail.

For the sake of discussion, let us speculate what could have happened if cancer had taken Steve Jobs before he got the idea for an iPhone. In 2009, some folks who lost their jobs at a major cellphone maker might have approached Jason Calacanis with a rosy vision of bulky phones with inconveniently small touch screens. They would have asked for some significant cash that was needed to develop the prototype. Jason would have asked them for traction, in other words, to prove they already had many potential users. From his book and from what I hear from other angel investors, I doubt that any of them would have invested in the smartphone idea.

Does one need to be in Silicon Valley?

Jason Calacanis writes that, yes, they need to be there because this is where the action is. As a Polish saying goes, he is right, two percent, to be precise. He is right because it is true that Silicon Valley offers a concentration of wealth and resources. He is wrong in not asking why the same entrepreneurial spirit is not everywhere in the United States. In Chicago, I attended many events with founders pitching to angel investors. It struck me that none of the startups was of the caliber of a future unicorn. It stuck in my mind what one angel investor advised a founder having an idea for a social media venture. After praising the concept, the angel investor suggested going to the West Coast because they finance all sorts of crazy endeavors, which none of the conservative investors in the Midwest would consider.

Again, the question arises: Are people outside of Silicon Valley less entrepreneurial or plainly stupid, or is there something else?

What is wrong with Silicon Valley?

I spoke later with that founder, who was advised to go to Silicon Valley. He checked it out. Many silly ideas receive money there, but most are within the inner circles. As Calacanis confirms in his book, in these dubious cases, angel investors fund less the project but more a person they know. For good or bad reasons, they feel more comfortable taking risks with individuals they know. As someone explained to me, in Silicon Valley, there is such an abundance of easily made money that insiders can readily find the money for almost any project.

Again, the question remains: Why do so few of them become unicorns?

The silliness of Silicon Valley is part of the ongoing political turmoil and the deepening divisions that the United States faces today. At the peak of American growth, by the end of the 19th century, technological advancements ruled. In our time, politics rule. Without even realizing it, investors do not even target the most important problems that America is facing. They might make charitable or political donations, though. Their investments go to politically safe, often petty ventures, promising quick returns. They wrongly believe that investment in the application of new technologies cannot fix our dysfunctional politics.        

Uber is a good example

Calacanis mentions Uber in his book because he made a small early investment there and received an impressive return. Calacanis also claims that the original name was Uber Taxi, but he suggested shortening it to Uber.

Uber has had lightning success because it skillfully used new technology to break the dominance of highly regulated and regionally monopolized taxi services. It started during the recession when many people lost their jobs. Part-time driving was a perfect way to make an extra few hundred bucks to cover the bills. After the economy improved, Uber drivers started calculating the costs and risks of driving passengers, finding out that it is a relatively low-skilled occupation offering meager earnings.

Uber made passenger riding services better for consumers, at the cost or benefit (depending on one’s political beliefs) of breaking the old taxi system. Its initial success triggered an overvaluation by lemming-like investors. But those later problems do not nullify Uber’s success in providing value to the populace by changing the political rules in one market segment. 

Twitter is a bad example

Calacanis writes in the book that Ev Williams offered him an early investment in Twitter, but he refused, seeing no value in tweeting.

I recall that during the early months of Twitter, I attended a conference about social media. Twitter highly promoted itself there. Big screens across the room displayed tweets from that conference. I found it ridiculous and distracting. I resisted joining Twitter for years but eventually signed up. Whenever I spend time on Twitter, it confirms my initial impression of its uselessness.

So, why did Twitter make it big? For the same reason that Facebook did. The public distrusts the major media outfits in the United States. Easy-to-use social media outlets give that joy of freedom of expression, which disappeared from the mainstream media. Americans cannot take any more partisan conventions and manipulations in major news outlets. Short tweets allow for bark, which might resonate. No one would waste time on Facebook or Twitter if the mainstream media were credible. If they earnestly discussed our major problems in public view, the public attention would be there.

It means that Calacanis was not wrong in rejecting Williams’ offer. He was wrong in not connecting it with the mainstream media not doing their job as the Fourth Estate.

Where is the next greatest investment opportunity?

As always, the biggest money comes from resolving something that poses a problem for the most people. In the United States, it is the aforementioned mistrust of the media. The book does not indicate Jason Calacanis sees it that way. I checked some of his recent activity on Twitter. I did not find any indication he sees an angel investment in the media as his best shot at becoming a billionaire. It is a little surprising as he has experience in journalism. As old sages used to say, sometimes the darkest spot is just under the lantern.

About me

I was born in 1951 in Gdansk, Poland.
Since my high school years, I have interest in politics and love for writing. During my college years, I started writing to student papers and soon became a freelance author to major Polish political magazines.

In 1980 I wrote a book “Czy w Polsce może być lepiej?” (“Could it be better in Poland?” – this book is available only in Polish) analyzing major problems in Poland at the time and outlining possible solutions.

I was among those Polish political writers who by their writings contributed to the peaceful system transformation that finally took place in 1989. Since 1985, I have lived in the Chicago area. I went through the hard times typical of many immigrants. Working in the service business, I have seen the best and the worst places, I met the poorest and the richest. I have seen and experienced America not known to most of the politicians, business people, and other political writers. For eleven years, I ran my own company. Presently, I am an independent consultant.

My political writing comes out of necessity. I write when I see that the prevailing voices on the political arena are misleading or erroneous. Abstract mathematics and control theory (of complex technological processes) strongly influenced my understanding of social phenomena. In the past, my opponents rebuked my mathematical mind as cold, soulless, and inhuman. On a few occasions, I was prized for my engineer’s precision and logic.

I have a master’s degree in electronic engineering with a specialization in mathematical machines from Politechnika Gdańska (Technical University of Gdansk).

... more