Friday, 30 January 2015

There are 3 kinds of business in general. Only 1 of them is certain to succeed

The golden rule: 95% of all business goes bankrupt within 5 years

We're not asking you to agree with us. We are asking you to observe it by suspending judgement on what were going to show you.

Neither are we are political, religious or believers in any other doctrine. And we're not doing morals. We are observing what is there without prejudice so that what can discover how to succeed for certain.

In general there are 3 kinds of business:
  1. the 95% who are certain to fail within 5 years
  2. the 4% who are lucky to survive
  3. the 1% who genuinely who are fully aware of how it works and guarantee success
  • the 95% are simply unaware of the system, unlucky, so are guaranteed to go bankrupt. its just a matter of time
  • the 4% are either lucky or deliberately broke the law to get it, skill and knowledge did not come into it.
  • the 1% know that economic rents are the only income streams guaranteed to profit
Skill, hard work, and enterprise only server the rent seeker by creating enormous competition among the unaware and unlucky scrambling for the dregs not including economic rents.

Profits are quickly competed to the marginal price of anything. After which the few lucky ones left over are swept up by the 1% at fire sale prices - and then rented out once again.

As many skilful people exist among the 95% who fail too. The ratio is the same for both skilful and feckless. So skill never comes into it, all else being equal.

But the successful always say they did it due to skill and say the feckless are well... feckless

The lucky are lucky because what they have deluded themselves about their so called profits, thinking what is really economic rent is profit and interest - the return to their hard work and skill, is in reality economic rent but they are not aware of it.

Given the lucky are not aware of their fortune, imagining its down to their knowledge and skill, they will eventually go under too, as soon as bad luck tips them over the margin of bankruptcy for longer than they can hold out.

Only rent seekers, the 1%, survive over the long term.

So who are you? An entrepreneur, a businessman a trader. Or are you a rent seeker?

Who is the best rent seeker? The one who owns all the 'land'.

If you own all the land how much rent can you charge all comers for its use? Everything they have short of what they need to keep their heads above water of course.

This price will quickly be discovered due to the lucky and feckless competing fiercely among themselves.

Even with new technology, once other learn how to do it, even that will end up in the rent seekers pocket due to the competition.

Its not just land that commands economic rent, though that is by far the biggest thing. The privilege of money creation secured against the value of land is the next biggest.

Then the cornering of a market by larger corporations through the barriers to entry such as taxation and regulation making it impossible for the small guys to enter, forcing them into employment for the big guys..

Then any privileged position granted by the state through intellectual property right is a distant way behind that - patents, trademarks, franchises and to some extent copyright where the letters of our language are now exclusively owned for a time.

Essentially, the profits of all privatised monopoly are economic rents. All of them have a zero cost of production and are tax free in the end. The ideal platform for success. The only platform.

There are 3 kinds of business in general. Only 1 of them is certain to succeed - rent seeking.

Which one are you?

Contact MeltFund 
What is MeltFund?

Monday, 26 January 2015

Traders believe risk is inevitable. This is an unconscious psychic fantasy of "The Gambler"

We all know that 95% of all enterprise - not vested in property in land - is bound to fail in some way within 5 years.

A trader is 'The Gambler' archetype. A symbolic image of the one who lives a whole life in fear and takes fantasy risks in preferences to something better.

The trader calls this "risk", and the check against it they call "fear".

Yet a no risk no fear business model is readily available and certain. Property in land is guaranteed to rise, all else is certain to fall in proportion, in general, all else being equal, its all relative. *

There is no authentic risk nor anything to be afraid of... if you integrate this observation into your psyche. That is, if you dig up the rent seeking shadow buried deep in your unconscious and 'marry' it to your soon to be wise ego.

But the drive in most people is to gamble rather than take the certain pathway.

Because looking at yourself in the mirror - to face your shadow - is scary. You'll witness that you ain't the great guy your ego has been projecting all your life after all. You'll see you've been ignoring your hidden side and that was extremely foolish, a bit like refusing to price taxation into your business plan yet you knew it all along.

And can you start going along the certain path. Why would you go along there? To live, and then find wealth perhaps. Is that not enough?

Being a trader is not a mandatory requirement. Most parents risk the future of their children in wild gambles on mortgages by the million and no one forced them to go to that casino or sign that contract with the bank.

A trader is 'The Gambler' archetype. A symbolic image of the one who lives a whole life in fear and takes fantasy risks in preferences to something better.

Go get your spade out of the shed and MeltFund will help you dig yourself out of that hole.

* The wise investor will just buy property, sit on it and watch it rise in value, tax free, work free, for certain.

Contact MeltFund 
What is MeltFund?

Sunday, 25 January 2015

Regulations and the law of good intention

"It’s important to point out that CE marking does not mean that products must come from a single supplier."

Really?

The intent of regulation is good.  But is it wisdom?

Because the tendency of regulation is to incentivise monopolies due to it creating much higher barriers to entry for new more competitive and innovative enterprise.

Sure, at the start it does protect the consumer and small trader. But at what cost. And are all enterprise and consumers still protected in the end, as well as the now certain highly priced and lower quality goods of monopoly it created?

In the end competition is lost because of regulation at the root. And price can no longer be discovered. What regulation did with good intent at inception will ultimately bad.

And this is why intuitively every entrepreneur ultimately seeks a monopoly. There is other way to profit.

This is the law of good intention.

Saturday, 24 January 2015

This is why young people no longer vote

Latent policy of government of all party's implicitly forbids them a home. Removing any incentive to vote.

Ownership is evidence of a people who do not love their enemy

If you found someone who badly needed something you had in abundance, would you give it to them?

It all depends you might say.

But we're asking where there is no other contingency than that they need it and you have plenty.

Try an experiment:

Imagine a world where everyone gave away to satisfy the needy, of what others had in abundance, with no expectation of it being returned.

Fundamental to this experiment succeeding is understanding the idea of exclusive ownership of the things that are needed.

What do you think would happen in general. Would the scroungers rise to dominance, or would something else happen?

That is, if scroungers dominated it would show that ownership of everything is mandatory.

If the opposite alternative of love dominated it would show that ownership of anything is a crime.

When observing this experiment, try not to project the result into the world. Just observe it internally. Because to project your imagination outwards tends to negate you from complicity which is by no means certain for anyone.

Contact MeltFund 
What is MeltFund?

Friday, 23 January 2015

More government bail out can only mean one thing. A rise in house prices.

The End of Progress and the Collective Person?

Caveat: We're not telling you this as a judgement, to do morals or to be in any way sentimental. We are pointing out how the ignorance of he world is without bounds, and to become aware of it guarantees wealth will come flooding in, for free and with no danger of competition from the great mass of ignorance.

How many scientists in every age have said:

"we have reached the end of science, this new grand unified theory is what we used to believe to be God, we need look no further"

For that matter how many investigators of political economy have told us:

"we have the remedy for so called planetary limits, all we need to do is redistribute wealth in this way and that, and we'll no longer need God"

And again for the high priests of religion:

"we have truth, look for God no further, believe this and you will be saved"

In each discipline we are being told by the most intellectual, honourable and pious in their own terms of ideology, belief or doctrine:

"The game is now over. We have truth. Just believe us!"

And then the world proceeds to reveal this to be a fantasy each time, and the cycle repeats over again.

In the dark and dingy world of depth psychology, this collective activity is known as a neurosis, in the same kind of way as an individual is clinically defined.

The majority of people have been captured by a fantasy world view and this collective is now divided from itself with all the inevitable destructive effects on that 'person'.

And when not attended to, this 'collective person' eventually becomes so separated from reality, each scientific theory(eugenics, evolution), political idea or policy(Malthusian doctrine, taxation of work, scrounging free from taxation) and religious belief (creationism, despotic father figures, cults) permit the collective person to destroy millions with impunity, all under protection of the law and regulation, and in the name of the people - democracy.

The eventual effect, witnessed similarly in individuals, is known in legal terms as psychopathy. Is it any different collectively? Isn't it the same kind of thing, just much more intense by force in numbers?

Might the tangible externalities of this psychopathy manifest as:
  • historic levels of starvation when there is more food produced per head today
  • shortage of fresh water when 2/3 of the planet is covered in water to great depths
  • energy shortages when the free energy supply is 10,000 times the demand
  • fear of population growth when only 1% of land surface area is man made
  • 20% general rate of unemployment when there is no shortage of work or a desire for the things that work produces
  • millions homeless when there are millions of empty homes even in 'wealthy' locations
  • markets in fierce competition despite all this abundance and every market closed
  • law in every country which is systemically unjust
  • democracy where the collective person has become corrupt
All of these are astonishing observations, denied by the collective person, of course. No mentally ill patient is ever aware of their illness. The collective is not conscious of itself. So can the collective be cured by itself?

More astonishing than this repeat psychosis is the ignorance of a total remedy sitting there ready and willing, that can be adopted in the morning and has only positive consequences for all.

So what is this remedy?

To love your enemy before you love your neighbour - to suspend judgement and to affirm complicity - to forgive rather than to punish.

As an individual. And to stop throwing that obligation onto the collective person as you have done so far in your life.

That is all. We hear you. That's an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. And you can do it.

Contact MeltFund 
What is MeltFund?