<jbone at place.org> on
Thu May 24 11:13:32 PDT 2007
On May 24, 2007, at 11:50 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> All my assertions were very broad and poorly focused, mostly
> because I have no idea what we are talking about here exactly. :-)
Happy to take the blame; my bad for throwing out vague if leading
questions then not following up...
> There are several interesting higher order money problems, so which
> ones would you be referring to?
Well, specifically: I quite unfortunately never managed to get to
the big $B, so the sorts of things I can invest in necessarily
exclude those for which B+ is necessary. So there are two
approaches; get the big $B which --- it quite obviously appears to
me --- depends quite a bit more on "luck" (i.e., path-dependent
events and situations that cannot be realistically counted on) than
the much easier task of getting to small multiples of $M. Or, more
pragmatically: are their ways to achieve the same things that do an
end-run around initial capital requirements? Alternatively, are
their ways of collecting the necessary capital requirements that are
better / more efficient than the typical forms of funding?
> As you know, I think there is a lot of opportunity in (c) that is
> under-exploited primarily because the focus and/or domain of most
> people is too narrow.
> There is a wealth of opportunities, the hard part is finding (or
> fabricating) the opportunities that will generate the most
> strategic leverage in a direction that is useful for other things.
Agreed, wholly. The problem is --- the typical means of providing
that kind of focus and direction are usually seen only in the context
of commercial pursuits. Even then, not very often. ;-) How can you
provide that sort of (efficient) leadership and direction outside of
that commercial context?
> Do you have a specific example that can be fenced with?
Yeah, several --- which sort of tile the problem space we're talking
about here, requiring different levels of funding, coordination,
focus, resources, etc. Struggling with how to frame them, though.
Writing this up over lunch doesn't seem practical. ;-)
> Which is what I figured, but excluding all the cheerleading stuff
> still leaves a rather broad space of possibilities.
Yeah, it does.
More information about the FoRK