Month: August 2014

By: Chris Tell at: http://ift.tt/146186R

In a post entitled “The Future of Manufacturing” we pontificated on one of the technologies which our team and network had been encountering around the world. What we were seeing with 3D printing we believed was changing our world. Naturally, as investors we found an interest in the technology, even if only for the mental stimulation it elicits.

Though we’ve been looking, we’ve not managed to find a suitable private equity deal in which to invest in this space. We missed a couple while still private, unfortunately. Sure, we could buy publicly-listed plays, but that’s not typically what we do. Those public companies which sport hundred million dollar plus market caps were, not long ago, startups being financed with sub $5m valuations. You do the math.

A company I was recently introduced to is the world’s largest producer of 3D Titanium printed materials. Weapons, intricate machine parts, the list is unbelievable. Things I literally never even knew existed. NASA for example are sending a 3D printer up into space so that astronauts can print themselves tools or spare parts. Why lug an entire laundry list of spare parts if you can just print on demand?

The process is equally unbelievable. You’d be forgiven thinking that there is some sort of black magic at work. What this company and others like them are doing would not be out of place in a Harry Potter movie.

When I mentioned what I have been looking at to my wife her response was, “Is that some sort of jazzed up, turbo-charged Lexmark?”. She was being facetious, but I assure you the machines are nothing like your inkjet, though they can be surprisingly small.

The company founder and I spoke about where the future lies. Combining 3D printing with nanotechnology is completely mind blowing. Imagine a world where materials are “printed” only to move about and execute pre-programmed orders. The technology for this exists and is being tested NOW. Little nano bot armies being created, and re-creating themselves and other things.

Right now MIT’s Skylar Tibbits are printing objects which can change shape. They do this using “shape memory plastics.” Think of your favourite shoe, which is now moulded to your own foot, bunyons and all. Well, how about printing a new shoe which changes its shape according to your specifications? Call it Bunyon shoe 1.0. Pretty cool.

Tailor made products in the future will be exactly that. Imagine for a minute a body scan which takes all your measurements, together with how you walk, run, swing a golf club, or sit in a chair. Feed this information into a computer which then produces you optimal clothing designs for your particular body. Now off to the printer you go and just print your shoes, trousers and shirts. Yes, clothing is being 3D printed.

Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing has already radically changed the prosthetics industry. Take a look at this video.

As nice as it may be to have really comfortable clothing… and how amazing it is to change peoples lives as shown in the video, where this technology gets really important is in life sciences.

There is a scene in Star Wars where Luke Skywalker has his hand repaired by robots. George Lucas knew nothing about 3D printing at the time (or did he?), but his depictions of a future replete with technology is startlingly accurate. Bio-printing involves the printing of human cells. Organs are tricky to print, but skin grafts through to blood vessels are much easier to print due to their structure being predominantly flat.

Printing skin commercially is very close to coming mainstream. It is now possible to utilize laser technology to generate a map of a wound together with precise measurements, and to then print a skin graft specifically for that particular wound. Say goodbye to generic and painful skin grafts.

While it’s not mainstream yet, successful printing of bone and muscle implants have been conducted. Organs have already been bio-printed, though I’ve not come across any evidence of successful implants being done… yet.

Researchers at the University of Sydney, MIT, Stanford and Harvard have successfully printed blood vessels.

“While recreating little parts of tissues in the lab is something that we have already been able to do, the possibility of printing three-dimensional tissues with functional blood capillaries in the blink of an eye is a game changer,” said  Dr. Luiz Bertassoni, the study’s lead author and a University of Sydney researcher.

When?

Apparently experts are predicting that we’re 10 years away from seeing much of this on the “shelves.” As always, Government are a barrier to development, but what I expect to happen is that “friendly” jurisdictions will open up to the technology and attract a lot of the talent and skill. At then end of the day what is being developed is IP. That IP can and will hop on a plane to friendlier climes.

Certainly my children will be living in a very different world from that which we enjoy today. This is an incredibly disruptive technology and there will be some massive home runs in this space… of that I’m sure.

– Chris

 

“The next episode of 3D printing will involve printing entirely new kinds of materials. Eventually we will print complete products – circuits, motors, and batteries already included. At that point, all bets are off.” – Hod Lipson

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/XqBz1E Capitalist Exploits

One day after what otherwise would be an epic scandal (in any other administration) when it was revealed that not only did the CIA indeed spy on the Senate, but had lied when it denied doing so (something for which it subsequently apologized, the spying that is, not the lying) Obama had to field a question about just this topic during one of his daily populist press conferences in which as usual he took credit for anything that is seasonally-adjusted right with the economy (not much) and blamed all that is wrong on the republicans. This is what he said.

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did things that were contrary to our values.”

So… is “droning folks” not contrary to “our” values?  As for the question at hand, from Politico:

“I have full confidence in John Brennan,” Obama said of the CIA chief who served as Obama’s top White House counterterrorism adviser during his first term.

 

The president noted Brennan’s apology and said “some very poor judgment was shown” by the CIA personnel who pried into the Senate files in what CIA officials have described as an attempt to investigate a possible security breach.

 

While Brennan was dismissive in his public comments about the episode when it was disclosed earlier this year, the president said Brennan had moved to get to the bottom of the incident. “Keep in mind: John Brennan called for that IG report,” Obama said.

 

During his first campaign for the White House, Obama often blasted the Bush administration for its interrogation tactics, which he called both “torture” and “deplorable.” Soon after taking office, Obama signed an executive order banning many of the controversial techniques.

 

However, the president has seemed less enthusiastic about exposing the details of the CIA program or holding people accountable for the tactics he has denounced as torture.

 

In 2009, he briefly entertained and then dismissed Sen. Patrick Leahy’s idea for a bipartisan commission to examine the interrogation practices.

In light of all these new revelations, we encourage readers to immediately cease and decist their cynicism, and “choose hope“, as per the torture-condoning president’s recent diktat to the masses, as otherwise the likelihood of joining the ranks of “folks” tortured and/or droned approaches unity.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1AIPmAb Tyler Durden

One day after what otherwise would be an epic scandal (in any other administration) when it was revealed that not only did the CIA indeed spy on the Senate, but had lied when it denied doing so (something for which it subsequently apologized, the spying that is, not the lying) Obama had to field a question about just this topic during one of his daily populist press conferences in which as usual he took credit for anything that is seasonally-adjusted right with the economy (not much) and blamed all that is wrong on the republicans. This is what he said.

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did things that were contrary to our values.”

So… is “droning folks” not contrary to “our” values?  As for the question at hand, from Politico:

“I have full confidence in John Brennan,” Obama said of the CIA chief who served as Obama’s top White House counterterrorism adviser during his first term.

 

The president noted Brennan’s apology and said “some very poor judgment was shown” by the CIA personnel who pried into the Senate files in what CIA officials have described as an attempt to investigate a possible security breach.

 

While Brennan was dismissive in his public comments about the episode when it was disclosed earlier this year, the president said Brennan had moved to get to the bottom of the incident. “Keep in mind: John Brennan called for that IG report,” Obama said.

 

During his first campaign for the White House, Obama often blasted the Bush administration for its interrogation tactics, which he called both “torture” and “deplorable.” Soon after taking office, Obama signed an executive order banning many of the controversial techniques.

 

However, the president has seemed less enthusiastic about exposing the details of the CIA program or holding people accountable for the tactics he has denounced as torture.

 

In 2009, he briefly entertained and then dismissed Sen. Patrick Leahy’s idea for a bipartisan commission to examine the interrogation practices.

In light of all these new revelations, we encourage readers to immediately cease and decist their cynicism, and “choose hope“, as per the torture-condoning president’s recent diktat to the masses, as otherwise the likelihood of joining the ranks of “folks” tortured and/or droned approaches unity.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1AIPmAb Tyler Durden

Authored by Paul Singer, excerpted from Elliott Management’s latest letter to investors,

“[when inflation strikes] …the normal yardsticks of risk, return and profit may be thrown into the garbage can. These measures may be replaced by a scramble by citizens and investors to preserve value on a foundation of shifting sand, together with societal unrest that may make the current politically-useful “inequality” riffs, blaming the “1%” and attacking those “millionaires and billionaires” who refuse to “pay their fair share,” look like mere warm-ups for real class warfare.

A SURE-FIRE CURE FOR INEQUALITY: CRASH AND DEPRESSION

Inequality has become a political theme. Some are using it as a stepping stone to political power, stating that inequality is unfair, getting worse and in need of redress. It is worthwhile to point out the facts.

In most of the world, inequality in fact is declining. More precisely, economic growth and the march of technology, medicine, agriculture, mass education, energy and transportation have in recent decades enabled hundreds of millions of people to make the journey from subsistence poverty to a middle-class standard of living. For billions of people around the world, that journey, and the benefits that people get from a mass rise in living standards stemming from freedom, technological progress and economic growth, are life-transforming, and are inestimably more important than the difference between the living standards of the wealthiest cohort and those experienced by the majority of people. Of course, in many places around the world, corrupt (or incompetent) rulers and oligarchs keep people mired in poverty and oppression. But in those places, it is tyranny and corruption, not “inequality,” which is the problem and the source of the need for “social change.”

Inequality as a political theme is primarily a focus of developed countries. Let us examine its shape and causes. Inequality is exacerbated when asset prices rise. When people save money, buy investable assets and those assets rise in price, inequality is exacerbated because those people have higher income (by definition) than people who do not have enough income to save and invest. The period from the end of World War II to the present has been characterized by growth, prosperity, no world wars or depressions, and rising asset prices. Savers and asset owners receive dividends and capital gains in addition to their ordinary income. Prosperity and bull markets exacerbate inequality. Crashes and depressions reduce it.

Tax policy also has a role, at least in America. In the 1980s, there were tax law changes in America which had the effect of transferring a significant portion of income from the corporate tax returns of privately-held businesses to the individual tax returns of their owners. To the extent that this tax policy represented merely a shift of the same income from corporations to individuals, it created an exaggerated picture of rising inequality.

The march of technology also has played a role. Technological change has created a new class of global entrepreneurs, as well as generally increased the earnings capacity of technologists. The economic value (and consequent wage ranges) of undereducated workers is in the process of declining compared with tech-savvy and highly-educated people. The changes to the income distribution caused by these forces are not small or incremental. Rather, they have demonstrated the ability to capture, destroy or reshape entire industries overnight in today’s world. The people (many of them highly trained) who build and invest in these disruptive businesses can become very wealthy, sometimes very quickly. But the masses who are disrupted by such increasingly rapid changes suffer if policymakers do not create responsive education and job-training paths for them to keep up and change jobs and careers. Technology will continue to be disruptive and exacerbate inequality (while reducing costs and increasing efficiency and effectiveness), but governmental policies could mitigate a good deal of the pain to employees in obsolete or “outsourced” industries and help people adapt to the world of the future. Such policies are currently inadequate, and most policymakers find it more politically useful to rail against “the rich” than to create policies that help the bulk of the people compete and prosper.

So who are “the rich?” In our December 2012 quarterly report, we did an analysis of the Forbes 400. By studying the origins of all on the list, we found that 256 of the 400 were self-made. Of those, 46 grew up in either poverty or the lower-middle class). Another 146 were raised in a middle-class home, without special advantages or circumstances. We recommend going back to read the piece we wrote on this topic, but the point was powerful and is worthy of repeating: America is not a place of static concentrations of wealth. Mobility, growth, freedom and innovation are alive and well in America, and they are the reasons that this country has been the greatest engine of mass prosperity the world has ever seen.

We see the current focus on inequality as primarily an ideological and political theme aimed at justifying higher taxes on the rich, which amounts to the confiscation of wealth and more votes for the politicians shouting these populist riffs, none of whom has proposed any actionable ideas about how to narrow the gap other than by redistributing wealth. We do not think that beating down the income or assets of rich people is going to help middle class or poor people become more competitive or prosperous.

Furthermore, we believe that by railing against the rich and decrying inequality, politicians are attempting to divert attention from their unrelentingly poor policies. Making unaffordable promises and engaging in truly vast expansions of government programs have transmogrified into post-financial crisis solutions to restore ordinary people’s income and positive expectations.

The most important thing we can convey about inequality as a current political theme is that it is sharply exacerbated by the current mix of governmental policies in the developed world, particularly in America. If policies were oriented toward unlocking America’s considerable growth potential (policies described elsewhere in this report), then the rise of asset markets would be balanced alongside considerable improvement in the economic conditions of the vast middle class. But that is not the case in America, where growth-suppressive policies exist alongside extreme monetary ease. The consequence of this combination is that asset prices have risen sharply (exacerbating inequality), with only modest second-order benefits for economic activity, while the middle class has suffered from poor overall economic growth and job prospects combined with significant increases in basic cost-of-living items. This terrible combination is at the root of today’s perception of growing inequality, but the policymakers who are causing this set of circumstances are the ones railing (for political gain) against inequality.

Bad business all around.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1zEZjNs Tyler Durden

Authored by Paul Singer, excerpted from Elliott Management’s latest letter to investors,

“[when inflation strikes] …the normal yardsticks of risk, return and profit may be thrown into the garbage can. These measures may be replaced by a scramble by citizens and investors to preserve value on a foundation of shifting sand, together with societal unrest that may make the current politically-useful “inequality” riffs, blaming the “1%” and attacking those “millionaires and billionaires” who refuse to “pay their fair share,” look like mere warm-ups for real class warfare.

A SURE-FIRE CURE FOR INEQUALITY: CRASH AND DEPRESSION

Inequality has become a political theme. Some are using it as a stepping stone to political power, stating that inequality is unfair, getting worse and in need of redress. It is worthwhile to point out the facts.

In most of the world, inequality in fact is declining. More precisely, economic growth and the march of technology, medicine, agriculture, mass education, energy and transportation have in recent decades enabled hundreds of millions of people to make the journey from subsistence poverty to a middle-class standard of living. For billions of people around the world, that journey, and the benefits that people get from a mass rise in living standards stemming from freedom, technological progress and economic growth, are life-transforming, and are inestimably more important than the difference between the living standards of the wealthiest cohort and those experienced by the majority of people. Of course, in many places around the world, corrupt (or incompetent) rulers and oligarchs keep people mired in poverty and oppression. But in those places, it is tyranny and corruption, not “inequality,” which is the problem and the source of the need for “social change.”

Inequality as a political theme is primarily a focus of developed countries. Let us examine its shape and causes. Inequality is exacerbated when asset prices rise. When people save money, buy investable assets and those assets rise in price, inequality is exacerbated because those people have higher income (by definition) than people who do not have enough income to save and invest. The period from the end of World War II to the present has been characterized by growth, prosperity, no world wars or depressions, and rising asset prices. Savers and asset owners receive dividends and capital gains in addition to their ordinary income. Prosperity and bull markets exacerbate inequality. Crashes and depressions reduce it.

Tax policy also has a role, at least in America. In the 1980s, there were tax law changes in America which had the effect of transferring a significant portion of income from the corporate tax returns of privately-held businesses to the individual tax returns of their owners. To the extent that this tax policy represented merely a shift of the same income from corporations to individuals, it created an exaggerated picture of rising inequality.

The march of technology also has played a role. Technological change has created a new class of global entrepreneurs, as well as generally increased the earnings capacity of technologists. The economic value (and consequent wage ranges) of undereducated workers is in the process of declining compared with tech-savvy and highly-educated people. The changes to the income distribution caused by these forces are not small or incremental. Rather, they have demonstrated the ability to capture, destroy or reshape entire industries overnight in today’s world. The people (many of them highly trained) who build and invest in these disruptive businesses can become very wealthy, sometimes very quickly. But the masses who are disrupted by such increasingly rapid changes suffer if policymakers do not create responsive education and job-training paths for them to keep up and change jobs and careers. Technology will continue to be disruptive and exacerbate inequality (while reducing costs and increasing efficiency and effectiveness), but governmental policies could mitigate a good deal of the pain to employees in obsolete or “outsourced” industries and help people adapt to the world of the future. Such policies are currently inadequate, and most policymakers find it more politically useful to rail against “the rich” than to create policies that help the bulk of the people compete and prosper.

So who are “the rich?” In our December 2012 quarterly report, we did an analysis of the Forbes 400. By studying the origins of all on the list, we found that 256 of the 400 were self-made. Of those, 46 grew up in either poverty or the lower-middle class). Another 146 were raised in a middle-class home, without special advantages or circumstances. We recommend going back to read the piece we wrote on this topic, but the point was powerful and is worthy of repeating: America is not a place of static concentrations of wealth. Mobility, growth, freedom and innovation are alive and well in America, and they are the reasons that this country has been the greatest engine of mass prosperity the world has ever seen.

We see the current focus on inequality as primarily an ideological and political theme aimed at justifying higher taxes on the rich, which amounts to the confiscation of wealth and more votes for the politicians shouting these populist riffs, none of whom has proposed any actionable ideas about how to narrow the gap other than by redistributing wealth. We do not think that beating down the income or assets of rich people is going to help middle class or poor people become more competitive or prosperous.

Furthermore, we believe that by railing against the rich and decrying inequality, politicians are attempting to divert attention from their unrelentingly poor policies. Making unaffordable promises and engaging in truly vast expansions of government programs have transmogrified into post-financial crisis solutions to restore ordinary people’s income and positive expectations.

The most important thing we can convey about inequality as a current political theme is that it is sharply exacerbated by the current mix of governmental policies in the developed world, particularly in America. If policies were oriented toward unlocking America’s considerable growth potential (policies described elsewhere in this report), then the rise of asset markets would be balanced alongside considerable improvement in the economic conditions of the vast middle class. But that is not the case in America, where growth-suppressive policies exist alongside extreme monetary ease. The consequence of this combination is that asset prices have risen sharply (exacerbating inequality), with only modest second-order benefits for economic activity, while the middle class has suffered from poor overall economic growth and job prospects combined with significant increases in basic cost-of-living items. This terrible combination is at the root of today’s perception of growing inequality, but the policymakers who are causing this set of circumstances are the ones railing (for political gain) against inequality.

Bad business all around.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1zEZjNs Tyler Durden

The minimum-wage-hiker-in-chief will not be happy this morning. Former Obama administration economist Alan Krueger has some choice words for the hope-filled living-wage seekers of America:

• *KRUEGER SAYS WORKERS NEED TO ‘RATCHET DOWN WAGE EXPECTATIONS’

Isn’t it odd how quickly the views of ethical economists change once they have tenure and the shackles of government-servitude are removed. We don’t remember hearing Krueger arguing that a ‘fair’ wage is a little much to expect in the current environment.

It would appear Mr. Krueger should stop being cynical and just get hopey.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rTnxPs Tyler Durden

The minimum-wage-hiker-in-chief will not be happy this morning. Former Obama administration economist Alan Krueger has some choice words for the hope-filled living-wage seekers of America:

• *KRUEGER SAYS WORKERS NEED TO ‘RATCHET DOWN WAGE EXPECTATIONS’

Isn’t it odd how quickly the views of ethical economists change once they have tenure and the shackles of government-servitude are removed. We don’t remember hearing Krueger arguing that a ‘fair’ wage is a little much to expect in the current environment.

It would appear Mr. Krueger should stop being cynical and just get hopey.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rTnxPs Tyler Durden