# The “Moses” Parallel, R&D Anathema And The Technological Golden Calf

A lot of people get things misconstrued about money and science. People tell themselves (in order to establish their self-imposed “belief system”) that science isn’t about money, but in reality, it truly is about the money. How does one go about starting a new company without the money? You can harp on all you want about how the U.S. needs to have more engineers and scientists starting new companies in order for the U.S. to regain the top spot as an economical giant in this global economy. The problem with that is that with developing and emerging States the likes of China and India, the U.S. is hopeless. You can’t march headstrong into the 5th-level economy (R&D) with this country’s flailing education system. Some of you have trouble spelling the word E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N. Why should I, an American entrepreneur, seek to hire idiots? Because they’re American, like me?

You have to ask yourself this puzzling question: “What is \$1 worth?” Answer: It is worth \$1 in goods and services. If you have \$10 and there are \$10 in goods and services, then what is \$1 worth? Answer: It is worth \$1. You have \$5 and there are \$10 in goods and services. What is \$1 worth now? Answer: It it worth \$2. There is an established relationship between currency and the value of goods and services produced. 10 units of goods and services divided by 10 units of currency equals 1 unit of currency. The values of goods and services remains unchanged while it is the value of the currency that changes.

200 billion units GDP / 80 billion units of currency = 2.50 units of currency (Real Deflation)

200 billion units GDP / 110 billion units of currency = 1.82 units of currency (Real Inflation)

Most States use some measure of GDP in determining the total value of goods and services; the money supply is then adjusted to the GDP. If the GDP is measured at 200 billion units and you have 200 billion units of circulating currency then the value of one unit of currency is 1. From the example up above, I’m selling a good that is one currency unit, and you’re going to give me 2.50 currency units? You can’t possibly be that crazy because you have lost 1.50 currency units. In order to correct the situation, if I have to lower the price of the unit to establish an equilibrium so that the value of the unit remains at 1, therefore the cost of the unit [to you] is 1. In the real world, this is what is known as real deflation. The value of the goods and services is not declining rather the value of the currency increases. Folks, this is how the world [outside of the United States] operates. With that said, say I’m from Somalia and I have 2.50 units of currency and some high-tech startup over in “Silly Coon Valley” Silicon Valley came up with some pointless “augmented reality” device that intrigues me. Yet, that high-tech startup wants to sell their little “augmented reality” device/gadget/whatever at a high price of \$1,580 to someone over in Somalia with only 2.50 units of currency to spend? Are you serious? That “Silly Coon Valley” Silicon Valley high-tech startup [that some “genius” VC firm funded] just economically crippled themselves because they cannot sell their little “augmented reality” crappy device/gadget/whatever to anyone over in Somalia, Angola, Chile, wherever on the global scale because no one in those markets can afford the the overly exaggerated price of \$1,580. Now, that high-tech startup from “Silly Coon Valley” Silicon Valley has to settle for mostly domestic markets within the United States that are willing to fork over \$1,580 for their product and might luck-out on a few more markets from Canada–and don’t forget the curious markets from Australia as well that don’t want to miss out on the fun of forking over \$1,580 [instead of doing like the rest of the world and wait for the price to drop, dramatically].

There’s a difference between starting a high-tech startup that develops products based off of fantasy and bewilderment and a scientific R&D startup that focuses on developing products that are technology-oriented with the purpose of being beneficial and substantial to people in general. In the interest of HL, allow me to put a little definition  to “technology-oriented”; HL is a startup that focuses on employing both conventional and unorthodox methodologies of research in order to develop products based on scientific principles. HL is a scientific R&D startup, effectively taking its place in the 5th-level economy. A high-tech startup is centered mainly on technology. Being placed firmly in technology effectively would make that high-tech startup 4th-level economy. This is where the United States is and has been [stuck in] for the last 60+ years. You hear all the time about “automation”, yeah? If [high-tech] companies were to fully automate what do you get in return? Answer: Surplus labor. Now, where will that surplus labor go? Here’s an answer to that inquiry based in reality: back in the mid-1990s, the U.S. was supposed to have already moved into the 5th-level economy, which is Research and Development–full-on Research and Development. Yet, you didn’t–and now, nation-States the likes of Norway, out-competes the U.S. when it comes to investing in R&D. Do realize that there are more people living in Cook County, Illinois than the entire population of Norway. You can harp on all you want about IBM spending \$6 billion in “R&D”; these motherfuckers are investing in high-tech startups/companies–that’s a 4th-level economic activity; not 5th-level economic investing. Folks (i.e., “investors”) shun core R&D and by “core R&D” I’m not referring to the one or two or three R&D divisions at Facebook, Google or Microsoft. No, I’m talking about a company solely dedicated to core R&D. Investors, despite how milquetoast they are with their investment decisions, typically don’t go for core R&D companies but the reasons why they don’t won’t make sense to someone like myself since HL makes technology-oriented products based on scientific principles that can easily be marketed to markets on a global scale. You’d think that would entice someone to grow an interest to the nature of this startup. They’re interested in the ROI and how soon they’ll receive that ROI; they’re interested in the profit margins. Okay, so rather than investing in a startup like HL, investors the likes of VCs out of “Silly Coon Valley” Silicon Valley are going to invest in something that they perceive will “go big” and in turn, give them ROIs high off the roof. You can’t get mad at that, however, a company that will sell their product for a \$5 profit will see the following numbers:

\$5 profit * 400 million loud-mouth Americans, slow-in-the-head Canadians and child molesting Australians = \$2 billion in profit

\$5 profit * 6,000 million people that aren’t entrapped by Western culture = \$30 billion in profit