David & Chester's Page

Don’t forget that at its height, Theranos was worth $9 billion. Despite this, despite global demand for Holmes’s shares, she never sold any. Except that we’re told she’s a fraud. Why didn’t Holmes liquefy her alleged scam?

The Elizabeth Holmes "fraud" narrative was long contradicted by what was true: Holmes's backers included the most prominent names in investing, business, economics, and politics. Fraudsters of course sell when people are duped, but when the world's greatest investors were lined up trying to buy Holmes's Theranos shares, she refused. From there, one would have to believe that some of the world's savviest investors didn't discover Holmes's alleged fraud, rather it was an unknown reporter who somehow scooped the world's best investors. Not very likely. The contradictions are many, and they gloss over the fact that as a female Stanford dropout, Holmes was constantly in the spotlight in the way that a male Stanford dropout would not have been. There are many of them, not many of Holmes's type. That is not a feminist comment, but it is a comment that for being a magnet for media, Holmes missed the crucial chance to develop her product anonymously, and on a better timeline. Said another way, had she not been so successful in pursuit of the impossible while raising money to back her vision over 15 years, she would not be in prison today. Holmes isn't a fraud nor did she fail, she was merely the only startup founder to build her company in a fishbowl. The latter arguably has her wrongly imprisoned today. realclearmarkets.com/article…

Commentary about the latest Nobel Prize winners in economics is a reminder that both John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman felt government could increase "demand" to allegedly lift economies, the only difference being that Keynes felt government spending was the demand-increasing lever, while Friedman felt increases in so-called "money supply" were the driver of more consumption. Except that governments that produce nothing can hardly increase demand. They can only spend insofar as producers have commensurately less. Central banks created by government aren't some powerful "other," untethered by simple laws of economics, when it comes to governments manufacturing demand. They can do no such thing. Friedman believed that Federal Reserve fiddling with so-called "money supply" could increase demand, but money that circulates is production determined. Always. That's why dollars circulate the globe while refereeing exchange that is always products for products. It's a reminder that "money" doesn't circulate as much as production IS money, and ensures reasonably stable exchange media necessary to facilitate trade of consumable goods, services and labor. Contra Friedman and his myriad disciples, central banks and monetary authorities are utterly immaterial to where money circulates precisely because they, like their government creators, produce exactly nothing. forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2…