Profile

Cover photo
John Ramirez
Worked at Bank of America
120 followers|2,108 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

John Ramirez

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Cool vid. I'm always into breakdowns/inner-workings, psychology, etc of tech. Followed
1
Eli Fennell's profile photo
 
Thanks!
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
The DOD can have a great tactical advantage with Amazon Drone-like technology (if they don't already have it). Think about delivery in combat zones, across enemy lines, and in tight spaces. Just a thought.
1
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Thanks for the talk, Rob
1
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

Shared publicly  - 
 
Have you noticed that the majority of what people call innovation, particularly in software and web startups, has (or will have) a business model that effectively looks to extract money from consumers or major companies of the world through either advertising, commissions or sales for the benefit of investors and not necessarily for the founders and employees. And thus, I'm seeing most web companies of today are being forced to think of themselves as products instead of just being killer companies with great vision.

I understand that today there is a need to boost the economy, and building companies and creating jobs helps to do that, but the problem is that the current methods of both getting capital and creating revenue is defining the path of the web startup in a way that is defeating. It's influencing the way developers conceive ideas and structure their companies. In this paradigm, entrepreneurs need to be product-oriented instead of simply making new things that people will love because they need to sell themselves before they even create anything.

Sometimes I'll watch videos of entrepreneurs pitching, and I understand that "the pitching process" is to attract capital for expansion ect, but why is one of the first two questions always "how do you plan to monetize?" ehh. The venture capital industry is so thirsty for innovative breakthroughs in monetization models, but it will be almost impossible to do that under the current finance paradigm. I can't help but think back to a really good book I read in 2009 called, Life Inc: How The World Became a Corporation which talked about a prevailing ignorance people have about money and how that undermines society's ability to function. It talked about how the rules we live by came to be, who made them, why they made them, an how they were sold to the public to later point out that by discussing this we could make conscious decisions about the rules we're living by to benefit us all.

I've written about my feelings on the internet as a great social tool and how instead it turned into a tool for corporations to reinvent themselves, so this is merely a derivative of that thought, yet has a different flavor because web entrepreneurs are the modern buccaneers. They are looked at by the big money conglomerates as the people who will voyage and labor for them. It seemed that for so many years entrepreneurs had to beg and humble themselves to investors while having all the value. So when I think about raising capital and the models used to make money today, I think that investors will do a 180-degree turnaround on that notion. And we're already starting to see that shift as new social models of investment arise to completely replace the need for venture capital which will cause their downfall. This is why web startups in 2011 heard how much money there is to get. It's because venture capitalist are already starting to feel the squeeze and they may be looking at a window of opportunity closing that has been open since the inception of corporations in the 1700s. So when society finds ways to fund modern web companies (with companies like Kickstarter and the rise of micro-financing in the last 10 years), the need for venture capital will disappear and new models of revenue will arrise. After all, that what PayPal was originally going to do. PayPal never intended to charge anyone for anything. They originally sought out to sustain themselves on a marginal profit by providing a great social service until banks stepped in to complain about how PayPal was infringing on their monopolies over interest.

This is where I believe Open Source thrives and hopes to pick up the gauntlet put down by the vision PayPal created in the early 2000s. Although I'm no expert, Open Source is about people who may or may not be monetarily driven to put software out that may be useful to others without a complete proprietary ownership right, but rather, a public agreement.

So for future companies who think they need venture capital to be big successes are only being short-sighted. It appears that the incredible valuations of .coms today are not bubbles more than they are desperate attempts to extract capital out of markets by a few parasitic venture capitalist at the detriment of the entire ecosystem. Venture capitalist have sold technology companies this idea that you must be big like Facebook and Google to be validated when its merely a way to justify their need. Shedding this ideology is what I will call the "post-venture dependency" ideology that for hundreds of years have kept the rich, rich. Those companies that choose a "post-venture dependency" philosophy of investment capital going forward will be going against the popular ideology of today by saying "I can make the world a bit better this way and I don't need investor capital to make my customers, my company, and my family happy" are not only making their business and industry safer as a whole, but will be changing the entrepreneur-investor dynamic for the better and only then will we see true breakthroughs in revenue models and innovation.
1
Monnel Espiritu's profile photo
 
Nowadays there can be no such thing as limitation of the mind - only the will. I agree with your thesis John. Talented people should not be begging to capitalist inferiors (for investment) who opportunistically earn profit from our talents and skills. (Wow you right well John.) 
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

Shared publicly  - 
 
Although I am not for the current SOPA legislation, I can understand why the United States of America is deciding upon the position that the Internet needs to be regulated for the purpose of protecting the ownership of intellectual property (IP). So let me begin by prefacing the following text with the notion that the upcoming congressional decision to regulate IPs comes down to whether enforcing IPs are economically beneficial to America. Here I'd like to make the distinction between the actual economic, social, and moral topics of regulating IPs from any clauses that may become affective factors of votes.

For economic growth, the United States of America enforces markets, commerce and intellectual property through an authoritative presence (ie. United States Department of Commerce or United States Patent and Trademark Office) because this protection has proven to be economically beneficial to the nation. Although the idea that lawful protections of intellectual property exist to buffer competition and uphold monopolies can be argued - but the history of property rights will show that it is economically beneficial. If we can accept this as fact, then it is the unquestionable intention of content, media, and intellectual property owners that wish to gain a profit from their exploits, to have an authoritative enforcer to uphold that right. Therefore, for-profit entities will eventually seek more and more control over the medium in which their properties exist and participate in.

I believe the former to be true, and if factual, then legislation like SOPA will continue to surface in perpetuity. I'm sure those interested in the overall utility of the internet and that have knowledge of historical government interventions in markets could see this one coming for some time now. What's interesting (for another conversation) is why at this particular point in time has government decided to take this action?...but I digress.

So here is my proposed topical solution (abstract).

Assuming that the administration and regulation of the Internet will remain the duty of governments; to secure trust in markets, preserve channels of commerce and protect the rights and freedoms of property owners for the purpose of economic stability in society, then the medium where such activity occurs will be specifically regulated to ensure that nature. In other words, government(s) will seek to express power by regulating the current web as we know it to protect economic nature of it, but if in doing so compromises the rights and freedoms if individuals, then it is the elaborate consequence of this regulation that the government be obligated to construct an alternate allow web experience where everything is free, an alternate World Wide Web - free of prices, intellectual properties, commerce, and hence, needing no regulation to infringe on each citizens inalienable rights to privacy and freedom. And anyone one who participates here, such as a business or as an individual will hereby understand the nature and intent of this proxy to be free.

The Internet we have today is mostly of things that we want, not what we need. We do not need the entertainment, products, social content, etc - it is a convenience. We need secure channels of communication for data bits of information we utilize as language that are invariably a part of our lives. If the government will not act on behalf of the people in some way, shape, or form to provide a web experience like the one just described, people will simply create their own Internet; an unimaginable creation of Internets within Internets and loopholes to ensure freedom of expressions and avoid the oppression of regulations (similar to how Wall Street has created derivative of derivatives in financial markets for decades to find means to achieve its desired goals).
1
Moses Becerril's profile photo
 
Good lord homey, if u had half the effort u have on G+, back in college u'd be rich tdy...lmao
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

Shared publicly  - 
 
A thought on Climate Change and why world governments are slow to adopt a positive change.

The other day I engaged in a conversation about Climate Change and why governments are mostly mumm about this cause. Climate change is such a difficult issue to tackle for governments because they support corporate production/expansion and it prefers not to curtail this growth at the expense of our environment.

And here are two good reasons why.

1) Climate Change and Economic Growth. The global markets are extremely competitive. Corporations are like organisms in that the use of energy to fuel the course of production creates an undesirable waste. If you curtail waste from the origin means to curtail production. If this is true, then is it almost self-defeating for any government to take a stand on climate change, because by taking this position, they will endager its nation's ability to produce, export, and grow. And in doing this, it will hurt its GDP and thus produce conditions for economic decline for its nation.

2) Individual Impact of Public Official Opportunities. Any stance that curtails a corporations ability to gain a profit is unfavorable for the individual public official. Taking a public stand on Climate Change is taking a stand on its means of production, and thus, directly affects an individual's opportunities to attract income for his/her endeavors (ie. campaigns or direct individual contributions).

So I conclude that the barriers to Climate Change are not about inconclusive scientific evidence, but rather, that the reasons I have stated are the more practical barriers to actual change. In almost all cases, pollution of any kind is not good for the environment, so regardless of the evidence, collective wisdom will say that governments should be doing something about it at all points, at all times. But our economic philosophy of free markets gives corporations freedoms similar to how democracy supports the freedoms of individuals. Any free market government that instructs a corporation on how to run its business is like telling me how to run my life, except in this case the problem is twofold because they would also be biting the hand that feeds them.
1
Sheo Kumar Agarwal's profile photo
 
WHAT GOVT IS DOING, THEY WILL HV. 2 SAVE TREES AND GROW MORE TREES.OLD TREES ARE BETTER THAN YOUNGER TREES PLASTICS WILL HV. TO BE BAN ALL OVER WORLD.
Add a comment...
In his circles
1,278 people
Have him in circles
120 people
Anand George's profile photo
Angelica Peteros's profile photo
Summer Daniels's profile photo
David Allen Wizardgold's profile photo

John Ramirez

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
The role of mentorship is not only to teach skills/trade, but for the Mentor to open the mind of the Mentee to what is possible in this world.
1
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
 I wast thinking today about the ratio of people with Ambition (the internal motivation to achieve excellence) to those without. There are just so few of us -- the ambitious ones that actually go out and strive for what they dream of.. Thanks for your videos.
1
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

Shared publicly  - 
 
O'Reilly's Strata Conference 2012 - John Wilbanks on Data Privacy, Big Data's affect on human life and the structure of information.
http://youtu.be/GgJyAw6beVA
1
Add a comment...

John Ramirez

Shared publicly  - 
 
Clay Shirky explains SOPA/PIPA - it's ethics, history and it's future...http://youtu.be/9h2dF-IsH0I
1
1
Ramon B. Nuez Jr.'s profile photoJohn Ramirez's profile photo
3 comments
 
+John Ramirez I met him once at a Yahoo event in NYC. Smart guy -- very smart.
Add a comment...
People
In his circles
1,278 people
Have him in circles
120 people
Anand George's profile photo
Angelica Peteros's profile photo
Summer Daniels's profile photo
David Allen Wizardgold's profile photo
Work
Occupation
Finance
Employment
  • Bank of America
  • BNP Paribas
  • Merlin Securities
Links
Story
Introduction
Currently focusing on building an exciting new web app...stay tuned.
Basic Information
Gender
Male