Every weight I lift is an extra hug from you

Every jog we take is an extra memory just for us two

Every day I move is an extra day I see your smile

Every lap I swim is always worthwhile

Because then, I can look you in the eye

And say to you: “For this is why I exercise, to delay the day you say goodbye”

Happy 1^st Birthday Ava.

Doesn’t sound much, but ExxonMobil have set a record for undersea drilling:

ExxonMobil has completed the world’s. longest extended-reach well drilled from an existing offshore fixed platform drilling rig, increasing the company’s ability to produce more domestic oil supplies from existing facilities at the Santa Ynez unit, offshore southern California. The well drilled from the Heritage platform using ExxonMobil’s Fast Drill technology extends more than six miles horizontally and more than 7,000 feet below sea level.

Through the use of this extended reach drill technology, the well will be able to produce an additional 5.8 million barrels of oil equivalent, an amount equal to the annual energy consumption of over 144,000 Californians.

See the results of a controlled experiment of two plants growing with 450 ppm vs 1270 ppm CO2 concentrations:

Part of every startup’s life is raising capital. This will typically involve Angel Investors – high net worth individuals. However, Robert Litan has discovered a potential unintended consequence in Senator Dodd’s Financial Reform Bill:

Under existing law, startup companies can raise money easily and quickly from “accredited investors” — individuals with substantial wealth or income. There is no need for the companies or the investors to gain approval from any state or regulatory official.

All of this would change if Section 926 of the Dodd bill is included in any final reform legislation. That section would require, for the first time, companies seeking angel investment to make a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would have 120 days to review it. This would both raise the cost of seeking angels and delay the ability of companies to benefit from their funding.

The negative impact of the SEC filing requirement would be aggravated by the proposed doubling of the net worth or income thresholds required for investors to be “accredited.”

It is difficult to know why these provisions are in a much larger bill whose primary aim is to address the fundamental causes of the recent financial crisis. Those causes are now well known and much commented on: excessive subprime mortgage lending combined with excessive leverage throughout the financial system. There is no evidence that angel investment in startup companies played any role whatsoever in events leading up to the financial crisis.

America became prosperous by its risk-taking and by backing their abilities and talents. It is such a shame that politicians should want to get in the way of two parties voluntarily agreeing on a deal. If this bill gets up it will only mean less deals, less wealth-creation, less innovation and more startup failure rates. Timothy Lee from Cato sums it up well:

It’s hard to overstate how important a favorable regulatory climate is to the success of startups. Some of the most important startups have been founded by 20-somethings without the resources to hire lawyers or navigate regulatory bureaucracies. And startups frequently find themselves within weeks of insolvency before they have a big breakthrough. Having a crucial round of funding delayed by four months can be the difference between success and failure. If this description of the bill is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), this provision would be very bad for the future of high-tech innovation in the United States.

UPDATE: Senate amends bill:

The changes included removing a 120-day waiting period for state regulators to review an investment after a deal has been made and allowing federal regulations to govern angel investments, as opposed to a hodgepodge of state regulations.

Although the amendment preserved annual income and net-worth requirements for angel investors to be accredited, it removed requirements that the levels rise with inflation. Instead, the Securities and Exchange Commission would review the requirements every four years to see if they needed to be changed.

This post brought to you by the Wordpress Blackberry App. Pretty nifty.

In Australia, we operate with three tiers of government: local, state and federal (you could argue that there is a fourth: the UN and our obligation to its treaties). Government expenditure is most effective when the geographical spend is concentrated in the area where taxes are raised. For example, I can see directly that my local council rates go towards local roads and my garbage collection. By having many small, local and regional government councils, innovative service delivery and taxation regimes can flourish to encourage residents and business to be established. If I do not like a particular council, I have greater access to the elected officials to air my grievances. If I feel strongly enough I can move to another council region (which is much easier than moving state or to another country). This can breed a healthy competition among councils to give the best “bang” for its rate payers buck.

So it is refreshing to note that, in a recent survey by Griffith University, more people are favouring localised and regional governments as opposed to state governments:

The Griffith University report found rising support for abolishing state governments, from 30 per cent to 39 per cent between its May 2008 and March 2010 Newspoll surveys. But it also found increasing support for abolishing federal and local governments. The federal government’s rating as the most effective tier of government has dropped from 50 per cent to 44 per cent, even after Rudd helped save Australia from the global recession and neo-liberalism. Most of this decline was captured in an increase, from 20 per cent to 27 per cent, in support for local councils as our most effective level of government.

But most striking is that 42 per cent of Australians now favour creating regional governments, up from 32 per cent less than two years ago. Adding the 9.3 per cent who favour “more states” suggests that one in two Australians favours shifting power below the state government tier.

…more than one in four Australians now judges its local council to be the most effective tier of government, compared to the less than one-in-six who prefers state governments.