Are you a goat or a sheep?

November 29, 2010

Most times it’s safer together.

When the polarity reverses, that inverts.

[ThemThangs]


A spy upon your insatiable greed.

September 28, 2010

Diogenes of Sinope (Greek: Διογένης ὁ Σινωπεύς Diogenes ho Sinopeus), was a Greek philosopher and one of the founders of Cynic philosophy. Also known as Diogenes the Cynic, he was born in Sinope (modern-day Sinop, Turkey) in 412 or 404 BCE and died at Corinth in 323 BCE.[1]

Diogenes was one of the few men to ever publicly mock Alexander the Great and live. He intellectually humiliated Plato and was the only pupil ever accepted by Antisthenes, whom he saw as the true heir of Socrates. Diogenes taught his philosophy of Cynicism to Crates who taught it to Zeno of Citium who fashioned it into the school of Stoicism, one of the most enduring branches of Greek philosophy.

Wikipedia

Alexander and Diogenes, Caspar de Crayer (1582-1669)

When Plato styled him a dog, Diogenes said:

Quite true, for I come back again and again to those who have sold me.

Diogenes, Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824-1904)


When high risk is disguised, franchise investors behave more recklessly because they are human beings

June 18, 2010

Perceived risk.

Big Franchising tries to minimize the public’s perceived risk of buying all franchises.

They:

  1. anchor their false legitimacy in “badges of authority” (FTC, banks, trade associations that claim to have a credible Code of Ethics or Ombuds program, justice system, toothless regulation and disclosure laws, government guaranteed loan programs, etc.),
  2. blame the fraud victims for their situation (ad hominem attacks),
  3. goes after military pensions by discounting worthless franchises (VetFran) and
  4. trot out the most blatant franchisee shills imaginable to hype foreign predatory systems.

Potential franchisees respond by buying higher risky offerings to satisfy their pre-existing tolerance for risks (see Target Risk: free online book by Gerald J. S. Wilde)

This is why franchising remains much, much riskier than independent businesses.

And getting riskier.

And without effective safeguards, franchising is Unsafe at any Brand.


So long you loser hosers.

November 12, 2009

AustralianFriendNot much time today, I’m afraid.

I’m busy putting my house in order.

I’ve applied for a job in Australia.

When the Holy Franchise Empire collapses:

  • which country will be the last to shatter like a crystal vase? (the Excited States of America)
  • which country will be second last? (Canuckistan)
  • the first?

My peers are setting a banquet here, here, here, here, and (especially) here.

Oh how I will enjoy the bugs…

I always thought an ombuds function would be quickly corrupted by the usual suspects.

Go figure: I was wrong once in my life ;-)

Commonwealth means recognizing wealth as a common good, to some degree. My Dad always spoke very well of these people


A Safe place: If you build it, franchisees will come

September 29, 2009

FieldofDreamsSmart franchisees stay in the corn.

The pros only show up when the conditions are right for them to do perform their duty (ie. ask questions, reconcile, lead).

I think it takes about 1 year of a new franchisee group until it gains their trust (legitimacy, real not false hope).

The platform that invokes their appearance best is a Attorneyless Franchisee Network, AFN:

a group of current trademark franchisees whose goal is a relationship not a lawsuit;

patient, education focused, decentralized.

Shrewd franchisees will stay away if an attorney leads.

The safe space starts inside one person’ s head. It forms digitally, quickly transcending (not opposing) Big Franchising (see Adam Smith on commercial Conspiracies). The Tribe is formed when the venom is drawn out in a supportive, therapeutic/health-focused  environment.

Doctors do not judge, they treat the dis-order, acknowledging the pain but administering the appropriate treatments. Leaders assume the patient is a little deranged, not because of their lack of worth as a human being but because of the hidden pathogen (predatory franchising).

It does take faith but when you see healing take place, my goodness: you’ll never forget it.


Health care reform “debate”: More industry Canada Goose-stepping

August 20, 2009

USFascism

Go ahead: Blame Canada

I’ve held off commenting on the current U.S. health care reform debate.

Until now.

This “debate” is structurally identical to what passes for communication in the franchise industry today.

Propaganda, pure and simple (biased influence)

Unmistakeably, evil if judged by historical wisdom authors. Still corrupting even to most docile sheeple.

Some of it bordering on Große Lüge (The Big Lie), analogous to Big Tobacco defense style, Nineteen Eighty-Four,  modern PR, corporatism…

I think today’s Toronto Star op ed is a good summary of how most Canadians I know feel about our system versus the U.S.’s. In Why I’d rather be sick here than in U.S., Bob Hepburn writes:

For weeks, Americans have been told that Canada pushes its sickest and weakest to the bottom of wait lists, that our health care is inferior, that it’s the government that decides who lives and who dies.

Despite these attacks, the reality is that the overall quality of health care experienced in Canada is far better than in the United States.

If you have any doubt, just ask yourself this simple question:

Would you rather be sick here or in the U. S.?

For me, the answer is obvious.

I have worked and studied in the U.S. for a total of 10 years and, although I have received good care from American doctors and clinics, I’d much rather be sick here.

Some inconvenient data:

  1. 87% of Canadians beleive our health care system is better than the U.S. (EKOS survey),
  2. +90% happy with quality of care they received,
  3. 100% of Canadians have been covered since 1967 while 50 million U.S. have zero coverage,
  4. zero Canadians have gone bankrupt because of an health care expenses,
  5. zero Canadians have had coverage reduced because of being at a higher risk, and
  6. 10% Canadian GDP on health care (16% in U.S., highest in world).

We have problems, absolutely. Were lots of problems when I was hit by a automobile as a kid in 1968. But I know one Canadian family that was not bankrupted by hospital invoices. I went on to work at Royal Victoria Hospital, St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital and Victoria Hospital as a staff administrator.

Our first question is: How can we help? (not How will you pay?)

Ours is not a 100% government-owned, monolithic system. Many of the elements are privately owned and for-profit. It is wide-ranging but does not cover all health needs.

That said, even the most libertarian politicians know it is political suicide to even hint at tinkering with the founding principles of the Canada Health Act:

  1. administration,
  2. comprehensiveness,
  3. universality,
  4. portability and
  5. accessibility.

The debate, like in franchising, would normally be seen as just plain silly if it weren’t for the toxic effects on families and communities with these thought reform methods.

By its operating software, antithetical to a sustainable physical, spiritual and mental healthy human life. Machines running man.

Similar to many modern corporate technologies.


Franchising was an imperial Empire

August 17, 2009

BritishEmpireWhen you think about it, franchising uses a lot of military terms: conquer markets, roll out regionally then nationally, blitz the consumer, attack markets. The very term marketing “brand”originated, of course, with heraldry and military regalia.

Franchising had operated as a type of self-governed nation state that has traditionally been held together by British common law principles.

They acted as if they were above the law.

This ability to exercise coercive power is over, however.

By 1920, see above, the sun never set on the British empire.

An empire is:

a State with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture. Wikipedia

The franchising elite is what I have defined as Big Franchising: product franchisors, key business-format franchisors (lapdog peak associations), and the franchise bar. If you doubt the transnational of modern franchising methodology, I direct your attention to the World Franchise Council.

Franchising is an imperial empire because it gains its strengths from “domains of knowledge, beliefs, values and, expertise”. Wikipedia These near-religious beliefs are found in full-blown vigour at the International Franchise Association’s continuous cliche-ridden press releases (see SmartBrief).

In most empires, there is a visible difference between the rulers and the ruled such as skin colour, language, education, nationality, ethnicity, etc. Not so in franchising.

The differentiating factor is between the investors’ ears.

Awareness that franchising is a game designed to re-distribute wealth (not create it) is what separates the haves from the have-nots. That franchising is often a debt-induced form of servitude is what the “innocents” have not learned yet.

The British empire held control by exerting a monopoly on sanctioned violence via their military, colonial administration, police and courts. This was possible through misrepresentations and control of information.

  • Franchising has done the same via the franchise bar’s jealously guarded monopoly on franchise legal work and access to justice in the civil court system.

Franchising as a coercion-based empire is over not because digital information can now be shared (internet). There are many digital house negroes actively trying resist the inevitable.

The empire has ended because credible and honest sharing is happening here, a few IndFA sites  and at WikidFranchise.org.

All empires pass away.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: