“Dinheiro duro” e preferência temporal: uma perspectiva do Bitcoin

Money is what allows individuals to face uncertainty, by controlling and debasing money, governments of the world shift the time preference of individuals to somewhere closer to the present time. This currency inflation disincentivizes saving with societal consequences that go much beyond economics. By giving back to individuals the possibility of saving, Bitcoin emulates what gold did for a number of centuries and provides a much-needed solution to the interference of governments in the money market. The Bitcoin standard will provide for much higher levels of social development, because it will incentivize and facilitate savings as well as the exercise of proper economic calculation.el dinero es lo que permite que los individuos enfrenten la incertidumbre, y al controlar y degradar el dinero, los gobiernos del mundo desplazan la preferencia temporal de los individuos hacia un lugar más cercano al presente. Esta inflación monetaria desincentiva el ahorro con consecuencias sociales que van mucho más allá de lo económico. Al devolverles a las personas la posibilidad de ahorrar, Bitcoin emula lo que hizo eloro, el patrón oro, durante varios siglos y brinda una solución muy necesaria a la interferencia de los gobiernos en el mercado monetario. El patrón Bitcoin permitirá niveles mucho más altos de desarrollo social, porque incentivará y facilitará el ahorro, así como el ejercicio del cálculo económico.O dinheiro é o que permite aos indivíduos enfrentarem a incerteza, ao controlar e desvalorizar o dinheiro, os governos do mundo todo aumentam a preferência temporal dos indivíduos, trazendo-a mais próximo do presente. Tal inflação monetária desincentiva a poupança com consequências sociais que vão muito além da economia. Ao devolver aos indivíduos a possibilidade de poupar, o Bitcoin emula o que o ouro, o padrão ouro, fez por muitos séculos e oferece uma solução necessária contra a interferência dos governos no mercadomonetário. O padrão Bitcoin permitirá níveis muito mais elevados de desenvolvimento social, pois incentivará e facilitará a poupança, separando-a dos investimentos, bem como facilitará o exercício do cálculo econômico

Marketing Estratégico e Competição Empresarial

Este trabalho busca investigar como a Escola Austríaca de Economia pode contribuir para o estudo do Marketing Estratégico enquanto processo social. O estudo é qualitativo e exploratório e usa de um lado uma teoria geral de competição chamada Resource Advantage Theory e do outro a Tríade Austríaca – Ação, Tempo e Conhecimento para melhor compreender a competição empresarial e o que leva as empresas a adquirirem e manterem a vantagem competitiva nos mercados. Usando ambas teorias é analisada de forma inédita e pormenorizada cada premissa da teoria geral de competição segundo os autores da Escola Austríaca e conclui-se que esta teoria está totalmente alinhada aos diferentes desenvolvimentos teóricos da Escola Austríaca e que esta última tem muito a contribuir para a evolução da compreensão do Marketing Estratégico sobre os processos de competição. Por fim são apresentadas conclusões e limitações do estudo e sugestões para pesquisas futuras a serem desenvolvidas por autores interessados nos pontos de contato entre o Marketing Estratégico/Administração e a Escola Austríaca de Economia

Multipoverty in Venezuela

Poverty has been defined by several authors and international organizations from similar perspectives. However, those definitions tend to be simplistic and not powerful enough to deal with complex situations that involve different points of view on the poverty phenomenon. The aim of this paper is to use a praxeological standpoint and introduce a new definition, multipoverty, while using it to analyze the current crisis in Venezuela. Three main conclusions are drawn: in current Venezuela, all common people are very likely to be poor, and a social explosion there is possible; the nature of the human being is too complex to be analyzed under a simplistic approach based on the rigidness of pure quantitative methods; the multipoverty approach adds a humanistic, praxeological, and individualistic edge, based upon ideas of freedom of action, to the traditional definitions of poverty and helps to better understand the phenomena

Why startups fail in emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems?

Objective: Entrepreneurs are responsible for innovation, but they do not act in the vacuum, the greater the support for their action, the improve the chances of success. Startups - technology-based companies with high potential for growth and impact - are associated with the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems that facilitate entrepreneurial action. This paper goal is to provide evidence that help to explain why startups fail in an emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem. Method: We perform exploratory research in which entrepreneurs whose startups failed in the emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem of Porto Alegre, Brazil, were interviewed. We complement the analysis with the collection of secondary data. Results: Building on Isenberg’s (2011) six domains, we generate ideas on how each of them in emergent entrepreneurial ecosystem may influence startup mortality. Our results indicate that emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem could be much better in avoiding the premature failure of startups. Policy and Finance are the most problematic domains, while culture, support, and markets are the three middle-ground dimensions. These last three need improvement, but they are not as critical as the first two. Contributions: This paper contributes to the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature by exploring how emergent ecosystems contribute for discontinuity of promising startups. Originality: Besides entrepreneurial mistakes, problems that are out of the entrepreneur control can also cause a venture's death (Cardon et al., 2011). Building on this, we use Isenberg's (2010; 2011) model for understanding the influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on the circumstances that entrepreneurs faced that determined their startup failure (Jenkins & McKelvie, 2016). Social Contributions: by better understanding why startups fail in emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems, we support policymakers in their focus on possible improvements of the features that seem most relevant to entrepreneurs. The public agents can then work to provide a better environment for future entrepreneurial endeavors

More is not always better: The impact of value co‐creation fit on B2B and B2C customer satisfaction

Organizations increasingly rely on customer involvement in the value creation process (i.e., co-creation) to enhance customer satisfaction and differentiate themselves from competitors. While past research has largely indicated that more co-creation is beneficial, some have suggested yet not empirically validated that excess co-creation may negatively impact customers. Applying the service-dominant logic, two studies (B2B and B2C customers) offer insight into the appropriate levels of the co-production and value-in-use dimensions of co-creation. For both B2B and B2C customers, polynomial regression and surface plot analyses indicate an inverted U-shaped relationship between value co-creation and satisfaction, establishing that more co-creation is beneficial only up to a point. As such, we inform managers of factors that can cause the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction to peak and then turn negative. Further, customer expertise and process enjoyment moderate this relationship for B2C (but not B2B) customers, thereby offering ways to mitigate the negative effects of excess co-creation for end-customers. The studies also highlight the importance of value co-creation “fit” between the customer\u27s expected and experienced levels of co-creation. Interestingly, positive misfit (i.e., excess co-creation) retains a stronger negative influence on customer satisfaction than negative misfit (i.e., insufficient co-creation) for both B2B and B2C customers