Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts

Tuesday 27 October 2020

You'll Own Nothing, and You'll Be Happy - World Economic Forum




I have mentioned in the past, that paradoxically I agree with a lot of NWO agenda. An example is that surely we shouldn't be fighting each other, but instead discovering the universe, forming partnerships and exercising our rights that have been removed without our consent?

The only caveat is that I'm OK with some of their plans, but only if the rulers, or people in charge, have a positive agenda for humanity. Sadly that isn't the case so I'm obliged to resist, until such time as the current leadership have been replaced.

It's worth repeating again, that the reason for the Scamdemic is to implement 'The Great Economic Reset'. Those you who haven't noticed that a sixth (or even a fifth in some circumstances) of the high street is currently in receivership, are going to find my claims a lot harder to digest.

The video above by the World Economic Forum, introduces the notion of a non materialist life. This is a value I concur with, but once again, if it's driven by the enemies of humankind, it means nothing to me.

What do you think?

Saturday 24 December 2016

Are Federal Reserve Interest Rates About To Rise Markedly?




I'm the first one to put my hand up and admit I've spent to much time with Clif High over the years because though he got so much wrong, he did nail Margaret Thatcher's death and Hillary's collapse on 9/11 which keeps me checking in on his work.

However, despite many missed forecasts and an industrial case of confirmation bias, this is his best interview for a long time and I enjoyed listening to it.

It's enjoyable even for just entertainment value, though I did make the effort to study long term interest rates and I think the image I've used above is indicative of the change that the Webots are claiming.

Wednesday 27 July 2011

Stunning Amazon Brand Infographics

Depressing story. Do we really need another social media plan for M&M's or [insert brand of your choice here]. It's not just the Amazon. It's all over the world the corporations are stripping Mother Earth bare. Madagascar looks to be having a particularly brutal time.






Thursday 2 June 2011

How Significant Is Investment Within An Economy?



Paul Denlinger's answer on Quora:


In the US there are many opinions about exactly what is investment, but I will try to give some examples. 

In a developing economy with undeveloped infrastructure, it is very important. Basically, investment is the money spent which will create jobs and add to the country's GNP (gross national product). I am most familiar with China, and when China opened up for reforms in 1978, the country was, for all practical purposes, bankrupt. Fortunately, many ethnic Chinese business people from Hong Kong and Taiwan invested in factories to make light goods for export. In the beginning this was not much, but as workers saved more money, they were gradually able to buy more for themselves and their families. This led to a virtuous cycle and over 30 years, the standard of living for almost all Chinese has dramatically increased. 

The opposite of investment is consumerism, where money is spent, but does not add value for anyone, or increase GNP. The classic example for mindless consumerism is the US. This is because not only have people spent money to buy things which don't add value, they have actually borrowed money to do it. This adds to the costs of money because they need to pay interest for the use of the money. No wonder the US middle class (or what is left of it) is in such a pickle!

In the US's case, investment involves spending money on those things which will enhance the US's competitiveness in the global economy. If you look at it in those terms, spending on foreign wars, a grossly over-expensive and broken healthcare system which coddles the healthcare providers and insurance companies at the cost of most Americans doesn't make sense. The list goes on and on. Every time I look at the spending choices Americans make on the individual, city, county, state, and national level, I just end up shaking my head. 

Another way of defining investment is "What will add to the value of a person, city, county, state or nation over a period of time?" Frequently this means deferring immediate pleasure, but realizing the added value later. The biggest enemy of investment is time because in a democratic society, people want results NOW. Most good investment decisions don't realize high returns immediately. An example: if Warren Buffett had to listen to his investors in his early years, most likely he would not have made the high returns he is now famous for. This is a basic failing of most democracies.

To get back to answering this question, investment is absolutely essential to an economy, regardless what stage of development it is at, esp if it is going to be competitive on an ongoing basis. Many western govts, with the help of investment banks, have gone deeply into debt in order to win voters, but have ended up cutting needed investment for their own economies. 

Now, they are waking up and paying the price. This cost comes in the form of money paid over to the investment banks in the form of interest; this is money which rightly should go to future generations so that the economy can become more competitive in a global economy. 

What a mess!


Wednesday 10 December 2008

The soil will be much richer for the ashes.....


ULTIMATE GREEN SHOPPER


Take a good look around you. The operating system you’re using, the age of your computer, the furnishings, the cell phone you’re using, the clothes you’re wearing, even the watch strapped to your wrist or the cup of “four bucks” frappe/latte/cino number you’ve ordered in the coffee shop. Soak in all the little details of 21st century living and try and hold that image, because quite frankly I don’t think things are ever going to be the same again you see, because the ultimate green shopper is an oxymoron. The ultimate green shopper doesn't shop. That's the sick end of marketing.
We’ll probably never have as much new stuff around us as we are looking at now. It’s easy to become conditioned by new stuff, even easier to be dissatisfied with it all, wanting ever newer and more complex gadgets.


The financial meltdown that I first talked about over here hasn’t even really properly kicked off. As I understand it from the huge amount of reading I’ve been doing, it took four whole years for the depression to reach it’s full depth. I doubt if this one will take so long but let’s assume it’s three times as fast for the sake of arbitrary guessing because that is after all what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to guess what and when. I think I’ll get the times more wrong than the what.


My first attempts at trying to visualise the near future ended up with a sort of feeling that the developed world such as the United States and the E.U. would take more of a hit than the developing world, and that stands to reason doesn’t it? The lower the per capita GDP, the less the potential fall in the standard of living.


The bigger they are the harder they fall so to speak.


But having spent some time looking at the China figures, there’s a whole world of pain there too, that takes on a different dimension because of the sheer scale of the numbers. 20 million migrant workers already back on the farms and changing the demographics probably forever. It really is a hell of a mess whatever way we cut the figures.


The nasty pill to swallow is the potential for the food chain to break down. We’ve already seen an institution like Woolworths hit the floor and yet that’s just a taste of where it’s heading. Woolworths was always like the sick puppy on the edge of the pack that failed to make money in the good times when money was abundant, and thus is first to go as money liquidity tightens. Who is next? National Express coaches? Debenhams? 3 mobile phone network? Which business entity (which brand) has been running on vapours during the good years? Those are the people who are likely to bow out first. But it’s worse than that isn’t it? Because if someone who moves or distributes food about takes a hit from liquidity problems then that’s the end of very specific foodstuffs in our supermarkets. Some are talking about the need for growing local food again; turning gardens into allotments - which is ironic given the sweet spot thing I talked about and how local foods are the least carbon intensive. So who is the weakest supermarket in the UK these days? Is it Safeway? Does Safeway even still exist? It’s been some years since I looked at UK supermarkets but the point is still the same. Who is the weakest in the pack? Local food folks. Read or listen to Rushkoff or Paterson if it’s a smarter mind than mine you seek.


Anyway there is the worst of it, those links are some of the really smart people out there (Rushkoff is my new Daddy!) who are capable of making the meta leap over the information that I would take an age to digest and the suggestion that they conclude upon is the likelihood of a loss of confidence in traditional paper money, and a potential return of local currencies (barter is always good too, barter is very good). They also suggest the end of retail or put another way the end of abundance.


I think that seems a fair suggestion to make.


I always had a few problems with the ‘free’ economy, and that was mainly because it could only be accessed by the wealthy participants. It’s not really FREE is it if only we can access it and a vast amount of people in the world who live on a dollar a day have no access to it at all? That’s not free, that’s called privileged isn’t it? I am, and so are you if you’re reading this. We're privileged and don't you forget it.


I guess the 'free economy' or model is starting to look a bit like irrational exuberance when all is said and done. Nothing is for free isn't it? Not even if those transistors that are infinitely able to make themselves faster or smaller. The point is you can’t eat transistors. Just a thought folks. Try living off Moore’s law if you’re hungry.


So if we’re moving from the age of abundance to an age of scarcity what impact does that have on marketing communications? Well given the paucity of marketing communications on Red Square in Moscow during the 80’s, or on Tiananmen Square in Beijing today (out of courtesy) or across the entire length of North Korea I’d say that in an age of scarcity not abundance the need for marketing communications is drastically reduced. I don’t know how much is left. I do know that whatever is left will be fought for, and highly competitive. It will probably be damm good too. I just don’t know how much of the pie is left after the party is over and all that is left is an almost immeasurable canyon of debt. For that is all there is left it seems. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan will be OK. They did well out of the last great depression didn’t they?


As far as I can figure out the only ‘rewire our economies’ ideas that those at the Treasury and at the Fed are capable of coming up with work along the lines of consumption will get us out of this mess. Can you believe that? Do you really believe that?


This is gross intellectual fraud isn’t it? Didn’t excess consumption put us in this mess in the first place? I keep going back to a comment I read on Naked Capitalism; that the soil will be much richer for the ashes and yet it seems that the stateside Wall Street and Whitehouse folk are hell bent on denial that we’re even on fire, all the while fueling the flames with more and more borrowed money to put off the impending collapse of the financial system. Yet isn’t that the logical conclusion. Shouldn’t the system collapse before new shoots of growth emerge? The soil will be much richer for the ashes.....remember that.


Probably a lot of you are thinking this is unnecessarily gloomy, yet I’m not unhappy. I’m more optimistic about the future than at any other time in my life, in a perverse kind of way.


I know that all those with businesses and mortgages or negative equity in property or worthless shares or credit card bills up to their eyeballs will be very reluctant to read a post of this nature, and truthfully I’m no seer or a prophet. But what I am able to do that most it seems are really really reluctant to engage with, is play with the notion that things really aren’t good at all this time and to take those arguments to the logical conclusion. Most it seems would prefer not to ‘go there’. I’m able to, for reasons of planning, foresight and an ounce of luck.


I think we just saw the end of the renaissance that began in the middle ages. I think it finally is coming to an end. I think we have a new renaissance around the corner and just like the last we’re also emerging from the drudgery of a black death or plague that has inflicted and is yet to inflict more misery everywhere. A selfish age at the end wasn’t it?


I don’t think advertising is that important to me at the moment. I want to see the carnage before I go into how socialist media is likely to be part of the solution. We’re all in it together after all.


Tuesday 18 November 2008

The Post Party Sweet Spot





Here's a post I've had brewing in my head for a while now. I've never stopped trying to reconcile selling more stuff (my work) in a world of finite resources. I believe that even if climate change is not happening because of the way we use carbon fuels and behave like it's a disposable society (ironic that isn't it?) that it's our moral responsibility to take care of this planet in a way which shows future generations that we tried to hand over the best torch possible.


I believe one day in the vast future we will look back at planet Earth, maybe from distant solar systems and see it as the genesis of something beautiful. If it's in good shape it might be reminiscent of a garden of Eden. Of course the religous references will get some people's backs up, but I have my own system of belief that belongs to no one else because it's mine and I'm quite convinced that without some belief there would be an equal amount of problems. This doesn't make me any less of a hypocrite as I'm a human and all too fallible.


I think John Grant went a long way to reconciling the notions of making money (or value) and treating the planet as if it's resources are meagre instead of full. It's not and, our evolutionary (yes I think evolution makes sense) programming doesn't allow us to instinctively take care of relatively slow moving events. We'll only know if we've fucked up when we've fucked and by then it's too late. So change our lives and do one right thing. Be frugal.


I'll share something about John and I. We never really get it on in real life, and because I think he's a genius, a bit of a hero, and also a brilliant communicator when given centre stage, I don't want people to confuse that with kissing ass. John and I had the same girlfriend in the late nineties. Not at the same time. I after him, and truthfully I only realised it when I started reading his blog nearly ten years later. I've never been one to follow industry stars because it's only advertising and not nearly as important as saving someone's life with a defibrillator which is far more useful when push comes to shove - It is however what I love doing. This may or may not be the reason why John and I are not best mates, but I know deep down as do many others that his book The Green Marketing Manifesto is one of the most important books in our business if for instance, working on a tobacco account is something you would find offensive. Aren't rising sea levels and climate change affecting the poorest on this planet much more offensive than auto-exposure to lung cancer?


My hopes for a 'rewiring of our economies' which is something I've been talking about for quite a while was never strong. I know that everything changes and everything stays the same so I couldn't see how we could slow down our economies and population growth to take the time to find solutions for not choking on our own growth. I spent long days talking about it in the US with my political mentor and he finally came round to my way of thinking that we need 'managed population decline' to really find ways of keeping this incredible thing called life continuing for millenia before we jettison ourselves off this planet, find somewhere else and let it grow fallow for a long time while observing it from distant galaxies as the birth of something quite special.


And then along comes something I've felt in my gut for about 5 to 10 years that we are facing a massive financial implosion. Nothing brainy or clever but simply put the idea of making money out of losses (shorting on a stock market) seems to me as stupid as having a bookmakers where betting on losers is the point. It's dumb and we were hoodwinked by the financial markets into believing it was a valid financial mechanism. Unless of course you were the creatives on this remarkable piece of prescience that I loved so much and tried to bring your attention to back in March.


Anyway, we've hit the sweet spot. It looks like we've had a hell of a party, there's cake and booze everywhere but now it's time to clean up and we can build a better world because of it. Yes we can do marketing in new ways while managing decline and add value and creativity to peoples lives with big thoughts such as more ideas less stuff. Isn't that what the internet is? Isn't sharing our lives more important that acquisition of more stuff. Shouldn't we compare ourselves by what we do, how we act and what we believe in rather than the bullshit marketing methodology that has been outed for what it really is so very recently; fear marketing of "if you don't wash your hair with our shampoo, you wont be as pretty as the other succesful girls in the office" or in this case, baby straps? Yes it took mothers to rebel and say fuck you to shitty advertising. I love this business and I am very optimistic about the future. We've hit a remarkable sweet spot. A big problem that needs sorting out with slower economies, enter stage right a mini global depression, the tools to fix it, as social media is nothing short of a revolution, and the kind of leadership that only tips up once every eighty years or so that has the mandate to really change things. Yes we can. Oy!


Now it's over to the economists. Why don't you do something useful for once and rewire our economies based on what we have and not on what we want. Because as we now know, we want it all. Including redemption.