Jason Rines (iThinkBig)

G20 Must Address the 'White Blue Eyed Bankers' Issue

1) It is easy to envision a probable outcome of the West losing the international peg to the East. The QE/Legacy Asset strategy is an all or nothing gamble. If it fails, Americans will be paying $10 for a loaf of bread by 2012 and $15 gallon gas. Our economy goes back into depression. Even if successful, the best outcome now is a Japanese lost decade were the citizens pay off the massive public debts.

2) America should not ignore or attempt to deflect the blame game of the world (minus the UK they are being blamed too) for this mess. A) Fire the management in banking, it is very obvious to the global citizen what is going on in terms of looting. B) Begin distributing pamphlets about the flaws and dangers of Central Banking to the citizenships around the world. This requires politicians globally to decide between there personal vested interests with banking elite and there own countrymen. Realistically in America, some of the bad or inept eggs will go in 2010, many more in 2012. But these men had best consider the risks of not doing what is right considering mob justice. I am not an advocate, just stating fact. 1820 there was a hanging party for some of America's banking elite tied into Central Banking model. Some of these politicians should either step down, retire to an island ans smoke a cigar or decide to do what is right on behalf of there citizens. The G20 leadership cannot preserve status quo without serious geopolitical consequences including large scale military misadventures. We in the U.S. are going to have to eat *hit sandwiches for a time.

2009 Economic Forecasts Ignore Demographic Shift

Exactly. The Demographic Shift part of the article is spot on. I am in Consumer Healthcare. Even this sector has deflated with 21% less Rx usage in 2008. Healthcare and Energy have been touted as economic rebuilding engines by the Obama admin. Fiscal stimulus will help but I agree with Mr. Hansen this will take a few quarters for it to begin working into the system.


On Dec 29 08:12 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> Good article, the demographic factor is important: baby boomers have
> just had their retirement savings severely reduced and are unlikely
> to celebrate by upgrading to the next size McMansion or buying a
> new car.

The Antidote to Economic Malaise: A Culture of Collective Mindfulness

Hi Doug, Jason Rines here, founder of Raging Debate.com . Myself and a few other bright minds who get it as you do have already begun the R&D phase of what you speak of. The French Revolution was funded by the middle business class. The institutions at the top always fight true change back to Liberty. The reasons for this are fairy obvious. I encourage all whom read this to contact me at founders @ raging debate.com . Don't expect instant miracles. I am leveraging my database and technical knowledge and some cash towards this effort. All of us will have to do this part time as we attempt to run our businesses. Best of luck gentlemen. Take care of your family and neighbors.


On Dec 22 10:14 AM Doug Poretz wrote:

> I agree with the need for a culture change -- in fact, I believe
> we are beginning the process of a culture change, whether we like
> it or not. But I believe the "culture of collective mindfulness"
> is more like a tactic than an overall strategy. I think cultures
> are likely to change largely as a result of an evolutionary action
> rather than an attempt to put fingers in the dike when the flood
> of revolutionary forces is already upon us.
>
> I'd like to make two general points.
>
> 1. Try thinking of the economic situation not as an economic situation
> that stands by itself as if it was some sort of cyclical event that
> we'll work through, but as a subsegment of a more significant situation.
> See it in the context of a cultural event. Certainly there are cyclical
> factors at work, but i believe the depth and breadth of this situation
> goes far beyond simple cyclical economic factors. At the same time
> we have major economic turmoil, we also are going through the transition
> from a manufacturing to a knowledge economy (which, on its own merits,
> will give rise to new business models) ... we are now living in a
> truly global economy (also requiring new models) ... we are seeing
> major political/demographic changes, including the eroision of the
> quality of life for the middle class ... there is incredible volatility
> as to both the availability and the price of essential commodities
> (food and fuel) ... and we have a population that has been swamped
> with "buy this" messages on a very forceful and constant basis since
> the post WW II expansion, which over the years has transformed "The
> American Dream" (which is really a World Dream) FROM one based on
> ideological beliefs and high standards for individual responsibility
> and opportunism TO one based on buy more, buy newer, buy bigger,
> buy more expensive, buy on credit what you cannot afford. That isn't
> just an economic situation. And thus, it won't be changed simply
> by economic changes -- expect to see some major cultural shifts.
> I think it is too early to predict those shifts, but it isn't too
> early to become concerned -- because these shifts are going to occur
> in a world where individuals can communicate (and coalesce into communities)
> online 24/7/365, unrestrained by time, geography and (moften) language.
> How would the French Revolution be conducted in the age of the Internet?
> You might want to start considering that question, and see if you
> find some answers emerging in 2009.
>
> 2. New Models -- I have some experience here because i have co-founded
> and helped build a communications firm (as in PR/advertising/interac...
> al) that has a radical new model, starting with the way we bill:
> we do not keep time sheets and we do not bill by the hour -- that
> is a basic difference that sets us apart (our growth and margins
> also sets us apart). Anyhow, I've written at my blog on the specific
> issues of extablishing a new model (tinyurl.com/8dvk8g). The
> suggestion that you should have a mistake-focused culture when dealing
> with a new model isn't "advice" -- it is an a priori truth. That
> is because new models have new mistakes. And unlike old mistakes
> that have become recognizable and defineable over the years, along
> with the remedy that more or less works, NEW mistakes are not recognizeable
> and there vare no precedents for what works as solutions. You only
> see them after they have bit you. That's when you say: "what happened?"
> Then, it isn't simply an issue of identifying it as a mistake, but
> you have to define it accurately (and that usually doesn't happen
> on Try One), and after you define it, you have to develop a remedy
> (and that usually doesn't happen on Try One either). So, the cutlure
> of "collective mindfulness" is a great phrase and a very difficult
> and time-consuming reality, often setting off (by necessity) a whole
> bunch of new mistakes in its wake. Another thing I have learned is
> that as you encounter new mistakes, you have to develop new solutions
> consistent with the core fundamentals of the new model (that is,
> you cannot use old remedies for an old model to solve new problems
> in a new model) -- as you do that, your new solutions make your enterprise
> more and more unique -- so you are going to run into even more mistakes
> that you won't know are mistakes (again) until AFTER they have hit
> you. This gives rise to a cultural phenomenon that isn't very nice
> -- you are correct in that you have to have a culture where everyone
> looks for mistakes, and that can be a good thing, but it also means
> that people stay focused on "what's wrong" and that becomes a problem
> if at the same time you fail to revel in your model, despite everything
> that is (and will be) wrong about it.
>
> I applaud the effort to point the finger of blame at something bigger
> than "lax regulation" or "greed of Wall Street," etc. -- It is much
> bigger yet. It is, in my opinion, cultural -- but still, much bigger
> than a culture that lacks collective mindfulness. I think this is
> going to be a much bigger "correction" (or whatever it is called)
> than anyone currently envisions. And that concerns me. I think, all
> too soon, if I am correct, that phenomenon will concern us all.

Free Trade Agreements = Evaporated Jobs Worldwide

We get the government we elect. American citizens will be fine when the pain mounts so much that they conduct due dilligence to vote out the bad guys and vote in some fresh new guys. If the American government is so big and cumbersome and has domination control of it's people, then a physical Revolution shall occur. You cannot fix the issue without first understanding the concept of Liberty. I have a feeling we share the same beliefs


On Dec 15 05:30 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> Education is the individual's responsibility!! As is everything needed
> for that person to remain alive. Want something? Go earn it. The
> notion that the state should pay for anything i need is the biggest
> Ponzi scheme of all, and the reason we are in this economic mess!!!
> Personal responsibility, people!!

Free Trade Agreements = Evaporated Jobs Worldwide

Fast forward pursuit does serve the interests of the people, it's called 1% of the entire global population. The other 99% of what is a global mob ultimately are the ones whom decide, despite where we are at right now in the process of those decisions. The rest of your comments were great!


On Dec 15 10:16 AM derryl wrote:
>
> If the fast forward pursuit of economic efficiency does not serve
> the interests of people, then maybe we should heed Mr. Hansen and
> rethink the virtues of this policy.

Free Trade Agreements = Evaporated Jobs Worldwide

Awsome comment GroOve. This is what is happening and mankind is on a path of societal evolution. The entire species doesn't get eliminated, my estimates are 1/3 in the next world war. Then man will move towards a world government using technology to modify some of the unecessary aggressive personality traits we no longer or will no longer need. Let's face it, this age and others before it those at the top call the shots to those down below. 'The Great Moderation' had nothing to do with true global equality for the species, it has everything to do with creating a Gods and Clods globe of rulers and serfs. Those kind of empires always crash hard to the ground.


On Dec 15 09:24 AM GroOve wrote:

> Jobs are being "bubbleized" as Cos race around the world to find
> the new lowest cost. You create a temporary bubble of manpower (not
> wealth, mind you) then you prick it when you move elsewhere.
> Bottom line is: life is expensive, good quality stuff is expensive,
> well being is expensive all the things you cherish most, since they
> have a moral value they can be priced too (and they're expensive).
>
> Maybe we should collectively accept the fact that spending the right
> amount of $$$ does indeed create wealth and well being, it reduces
> waste, does not consume natural resources as fast.
> The diametrically opposite theory would arrive to consider the value
> of human life and accomplishments at zero, and therefore our lives
> would neet to be priced at liquidation value. Next thing you know
> we've all collectively eliminated each other....

Free Trade Agreements = Evaporated Jobs Worldwide

Yes, this will be fine when we have one, true world government. For now, you have national interests. Americans going from 1st world status to 3rd in the process is not called progress. The American way of life was unsustainable, period. But as I stated in the other comment...


On Dec 15 09:09 AM Jamaican in Africa wrote:

> John, please don't look at the short term. In the long term if we
> hope for efficient resource allocation, and therefore minize waste,
> we must embrace the idea that the most efficient regions will produce
> the goods and services that they are most capable of producing cheaply.
>
> For example, America produces food, movies, medication and some manufactured
> good more efficiently than anywhere else in the world because of
> our good climate, abundant water, developed cinema industry, productive
> farmers, heavy investment in biotechnology and educated workforce.
>
> If Japan that produces cars more cheaply decides to stop producing
> cars and employ thier citizens to produce wheat, the result would
> be fewer cars (and the price of each car would rise as it became
> scarce), expensive Japanese wheat and eventually unemployment. <br/>Multiply
> the effect of the example I provided thousands of times and the world
> would suffer from poor allocation of resources, high costs, and many
> more hungry hungry children than we see on CNN every night.
> First we have to recognize the benefits of free trade, and how it
> works, and use that understanding to put ourselves in a position
> to utilize that knowledge when advocating government and social remedies
> resulting from market forces.

Free Trade Agreements = Evaporated Jobs Worldwide

The article said 'tweaks' are required to our Free Trade agreements. Smoot/Hawley not mentioned. Learn to read the entire article. It was brilliant and dead on with it's analysis and for a nice change, suggestions of how to fix the American economy.


On Dec 15 08:07 AM jamesa40 wrote:

> Temporarily halt free trade agreements? Did you not learn anything
> from the depression? Remember Smoot/Hawley? That anti-free trade
> policy is one of the leading causes of the depression. By creating
> an anti-trade policy, other countries responded in kind. Therefore,
> our continuing increase (and reliance) on exports in this recession
> today would evaporate, compounding the very problem you wish to cease.

Free Trade Agreements = Evaporated Jobs Worldwide

In general Jamaican, what you describe is not bad thing in and of itself. What should have happened is a very slow but steady progression that the American government controlled very tightly. American government needed to slowly but surely conduct globalization in such matter as to protect it's citizenship which is it's true role and function. Since this did not happen and instead, American government and banking colluded not only on this issue but many others, America has gone bust. Why should we care now? Because Mr. Hansen was mild in his language when he describes social unrest. In America, this is the stuff of Revolutions. The citizenship started one in 1776 with the British Empire for much less then what the American citizen has had to contend with this last decade. An American Revolution part two would be VERY bad for the entire planet.


On Dec 15 07:14 AM Jamaican in Africa wrote:

> Goods and services produced (supply) respond consumer demand (disposable
> income, tastes and other factors) that is ralated to the marginal
> propensity to consume.
> Free trade agreements reward efficiency, and force regions and countries
> to produce the goods and services that they have a competitive advantage
> in producing.
> If everything is produced in a manner to maximize efficiency, then
> the production of goods and services minimizes waste and the cost
> of every product in the market place is reduced. The result is that
> natural resources, labor and capital are employed in such a manner
> to maximize return on investment.
> If we are globally managing our resources in such a way to minimising
> waste, increase efficiency and provide the highest return we can
> on an investment, then all over the world consumers benefit from
> high quality good, produced at the lowest cost for all consumers
> and the highest profit for investors.
> Please advise me why this is a bad thing.

What Happened to Demand?

I can net out: Mr. Efficient Market Hyposis, I would like to reintroduce you to Mr. Save and Invest economy. Mr. Middleman, I would like to introduce you to the Mr. Producer who sees no real value in your services anymore. Mr. Politician, allow me to introduce you Mr. pissed off citizenship you stopped listening to decades ago.

The Perfect Storm: Semi-Annual Economic Review

Do you want help investing or surviving?


On Dec 01 04:13 AM carolynaw wrote:

> Everything you say makes sense. Where can one get help when all the
> financial advisors in the US seem to use the same cookie cutter advice
> and investments? I am a senior caring for a grandchild and a disabled
> husband. My time for study is limited. I would pay an advisor, but
> they all have a very rosey view of the future and all seem to think
> this will all be over sometime in late 2009. Any help or advice you
> can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.