Michael J

Don't Bet on 'Recovery' Unless You're Willing to Redefine It

I think you are spot on. The big, big change is that the locus of global activity is moving back to Asia after a 400 year interlude. That's ok and probably natural. It's clear that European countries have to save more and create more, instead of borrowing from Asia to finance their lifestyles.

It will mean readjustment, but will probably work out just fine. The Globals will fight it out on a global level. Some form of the middle class will continue to grow in Asia - China and India especially. And America will get back to being America. And local regional enterprise will move towards more sustainable economic growth. Banks will revert to being boring banks, instead of hedge funds.

The recent Time cover story was revealing in how far this meme has gotten to the mainstream. It's called the End of Excess..
www.time.com/time/nati...

Distinction Between Positive and Normative Economics Misses the Point

You might consider "evolutionary economics". A quick google search got me to this bit.ly/7AhMJ

The underlying problem is that all our ideas, both positive and normative are part of the situation to be clarified. It's another version of the same problem moving through all our academic disciplines.

Both positive and normative are mental constructs. At some levels of analysis, over some time frames, they are pretty good predictors. But like Newton's laws, they fall apart at different levels of analysis.

Maybe a way out is to combine positive and normative into evolutionary which might capture the never ending dialetic between the two.

It might be similar to the dynamic described in the Art Instinct. Life wants to replicate in a physical environment. There are two constraints. The need for safety. The need to reproduce.

Earnings Preview: Xerox

Any guidance on what changed from the first estimates to March 20, aside from the "economy blablabla"?

The End of Brand Advertising

@ Knowledgeable 1
Aside from direct mail and coupons, what are some of the other "old media . . . real and established metrics New Media would kill for?"

Suppose you eliminate reach. The big brands can reach as much as the media. Consider that Wal-Mart's website was no 3, after Amazon and Ebay. Then consider that Wal-Mart is starting their advertising channel and has opted out of the deal with Prism. Or that Google's advertising budget is, as far as I know, non existant.

So..if reach is not the value, what are the unambiguous indicators of "brand" success?


On Dec 28 08:07 PM Knowledgeable1 wrote:

> Some of the most backward conclusions I have ever read. Same kind
> of 'inevitable' logic led to the tech bubble. The narrow focus of
> this post pre-supposes an 'Online only' consumptiive world. Even
> with the net erosion, Old media has real and established metrics
> New Media would kill for. The threat to stand alone New media companies
> is a hybrid Old-New model that shows that fallacy of New media only
> ad strategies.
>
> As Barry Diller has aptly stated, these kind of 'new media only'
> predictions are fad-ish and sophomoric.