Category Archives: Finance

The road to hell

It comes from the expression ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’ and it is a lot more apt then you would think. To see that we have to go back to 1989. Governments need to up their game and to ensure that a database is made. This database is not a database of criminals, these people did nothing wrong, they have other convictions, convictions that are not greed based, they align to other parties, or they merely have other views on life. And it was then that the database of ‘undesirables’ was created. And this is not a database of all, this is a database of key people. People that could hinder the drive of progress, progress of greed, progress of opportunity. Yet over time it became something more. I reckon that around 1996-1999 the list got around to corporations and now we have a new setting. It becomes the list of people that could hinder corporate progress. People who were unwilling to play to political game, people that were not going to commit fraud, not fraud on financial sides, they are easily dealt with, but a version of fraud, tainted with deceit that would harm the progress of reports that could gain them millions, of not more. Now consider that this database of undesirables got a larger stage and now that corporates are involved it stops people having a decent career, and the top tier they all have access to read this database. So what happens when the 11,306 people in Australia are brought to the surface, all published on 4Chan with the corporation names that put them on the list, the original poster and the people underwriting the status of the person. Now consider those 11,000 plus people who now know why their careers blew and the greed driven players that were responsible for getting them on the list. It does not hold names, but the names of the corporations and their clear codes. How much change would that push that to industrial nations? The US, UK, Australia, France and the Netherlands. All players all with their own databases. 

You see, in the end it does not matter who did this, in the end it is the stupidity of the greed driven and the knowledge where they hid the data they do not want anyone to see and it take one error to make it all come out of the shadows and one step to see who plays the ‘undesirable’ game, so did that create a dystopian setting, or was the dystopian start the setting that got the ball rolling? 

So is this the setting of a writer who was eager to take a step towards the Frans Kafka that is in all of us, or was it more? I will let you decide and consider how our views are tainted by age discrimination as well as the need for senior managers to hire eager young turks so that they can misrepresent what is out there hiding behind behind the new young executive. He played the corporate political game, it was not his or her fault. A young eagerness issue. And as such the senior manager got away without ever rising to the surface of attention. 

So who is going to hell and who was paving the road?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Pricing of choice

There is always a counter side. It does not mater how good anything is, it does not matter how large the win is, there is an opposite it is the price we pay, the price we accept, because on the whole the deal is actually rather good. There is no opposition, this has been a given truth for decades. At time you need to be ruthless, at times you can be compassionate, at times you have to cut the deadlines, at times you can extent deliveries. They are choices, there are always choices. Some good, some less so. It is the way it has always been

The price of lame
It is a side we see and often ignore. In many situations it means crappy, I would say it merely means crappy but that would be wrong. In this example we look at Bethesda and their latest iteration of Skyrim. Some will say ‘Lame’, ‘more exploitation’, and ‘more of the same’. I say when a game is this perfect you would want to have it as you move on. I have played the game on Xbox360, PS3, Xbox One, PS4, and PS5. The game is so large and so near perfect I would want to keep it and there is an upside. The PS5 is free as download if you have the PS4 version. There was alas no physical version. We can state it is lame, it is less, but this is a game that millions have enjoyed for 10 years. So yes, parts are a set A$80, yet the game gives you a lot more, the free edition gives you less new stuff, but I have seen my share of free parts already, after 4 days I see that the game is renewed, it has more and it feels great getting these achievements again. In 10 years the game never disappointed. The price of lame is perhaps a lack of innovation, the opposite is that the players want this game, not another game, it is a tough balancing line and so far Bethesda has done OK, apart from selling their soul to Microsoft (for $8,500,000,000).

The price of tame
Weirdly enough it is Google who gets that part. On the one side they have shown great innovation, they have shown massive strides in many areas, from searching to advertisements, they were there, they were first and they keep on rocking, on the other side their console (Google Stadia) is tame, they are not developing software, they are relying on Ubisoft to push that crate (and it will cost them). The other side is that two innovations will pass them by, the innovation I worked out (and are now meant for Amazon Luna) could bring Amazon an additional 50,000,000 consoles to the market. I know, even with shortages it will be a stretch, but that is the setting of tame, you can be non-aspiring, to be non-exciting yet that too comes at a price and in this setting Amazon would be in second place (temporarily overtaking Nintendo). On the upside, it makes Microsoft the wooden spoon contender, with the most powerful console in the world they end up in 4th position and I like that. Microsoft needed to be taught a lesson and I intend to bring it (If Amazon accepts). And that is not a high number, it is massively conservative, because this has never been done before so I have no data to rely on, the numbers could end up being decently higher. And that is merely the first wave, the second wave relies on another player, so I cannot say at present, but that could end up pushing the Luna even more, but I have no idea how much more. What is a certainty that gaming will alter and in the first stage many players ant a piece of that, not all, but plenty.

The price of game
It is not easy to look at people as game, but these anti-vaxxers are taking their toll. We can be as social as we like to be, we are unable to properly set up taxation, but we will tax the health system to the max. We see people dying of heart conditions in ambulances, because the ICU’s are filled with anti-vaxxers who now have covid and they are crying like little children. I say that unvaccinated people are not eligible for ICU unless they pay upfront, the reckless endangerment of life is not a cause for healthcare, it needs to become private care. The umbers are staggering. Of all the hospital admissions 80%-90% is unvaccinated. This evidence is ignored too much by too many. There is a slight difference per nation, yet that is understandable. We can treat these people like kids, but then they claim they have rights. OK, you do and with that you get the right to pay for it yourself. 

We see three examples where we price choice, price is not always monetary, but often it is, yet the opposite of that coin is often not monetary. It tends to be quality, quantity or quest like. There is no clear formula either, it is not a neat package, yet there tends to be some red line forming in the sand. The underlying part is that some accept the cost of doing business, others are in denial and they want it all, and guess what. You cannot have it all, there is no way. It is like the old equation of a house. Price, Quality and speed. You can only select two of the three, the third will go in another direction. A sales division will state that you can have all three and then they task their marketing department to set the premise of the third to expectations. Yet that is a figment in their imaginations, and when the data comes forward we get some ‘miss communication’ excuse. 

All neatly wrapped up, yet when we dig we get to see the price more clearly and we often see a party in denial, but what happens when it is YOU who pays that price? What happens when YOU need to make a choice, can you? Choosing is often hard, especially when the price is clear. But what do you do when it is not? It happens and not always intentionally, how can you decide the price then? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Science

A COP26 truth

Yes, it is time to slam down, slam dunk and slam punk some people. The Evening Standard gives us ‘New draft deal appears to water down curb on fossil fuels’. The article (at https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cop26-latest-news-glasgow-last-day-climate-change-talks-outcomes-so-far-alok-sharma-boris-johnson-b965809.html) is not even a surprise to me. So in the end, the only true thing of the COP26 was an 18 year old girl named Greta Thunberg. The rest was full of shit. And do not take my word for it. Mark Rober (former NASA) started in 2019 #TeamTrees with MrBeast (his name apparently) and so far they planted 23 million trees. How many did the UK plant? How many did the US plant? How many did the EU plant? Do the math and you will see how right I am. Two people (with drones and donations) did more in a year than the better part of 30 governments with billions. So you tell me.

In other news, there was a decent form of objections to my article ‘1095 minus one’ two days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/11/1095-minus-one/). The opposition was that my example was nice, but that the balloon would have been massively larger. That is fair enough. And that person would be right. But the setting is not merely that there are 8 billion in need of oxygen (without the CO2), the larger issue is that over the last 15 years 15,000,000 additional flights were added. That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day. So how much CO2 do these flights create? More people and more flights, not the flights from the uber rich, no normal airline flights. I am willing to take a bet that at least 25% of those flights are useless and could be scrapped. 

So whilst we look at media outlets like Al Jazeera giving us “Analysts question the text of COP26’s final agreement citing ‘watered down’ language on hydrocarbon eradication and missing commitments on emission cuts” (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/12/watered-down-new-cop26-draft-deal-moves-away-from-hard-targets) we see the truth. Greta Thunberg was right, the COP26 was all blah-blah-blah. No real deal is in the works and as Indonesia and there are questions on the real deal with Brazil. Even now as we are shown “Data from the national space research agency shows deforestation increased by 5 percent from October 2020”, yes Brazil could end deforestation by 2030 because there will be no forest left. So my prediction that we have wiped out 50% of all forests by 2030 is getting awfully close. Now reconsider the Montgolfier principle I gave two days ago and consider the balloon going up with only 50% burner power (the trees), we will be adding CO2 quicker than oxygen and that means the end of the balloon (we all get to die). I get it, it is not fair on Brazil or Indonesia. There are also Papua New Guinea. They have a grievous matter to settle, which is the claim Gordon Brown (former UK PM) made in 2009 on funds for the stricken nations, that money never came, and this government does not have the funds. So the setting of blah-blah-blah goes from bad to worse. 

And that does not beat all yesterday I saw some news pass buy that they have a replacement for plastic bags, this is good! Thy have a new wood based bag, which is debatable… at this point at least. So you still doubt my estimate of 50-80 million trees in three years? I might be wrong, it will need to be higher if Brazil and Indonesia are any indication and so far the governments are all talk and no result. 

There is a larger issue, there actually are two, one on each side of the equation. Brown gold on one side is essential for the economy of several economies, not merely Indonesia and Brazil, but Canada, India ad the US as well. The US being the largest timber producing nation on the planet. As we see, the solution from #TeamTrees seems to work, so why are they not reforesting what is lost? I know it is not always possible, yet we are now in a stage where we either get more trees or teach our grandkids to live by breathing carbonised oxygen (CO2). We are that close to suffocating. On the other side, we have seen clear reports that 50% of the damage comes from 147 plants, the media ignored it, I wrote about it and placed the documents of UNEP and the EEA for you to read, they had graphics too. Yet the media is largely ignoring those 147 plants, where they are and why they are allowed to continue (there might be a real reason, I do not know) yet the media remains silent, they are all about the flames of COP26, but in three weeks time the will move on, why is that?

We allow the wrong players to continue their destructive plans and it costs us dearly, if we are lucky enough to avoid that, our kids will not, they will live through it and curse us for not actively solving the problems they inherited. I leave you to figure it out. 

5 Comments

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science

1095 minus one

I’ve had some questions. Some are about my state of delusion, some are on my mental state and some are actually interesting. How I got there, what my evidence is. As I stated, it is highly speculative, but I got there, so how did I get there?

The Montgolfier principle
Think of the world as a balloon. There is the balloon with oxygen, it keeps us up, there are the burners and there is the basket. The burners are the Forrests, they provide oxygen for the balloon that keeps us up, as oxygen is added, CO2 is removed, the buoyancy of the balloon goes up. The basket holds all the people, as there are more people, more oxygen in the balloon is required. This is the most rudimentary of settings. To see the impact we need to consider the two stages that we have been exposed to. The burners are 33% smaller, as one third of all forests are gone. So the burners heed to be cranked up, but that is not possible, the trees work at a set speed, there is little we can do to change that. In the last 25 years, as the forests got cut down, the population grew by 38%, the basket got up to 38% more heavy. So as the balloon has less oxygen and more people, it will sink, we will die. You want an upside? There isn’t one at present, not until the politicians actually achieve something. Agreements, talks and compliments do not do anything and the members of COP26 are all about that, until they achieve and actually do something they deserve nothing. 

I might have oversimplified things, but the Montgolfier principle holds up. It is not accurate, it is not defining, but it gives you the story you need to hear. Even as I made comments on the research by McGill University, it is an event that matters. It will be harder to regrow the trees we chopped down. 

At present we see the news giving us Boris Johnson on the need for an ambitious agreement, it sounds nice but talking in the next 2 years whilst the nations halt and await actions is a much larger problem. Somewhere between 50,000,000 and 80,000,000 are needed to be planted in the next 2 years to give us some level of oxygen level change in the next 10 years. Did people forget that growing a tree will take that long? It takes decades to grow what is cut down in days. We might see the setting of Indonesia, but they are not alone. Brazil is in an equal place and as deforestation continues for another 8 years, there is every chance that the forests will have diminished to a total of 50%, so what do you think will happen to the balloon? I might actually live long enough having to pay for oxygen, not something I expected when I went to primary school. There we were told that the sun and the air was free, we were being lied to (it was a truth at the time). We screwed up our planet to that extent and we are all equally guilty, we remained inactive. Some sources give us that global warming are about to set at 2.4 degrees, I believe it will be much more towards 4 degrees, time will tell who is right, the setting of 1.5 degrees is no longer achievable, not as deforestation continues optionally at increased speed for another 8 years. Then we will get excuses from Indonesia and Brazil who need to protest the rights of the people and there we have it. We have the setting of non-action for a few more years and we have so much time left.

They all have something to say, none of them are acting. Consider over the next 6 months, how many nations will have planted trees, not in space, not in expected numbers, but in ACTUAL NUMBERS. What are the chances that the total will not even amount to 5,000,000 trees when 500% of that should be required? 

And as the media is silencing a few more items we will soon forget about all of this, that is the reality of it all and when pneumonia becomes the number one killer again, what will you say? It is due to hearts diseases are better managed? Cancer has a less deadly curve or will you realise that we have more problems, not less. I leave it up to you to make up your own mind.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science

1095 days

OK, first off, this is HIGHLY speculative, optionally presumptive. So if any environmentalist shoots this view to bits, that might just be correct. As I was relaxing and contemplating things. I suddenly had a moment where my mind went racing in all the wrong places. My thoughts are giving us that we are being lied to. We are talking global warming and some notion of 1.5C towards global warming. But I believe that the setting is wrong. I reckon that we will have 4 degrees towards global warming by 2028. You see, some players are looking at the trends, but they forgot that logging continued unabated, the population grows and we are now in a 1095 day setting where either we plant millions of trees (closer to 50M) in 1095 days, or we will face a harsher setting. You see, growing trees will become increasingly more difficult and places that are too warm, the sprouts will die to a much larger degree and in 2028 too many places of this planet will turn arid. The Wall Street groups of brown gold will deny and oppose this, but am I wrong? I hope, I truly hope that I am wrong, but I feel uncertain. You see, as I wrote earlier. In the last 25 years one third of our forests have been cut, this started a global warming trend, yet to counter it we would have to replant that in half the time and that is not going to happen, and it would be rather delusional to expect that. Yet, as I see it we need to make a much larger effort the next 1095 days to stop the advancement of global warming. And there are other factors as well, water will be an issue to grow the trees and too much of that is polluted, rain is in less places and where it does rain it rains a little too much, so to sprout a forest will be increasingly depending on where it is possible and the places where it is possible are diminishing.

I thought it was me, but I found a piece by the McGill University that gives us ‘Over half of the world’s rivers cease to flow for at least one day a year on average’. The paper (at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210616113838.htm) also gives us “Given continued global climate and land use change, an increasingly large proportion of the global river network is expected to cease to flow seasonally over the coming decades” and there is the issue. As rivers run dry, the trees who rely on rivers will not grow, will have diminished growth and optionally die. When we see this added element, the stage of 1095 starts making sense. This is not one river, one place. No this is projected to 51%-60% of ALL the rivers on the planet. And that is ignoring places like the Nile where growth is pretty much a faded option. And as Indonesia states that stopping deforestation by 2030 is not possible, the issue increases. There are people who can get 50,000,000 trees planted (ask Mark Rober formerly with NASA), but that means starting now, that means creating the surge now, not when it pleases Wall Street, it will be too late at that point. A stage where we saw it all coming and we all ignored it for too long. 

Am I right, am I wrong? 

I honestly do not know, I will be clear about that part, but perhaps the media will take a larger look at that (if Wall Street allows them to). Enjoy the day, optionally.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science

The enemy within

It was an expression that alerts us to the fat that not all the enemies are the ones attacking us. And as we might have seen. All those generals giving Americans the threat from Russia and China, they have nothing to fear, Americans will destroy America long before that becomes a fact. This is the setting that the BBC gives us. So the title is not merely ‘Metallurgist admits faking steel test results for US Navy subs’, it becomes how weak is the current American navy and were try trying to sell that weakness to Australia? You see, the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59186655) gives us “Prosecutors say Elaine Marie Thomas, 67, gave false positive readings for strength and toughness tests in at least 240 cases between 1985 and 2017” This would put a large stage of the Los Angeles class attack submarines in a weakened stage. One could argue that a nearby explosion towards arctic ice might create enough pressure for that steel to fail. And when they give you “Ms Thomas suggested that in some cases she gave metal positive results because she thought it was “stupid” that the Navy required the tests to be conducted at -100F (-70C)” you know that you are being lied to. The fact that the steel can not pass the test sets a dangerous premise and US law is weak, very weak. Elaine Marie Thomas is not seen as a traitor, a person who put American armed forces in a dangerous place, no she gets faces up to 10 years in prison and a $1m fine. She will be sentenced in February, guilty of fraud. A very clear case that crime pays in America. The stage that we are given “This offense is unique in that it was neither motivated by greed nor any desire for personal enrichment. She regrets that she failed to follow her moral compass – admitting to false statements is hardly how she envisioned living out her retirement years” that is nothing more than a false representation. It was about money, it was about a part unmentioned ‘living out her retirement years in luxury’, because if the tests failed, the bills would follow and she had nothing to fall back on. And the falsehood does not end there, there is a consideration. We see this with “the government’s testing does not suggest that the structural integrity of any submarine was in fact compromised”, it does, if the -70 tests failed, the submarines are useless in arctic and Siberian conditions. The submarines might only function towards optimum stages in warmer waters. A setting the Russians would be eager to exploit. I think that any criminal would want to hire John Carpenter. A setting of treason has been washed by “took shortcuts and made material misrepresentations” At that point we need to concede that I could end nuclear dangers (by making the Iranian reactors meltdown) which might be a misrepresentation and is not in any way treason (I am not Iranian). I could do more, but I think I have proven a point. To convict a traitor of fraud is like selling water as undistilled Gin at $11 per 500ml. And this is all the BBC gives us at present, what I do not understand is the lack of anger towards Elaine Marie Thomas. There are 28 Los Angeles in use, each with a complement of 125 and that just one class. And there is no clear image of how many are compromised. Optionally Elaine Marie Thomas has been endangering hundreds, optionally killing in them in the  future, not as many as the attack on Pearl Harbour took, not as many as the amounts of victims on 9/11 in New York, yet equally as devastating and it was done by an American. 

I can only guess how these generals feel now that they have been caught with their pants down trying to run like penguins. Fraud? Screw that!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Science

The call of a budgie

Yes, that is almost the foundation of a new cartoon, the story of Sylvester the cat and his sunny side show, Tweety. A show that was funny when we were younger than 13, but now? That is the stage we face (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59182278) with ‘Twitter poll calls on Elon Musk to sell 10% stake in Tesla’. What is this? It is like the BBC has lost its senses. Just like the Dutch government who claimed that they gave in to Twitter pressure when they made a deal with Sywert van Lieden, and no one is asking questions that matters. 

In the first Twitter is no valid source of information, none of the vote can be verified. It could will be three politicians each wielding a troll army of 235,000, we cannot tell. Don’t get me wrong, I love Twitter, it updates me from sources that give me information. Newspapers that have a good reputation, movie productions that give me time lines and optionally a trailer or two, new games. And sometimes a link to something that matters, but polls? A shouting app that allows the rude and the loud to set policy? Never! Its like giving the power of policy on meat to the vegetable store down the road. Or perhaps it lets the NBA make NHL rulings. The proverbial ‘fuck that!’ comes to mind. 

So in this case it is about a poll that allegedly (because a Twitter account can always be hacked) Elon Musk put in the field and the BBC turn it into a lie. They give you “Voters in a Twitter poll have urged Elon Musk to sell 10% of his stake in Tesla in order to pay tax.” That is not what happened. Elon Musk (allegedly) put a question to an audience where he stated “Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance, so I propose selling 10% of my Tesla stock. Do you support this?” The response was that 57.9% said yes. We see no numbers, but it could be that 579 out of 1000 said yes. And it is a mere question he aired. And the setting is more. Tax avoidance, or black letter law is legally allowed, it merely means that he would pay what he is due, not what we THINK he is due and the larger stage is that it is again about tax laws, a setting both democrats and republicans have never ever adjusted, not in 2 decades. 

Then we see a part that matters, the BBC gives us “In an earlier tweet on Saturday, Mr Musk said he took no salary or bonuses from any of his companies – meaning he has no earnings on which to pay income tax. But he has made billions of dollars through a compensation package, which gives him power to exercise large amounts of stock options when the company meets performance targets and its shares hit certain prices.” He is legally allowed to do this and certain stupid players need to stop baiting the hook, the law is there, he can do this and he does. It is not good, it is not bad, it is allowed. To be honest, it a certain Randy Lennox takes the steps I could (hopefully) end up with 10% of $400M-$600M. Do you think I will not take these steps? You have got to be joking. The tax laws allow me to do this and I will, it is the law. 

And I am not alone, more and more take this step, because the law allows me to do this. The tax overhaul,. The one step that stops this is avoided by politicians, why is that? Why are these (stupid) people relying on Twitter to try to pressure people? We know it is not a valid source, it can be an informative source, but cannot be verified (so you need to take care on what to believe) and the list goes on (and on and on and on). So there we have a setting and the BBC justly adds to this with “Mr Musk has an option, which expires in August next year, to buy 22.86 million Tesla shares at $6.24 each – a fraction of Tesla’s closing share price on Friday of $1,222.

Under plans proposed by the Democratic Party in the Senate, billionaires could be taxed on “unrealised gains” when the price of their shares goes up – even if they do not sell any of their stock.” This would add another $23,000,000,000 non taxable funds (at the moment). The law allows him to do this, I saw some of my bosses (in the past) do this with much smaller numbers and it has been legal for at least 30 years. If it was such a taboo why didn’t they stop it them. In that time the US had Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and now President Biden, and so far none have done anything. Well the proposition is from the current president, but I reckon that the votes will fail. And even if it holds up, I feel 99.335% certain that there will be a hiatus and there will be ways around it. Thousands of tax lawyers ill be ready to take that proposition apart and drive wedges through its X, Y and Z axis. 

And as some players claim, the value does not always go up. Elon Musk is one man but hundreds of others do the same, if one gets taxed up to these hundreds can use that setting to make it all tax deductible a side the people are eager to avoid staring at, because they see this one Elongatedly uberly rich Musk and they forget that the one winner comes with 999 losers. Do you really wanna give a tax cut to the 999 that follow?

And credit to the BBC to add the comment by Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman who gives us “Looking forward to the day when the richest person in the world paying some tax does not depend on a Twitter poll” the one sane view in the article. Especially as one of the other Musk polls or statements got ‘altered’ to attain the flaming audience. I too would have questions for Elon Musk, but it would be on his new mobile and other settings that accompany this. I wonder if there is a side that is the danger of a much larger dangerous issue in the works. I am not claiming it is, I am merely wondering on the chances of this, and not from him or his endeavour, but on the dangers of third parties doing something stupid (as they tend to do when their pupils turn to dollar signs). For now I merely wonder, perhaps I will see an opposing view when the clear facts are presented to the world. 

I know, it is merely the view of little (and seemingly old) me, and that does not constitute evidence, but it calls for all kinds of questions, does it not? The call of a budgie is nice when you are drinking tea (or coffee) yet the stage of Twitter remains that we can switch it off when we do something that is important to us, did you consider that? And I get that the BBC saw this as an opening, but I reckon they could have written it differently, but that is my personal view on the matter. Have a fun day!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Business models

Yes, it is on the forefront of most people’s minds. What is the best business model I could use? What is the business model that has the best ROI? And so on. This reminds me of a small joke from the 80’s (yes, I do not care whether it is not PC). There are three ways to lose money.

  1. Women (prettiest method)
  2. Gambling (fastest method)
  3. Statistics (assured method)

It is an old saying that has been toppled a few times over, or has it? I was drawn to that equation in recent days, because the real deal behind that is not the method, it is the stage of the decision makers, most people miss that tiny part of the equation. And it matter, because it led me to another path. A path that I initially missed. You see a player like Steinway has options for an additional path to income, much income and it would be a service, more important there is no one else in play anywhere near ready to had that service.

Now, this is not some sales pitch. I will have over the idea without any expectations and Steinway should feel ready to use the idea at THEIR convenience. Yet before that we need to look at a business model.

So below you see two images, and would you believe it both are business models and both can be applied to a whole range of services, but what makes any of them a business model?

It is on you, the decision maker. When we see the lady, many will think fashion, the photographer might thing composition, colour, tone and so on, the non-lady on the right is a business setting of a business model. But for who? IT? Finance? Service?

We are told a story and we fill the image to fill the picture WE have, but is that correct? That was the mindset I had when I was admiring a documentary on Steinway piano’s and when I saw the Steinway Spirio, I thought it was a great idea to have in the living room, for whenever you are bored of your iPod. Now I get it, how is replacing a $299 solution with a $249,000 solution a solution? Well, for the most it is set to your limitations and your inability to think out of the box. And yes, you could have a case when the ROI becomes a player. Yet still there is a limit on someone else’s thinking path. Now consider the great change that the GoPro Hero made, the Hero 10 is still on route to many people and the idea of having a VLOG is on the mind of many. And there are a whole range of musical solutions as well, but what happens when you get. Service that offers 12 pieces of up to 15 minutes a year for $99? Music that is enabled TO YOU as YOU see fit. 12 MP3 files that you can tinker and tailor with. Not the music EVERYONE uses, but a piece you chose just for you and it was a music piece by Steinway. Thousands of classical works, thousands of Jazz, Ragtime, popular, Blues, Soul and so much more and as Steinway adds to its own collection (not the artiste sections) they end up with a business model they are already in possession of, now they merely put it in the Steinway store. And there is a need, I see more and more YouTube creators that use the same music again and again. So what happens when a cat video maker orders the Fugue in G minor by Domenico Scarlatti? Yes it will happen more than once, but someone will be first, and as more music is generically Steinway the rush for more music will come. It is a business model close to ready, Steinway has the hardware, the software and now it merely needs the store to offer it. 

And consider if Steinway does not offer it (for valid reasons), consider how many Steinways Spirio R’s are out there. How long it will take for any piano player to offer just that through other means? A business model that is ready to go and which of the two images did I use? Yes, the lady, but in my case I was staring at a piano and the mind put 2+2+2 and the mind created one change and came up with 8 (I will let you work that one out yourselves). 

We are so set to the settings other people are telling me to take an so far I have found way more than I bargained for by ignoring them. I learned the hard way that those telling me to take their advice, they for the most only considered their own advice and more importantly they were all about self, a lesson I learned slightly too late. We all face that over time. Yet I will let you consider where you go for YOUR idea and make sure that you realise that you and you alone (optionally your mother too) will have YOUR best path in mind for you. The rest caters to self.

Enjoy Sunday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Science

The riddle

Yes, there is a riddle here. It is not a riddle that is on you, or for you. It is a riddle that is within me. Even as I am about to dig into a matter I have dug in before. There is another play in motion. I set the stage, I left the clues and it is all linked to Toronto (a village in Canada). I cannot tell whether the people will catch on, but the gains are massive. The problems is that if I give away the game, the profit dwindle too much. It is a stage where one side gets the group $25M-$45M, yet the unspoken one, if left under the radar gives the group $400M-$600M. It is quite the conundrum, and it is not about greed. It is about some wannabe’s should not ever be allowed to get to this goal. I am willing to give it all away to merely achieve it so that some people get egg on their faces, in public and in the limelight. That is more rewarding to me then the millions I could get. It would give voice to the ‘I told you so’ choir, but not merely 5 voices. A choir like a symphony orchestra giving a few players the ‘You are an idiot’ dialogue with soprano’s and tenors. The view will be magnificent and the window is not that big. I have time, but every month that window shrinks a little more and I am willing to wait, I am willing to lose it all just as long as the wannabe’s openly lose it. It matters that much to me, my feeling of rage and anger is just that big. It comes back to the riddle, the riddle of the two sided sphere. Oh and for the clever people, this is not a clever way to describe a digon (a polygon with two sides and two vertices), no the riddle of the two sided sphere is different and until you get it yourself, you will never truly understand it, giving away the clue defeats the purpose. The riddle was given to me in 1983, it took some time to work out, but when I did doors opened, ways of thinking unlocked and the feeling of that key unlocking is both mesmerising and overwhelming. It gives the larger stage and that stage is kept clean and away from as many eyes as possible at present, winning that, seeing how the other failed means more than millions, it optionally shows I won several wars that others are in denial of.  Yet the limelight also takes away their ability to remain in denial, others will ask these wannabe’s why they never saw it and whilst they come up with excuse and excuse and rely on levels of miscommunication they will enter the blame game and I will stand in the back watching chaos unfold. The idea that I am almost at that stage is exciting, more exciting than holding a KFC bucket filled with diamonds. And I am so close, I can almost taste it.

So that is enough about the riddle, related to the riddle there is also another riddle, and that can be explained. It started two days ago, all whilst some give the setting that the COP26 is a failure. I do not disagree, I merely wonder if some realise the dangerous game the media is playing. To see that, I will have to give you a few stages.

Stage one
Stage one is not new. It started on December 10th 2020 when I wrote ‘Hatred of wealth’ where the BBC article was the centre piece ‘Climate change: Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55229725). There we see Matt McGrath yielding the floor to Oxfam. They give us “The global top 10% of income earners use around 45% of all the energy consumed for land transport and around 75% of all the energy for aviation, compared with just 10% and 5% respectively for the poorest 50% of households, the report says” I debunked that BS in less than 5 minutes. You see Statista also gives us numbers (you can see them in that article, but the setting is that in the last 15 years plane travel went up by well over 15,000,0000 planes, this implies almost a million planes per year more. The article does not give this, does it? The article was lacking a lot more, especially when you consider the reports by the EEA (European Environmental Agency) and the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programs) so whilst I made chop suey of both  Matt McGrath and Tim Gore my work was done. 

Stage two
So what happens? The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/carbon-top-1-percent-could-jeopardise-1point5c-global-heating-limit) gives us on November 5th almost the same BS the BBC gave you all a year earlier. Here too we see “The paper shows that the fight to keep 1.5C within reach is not being hampered by the consumption of most people on the planet, but by the excessive emissions of the world’s richest citizens, said Tim Gore, author of the briefing and head of the low-CO2 and circular economy programme at the IEEP.” As I see it, the same bloody tosser gives us the same shit we got a year ago and the overextension of blaming the rich, whilst we now see TWO media outlets ignoring the report that 50% all ALL damage is created by 147 facilities. Now, if they would be in opposition of the report I gave you all in the earlier stories, if they were in opposition of the EEA numbers, it would be one thing. I have nothing against opposition, it forces us to double check. No these two players openly ignore presented numbers and if you seek those who did, you are not likely to find one. Why is that? Why do we give credibility to some person relying on “the fight to keep 1.5C within reach is not being hampered by the consumption of most people on the planet” whilst not presenting clear documentation of how they got there, all whilst (via statista) I showed that over the last 15 years more flights were created by almost a million flights a year, every year. The media is playing a dangerous game by misrepresenting the facts and this is exactly what COP26 is doing, helping each other being utterly useless in protecting the environment. By aiding some delusional setting to aid politicians and industrials via stakeholders. The question becomes has Oxfam become just such a player, aiding industrials so that their little niche might have some expected virtual protection for a few more months. If we turn back the clock today and scrap the 15,000,000 flights how much more will we save? I will bet decent money that it will be a hell of a lot more than what the top 1% uses with their jets, especially when you realise just how often he flies that thing and the 41,095 daily flights that the extra planes bring to the equation. But that is not how it is presented, yet I remember being on a flight (Amsterdam-Budapest) where there were less than a dozen people on a 767, so how much carbon did these 12 people (including yours truly) bring to the CO2 equation. 

Consider these elements and consider how you are getting played by large media on what they want you to think, and not what is optionally really the case. Playing the introduction towards ‘blaming the rich’ so that a seemingly useless president can play his tax the rich plan as he is now only 6 weeks away from another shutdown as he will hit another debt ceiling. The media has as I personally see it become willing to such a level of catering. And no one asks who are they actually catering to? As I consider it, it cannot be the truth and if that is the case they cannot be newspapers and they should pay their 6% added sales tax, not hide behind a zero tax option, is that not too what they accuse others of?

Enjoy the weekend, it will end in less than 50 hours.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Egg-timer please?

Wow! That did not take long. I expected it to take a little longer than now, but here you have it, the first player of COP26 is already making excuses that the deforestation 2030 promise might not be kept. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59169547) gives us ‘Indonesia criticises ‘unfair’ deal to end deforestation’. I get it, Indonesia is reliant on their brown gold and cannot let go, even as the setting is 8 years away, they already have an issue and when we consider the original statement (by yours truly) “a joke optionally forgotten by January 1st 2029, when most signatories are no longer in office and a landmark adjustment is made towards 2035, optionally 2038”, I made the comment 2 days ago in ‘Fake it till you brake it’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/03/fake-it-till-you-break-it/), yet it turns out that I was the optimist, I thought they would take longer, but the BBC gives us “Indonesia’s natural wealth, including forests, must be managed for its use according to sustainable principles, besides being fair”, this sounds fair, but how many people actually benefit this? And when we consider some sources, one giving us that in one month 387 containers of lumber were shipped and we get it, there is a lumber and wood requirement on a global setting and there are 8 years left, but consider the image below.

How much of this you see was needed for a road? On average a road is lets say 10-15 meters wide, and goes on for miles, so how much of this was optionally meant for a road and how much for something else? The ink of the COP26 agreements have not even dried yet and Indonesia is already complaining. I reckon that they are not alone, the others will wait a year, or wait until the next person is in office. And then there is the Sydney Morning Herald. They give us ‘The Greta effect: is Glasgow fuelled by real momentum or just blah blah blah?’. They also give us (at https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-greta-effect-is-glasgow-fuelled-by-real-momentum-or-just-blah-blah-blah-20211104-p595ul.html) what is interesting is the time line they give us on times that Greta spoke (an anagram for ‘great’ I reckon). It shows some of her statements going back to December 2018 and she was right time after time (as was I), but the Indonesian setting shows just how much of a joke the COP seemingly is, the ink hasn’t dried yet or the first signatory is complaining. And I get it, Indonesia is in a tough spot. And I reckon I am about to make it worse for them. 

In 1700 a wooden cabinet was only an option for the really wealthy, they got:


Now this is not about the wealth, it is about what they wanted in those days, it is also what others needed and there is the larger rub. You see, I do not mind that we all need bookcases, but the consumerism made a joke about furniture and places like IKEA made a killing, we suddenly were able to get a new furniture look almost EVERY YEAR. That is not on us or IKEA, what was rare was suddenly all around and a brown gold economy was created. Soon there after were investor portfolios in brown gold all over the place and it was a lucrative setting, but we seemingly have reduced the forests by one third over the period 1990 – 2015, a freaking whopping 5,670,000 ha of forest are GONE! Over 25 years one third is gone and we need to wake up, we need to wake up really quick. The sentiment of ‘Planting ‘millions of trees’ may not be the answer to deforestation’ (source: the Guardian yesterday) is wrong, not because of the statement, it comes with the underlying “can impact negatively on hydrology and local land rights, writes Prof Tim Forsyth”, which is fair enough. My personal uneducated view would be that any deforested area could be repopulated with trees and should be as soon as possible. It is essential for several reasons and if it was deforested there would be no local land rights (well in most cases anyway). The larger state is that we see floods and they are horrid, yet how much of that water would be good enough for feeding trees? Not enough I reckon, but it might take have some impact on waters. Tim Forsyth has got a decent point, also one that is made with “The desire to do something about climate change and deforestation should not blind us to asking important questions about whether proposed solutions are actually feasible, or might generate other difficult problems”, he has a point. Yet former NASA engineer Mark Rober showed us forestation options and they work, so far we saw ‘Mark Rober and MrBeast Team Up to Plant 20 Million Trees’ and so far they exceeded this, at this point they are at 23,000,000 trees. They did what the whining political population seemingly cannot achieve, a group of two that did not require a marketing entourage. 

Now they are in a setting of team seas and there they are making waves as well. 

And now the bad news (for Indonesia) they are setting a few more goals and I think that there is more that can be done. You did not think that I pushed a picture of a pretty cupboard just because it was pretty? This would be a decent reason, but my idea goes towards changing place like IKEA as well. You see all that regained plastic from recycling and cleaning the oceans are nice, but what than? I am thinking of uniting a Meccano and IKEA approach to set a new sort of construction kit, plastic fundamentals replacing what we have now as furniture. Do you think that my upholstered bed will care what is under the cloth? If it is a sturdy plastic frame instead of wood? I can’t see that and a lot of furniture is now coated wood anyway. As we start replacing wooden items in the house for recycled plastics we solve a larger setting. As woods are less needed brown gold will lose value. We can to some degree repopulate the 33% of forest we destroyed and after that we can do more. We need to take another look on how we waste materials. Does my nightstand need to be wood? I do not think so and plastic can be just as lacquered as wood or glass is and when the lacquer holds, can we tell, do we need to be able to tell? We need real solutions and we need them a lot sooner then we think we did. Did anyone consider the fact that we destroyed 33% of our trees? To do something we need more than mere  promises, we need to change the way we see wood as brown gold, we ned alternatives and as we see forced changes (there is no longer any other way) we see that the loggers will lose their incomes and will need to go to other places making their margins slim down. It is unfair on places like Brazil, Indonesia and a few others. Brown gold is all they have but it can no longer be seen as fair on us all and we too are to blame, we need to be cool and get something new from IKEA, because we already had that same piece of furniture 2-3 years. Our stupid mindset is part of this problem and I reckon that if we have an alternative, we can feed the sense of change, but now using plastics we kill two targets with one recycled piece of furniture. 

We could time the COP objections with an egg timer, I wonder how many more will object before 2025? At least I am thinking out of the box (as are several others). How many more are needed to change the waves and show the politicians that they are the jokes that too many already claimed they were? And that is before I get angry (like I did with a few others this week) and personally I still believe that Randy Lennox owes me $25M, but that is a fight for another day, yet I am feeling frisky, so it might not take too long and even as he might hand the invoice over to Gary Slaight or Jeff Bezos, is basically equal to me. I played the straight pointless game for too long, so far it got me nothing, time to get the limelights out. Indeed pissed me off today a little more than I was comfortable with. It just sucks to be me today.

Have a great weekend!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics