Category Archives: Science

August 13, 2014 · 14:15

We lost a giant

I was hit with waves of sadness yesterday. We lost Robin Williams. I do not claim or pretend to know too much about him. When I was young, I loved watching ‘Mork and Mindy’. I saw him in the movies and lately his star ascended again in the advertisement comedy ‘the Crazy ones‘. The thought most on my mind was ‘How can Sarah Michelle Gellar ever keep a straight face around him?’
Yesterday and today there are no happy faces, we lost a giant. I am not the only one thinking this. Twitter was buzzing with news and condolences from the famous and non-famous alike. The Guardian had a story (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/russell-brand-robin-williams-divine-madness-broken-world). It is an article by Russell Brand, and seeing him outside of comedy or from the stage of the social aware was reason to take a look at this. The article shows two clear things. The first is that there is a lot more to Russell Brand then I thought there was. He is brilliant in his own way and he is asking out loud certain questions we do not tend to ask. Basically I saw more journalism in Russell Brand in one article then several have showed this year (if you, the reading journalist are the exception, then I apologise for my generalising directness).
There is a quote at the end that gives pause to wonder “What I might do is watch Mrs Doubtfire. Or Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting and I might be nice to people, mindful today how fragile we all are, how delicate we are, even when fizzing with divine madness that seems like it will never expire“.
If we are all so fragile, how can we cope? If we are all sane, how can we give support to those with mental health issues? It I however this quote which strikes a nerve “Hidden behind his beard and kindness and compliments was a kind of awkwardness, like he was in the wrong context or element, a fallen bird on a hard floor. It seems that Robin Williams could not find a context. Is that what drug use is? An attempt to anaesthetise against a reality that constantly knocks against your nerves, like tinfoil on an old school filling, the pang an urgent message to a dormant, truer you“.
I am not sure if the thought is correct as such (from my point of view). It might apply to Robin Williams, Russell had met the man, I never had, so why my opposition to this?
Well, is drug use just that? I was fortunate to stay away from drugs, yet is it an anaesthetic against reality or a way to see a better reality as these users think it will, a more appealing one? You see, if Russell is right, then every famous comedian would become a drug user, I find that thought too depressing. Robin Williams once stated “Reality is just a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs“, it is just a comedy statement, but there is also the statement from another giant, a musical one who stated “When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself“. The man was Bob Marley!
Before I continue, I need to add another article. It was written by Dean Burnett (at http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-suicide-and-depression-are-not-selfish). Here he writes something particularly strong and interesting: “to say taking your own life because of such an illness is a ‘selfish’ act does nothing but insult the deceased, potentially cause more harm and reveal a staggering ignorance of mental health problems“.
Russell and Dean are both hitting one side of the same coin. My worry is not: ‘why this is happening to Robin Williams’, but why are we seeing it only now? Is Robin Williams the moment we start to wake up and realise that we have a massive issue which a ton of people have been hiding under the rug because it was too uncomfortable?
Dean goes on for a bit longer, but then he doesn’t just hit the nail on the head, he makes a case why the nail was never guilty and did not deserved to get hammered.
“That doesn’t mean those with reduced likelihood of exposure to hardships or tragic events are immune. Smoking may be a major cause of lung cancer, but non-smokers can end up with it. And a person’s lifestyle doesn’t automatically reduce their suffering. Depression doesn’t work like that. And even if it did, where’s the cut-off point? Who would we consider ‘too successful’ to be ill?”
I myself had that very same thought. ‘Why would a man this successful, having a beautiful daughter who is starting to have her own successful career, a massive success in his field be depressed?‘
It is a side I never really considered when having to read ‘Crime and Mental Health Law in New South Wales‘ by D. Howard. Those who try to give aid in one way or another, being it through legal aid, through psychological aid or through medical aid might have unintentionally missed a side we never considered. Russell voices it as “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” But from my view the world is not broken (it is just in control by those filled with greed). The physician might note that this world can be lived in (it is just severely polluted and food is getting more and more expensive) lastly the psychiatrist wanted to talk about it but he had no sense of humour, apparently he was German.
The powerful statement Russell made in the beginning “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” is now slightly changed (by me). “Is the world making me too sad to consider remaining here for another day?” I feel so sad because I lost an idol of comedy. I am certain I will get over it, but I know I am not alone, many with me remember the man who was the Genie, voicing the life of Donald Trump ‘PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!!! … Itty-bitty living space‘.
We will soon enough remember again and again the famous moments that made us laugh or be silent. Yet, the issues on depression remain, not for just those Robin left behind, but for those who are still fighting this battle. A battle that is not just uphill, but for many it is a losing uphill battle and that is how they feel from the beginning of the journey they walk.
It is not new; depression has been around for at least 3 centuries, it has had many names. It was called Melancholy and Charlotte Smith wrote a sonnet to it in 1785. She wrote:

O Melancholy!–such thy magic power,

That to the soul these dreams are often sweet,

And sooth the pensive visionary mind!

Which might be better phrased as:

Oh dark dread, stopper of heart and reason

in my dreams I yearn to end

so that in my next life, I find a friend

Did the sonnet turn people away from depression as it was not a real condition?

I think that too many have never seen it for the dangerous affliction it truly is. Dean goes on and writes in his article in regards to ‘a’ selfish act “The ‘selfish’ accusation also often implies that there are other options the sufferer has, but has chosen suicide“. Was suicide even a choice? Are those on this track choosing at all? I have seen my share of people under Section 20 and Section 21 of the mental health act. Those who are hospitalised through them without and with their consent. There has been enough documentation that these people never seemed to have any choice in the matter. From their one sided view, there was only one path and only when services were too late lives were lost.

So, the medical branch seems to know the dangers, the legal branch has the knowledge that resulted in the existence of a section 20 and a section 21 of the mental health act, but these two are only 0.001% of a population, wouldn’t it be great if the other 99% catches on, on how dangerous and lethal depression really is?
Russell also wakes up to a revelation in the quote “When someone gets to 63 I imagined, hoped, I suppose, that maturity would grant an immunity to adolescent notions of suicide but today I read that suicide isn’t exclusively a young man’s game“, depression is timeless and it is ageless. We are bound to endure its dangers quite literally from the cradle to the grave, we can only hope for true friends around us to be there when it overwhelms any of us.

There is one more article that must be mentioned. It is again in the Guardian, but now it is Simon Jenkins (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-sadness-clown-addiction-mental-illness) that writes his view, but then he makes one ‘mistake’, perhaps it is just the observation he makes, but I disagree completely and for that I must lash out. He wrote “Therapists wander the scene like surgeons on a medieval battlefield, at a loss for what to do“.

I do not think that this is the case; it has not been the case for some time. Yet, some physicians and some psychiatrists seem to have inherited a former treatment for this, ‘have a pill, sit in a corner until the moment passes‘. There is enough evidence that this is no longer the approach and the current generation is still fixing the mess the previous generation made; but even today many are learning on how long the path to a cure is. Perhaps it is never cured, but in some cases it could be managed, as long as the patient does not do it alone. It is a personal view I have. I might be very wrong indeed and if someone lashes out to me for that same reason, then so be it.

I do know that in many places it is getting more and more the visibility it should have had, but let us not forget that depression was not generally accepted and published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until the 3rd edition in 1980. The documentation that is openly out there shows that depression was a debilitating disease long before it was made a sonnet in 1785, so people had known about it for well over 300 years, which means the adoption only 30 years ago is still a questionable issue. So, it seems that therapist are not at a loss for what to do, but there seems to be a lacking clarity of what will truly work. It does seem that medication alone will not ever be a solution.
It is clear that we are not there yet. If you think other whiles then consider that for the DSM-V the following is currently set: “DSM – V proposed (not yet adopted) anxiety symptoms that may indicate depression: irrational worry, preoccupation with unpleasant worries, trouble relaxing, feeling tense, fear that something awful might happen.”

Proposed, but not yet adopted!

We are not there yet and there is a long way to go. We can only hope that this road will have the resources needed to get there. I reckon we need to keep a view on the events that have shaped our view of the world and of those in it, for some of them will need our help. We might not be physicians or psychiatrists, but we can all do a little bit, so that they can do what must be done to find a solution for those who need help. If we keep to the cold statistics then we see that in the USA alone, 10% have it, this means that in one nation alone 30 million people are afflicted with depression, the reality is much higher because many do not seek help and some around them do not realise that depression is very near to them. Healthline (provider of health information) also reported the following: “60%-80% of all depression cases can be effectively treated with brief, structured forms of psychotherapy and antidepressant medication“.

I find absolutely nothing true in that statement, if it was then depression would have been successfully treated in so many cases and I would not have lost an idol. I think that it is time to take another true look at this without caring about budget cuts and ego’s.

If we get Keating involved, as Robin played him in Dead Poet’s Society, I would state “Thank you for playing anyway. Because we are food for worms, lads. Because, believe it or not, each and every one of us in this room is one day going to stop breathing, turn cold and die“, is that, what we, with our ‘generic’ view of mental health condemn these people to?
So I hope that politicians will take this event to sit down and proclaim that they will ‘take another true look at today’s mental health issues‘.

I will have a reason to smile, but I will say “Son of a bitch! They stole my line!“

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 12, 2014 · 11:24

No Press, No Facebook!

So, another day in the life of you, the reader, me the blogger and us, the victims of big business in a way that neither of us expected.

Why are we in a stage of No Press? Well, I cannot confirm this for the UK, Canada or Europe at large, yet in Australia it started last year, the second week of November.

Most did not ever bother to look at this, but one I found (at http://www.cinemablend.com/games/PS4-Doesn-t-Block-Used-Games-Game-Rentals-60480.html) wrote the following: “A new last minute reputation management troll-rumor has surfaced online in an attempt to curb Sony’s momentum leading up to their big launch later this week“.

This is a hilarious ‘sucking-up-to-Sony’ response! So what actually happened?

In the two weeks before the launch of the PS4, Sony decided to change the terms of service (at https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/software-usage-terms). I gave the information to Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10 and the Sydney Morning Herald.

NONE!
I say again NONE of them did anything about it. There was a flaccid message (to follow shortly).

So what is so important?

Sony wanted to start putting in place several issues to enforce DRM and to end certain practices. As the PS4 had not launched yet, they could not be too vocal about it, which meant that those claiming to be journalists had a duty to look into it, especially as these changes affected well over 80 million consumers globally. So either journalists only care about the boobs of Rihanna and on how people prefer fake boobs (of course, the possible silicone in a chest is always more newsworthy then the silicon chip that holds an economy).

So what is the exact issue?

Two points from the terms of agreement

  1. 3. You must not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the Software.
  2. 1. You must not resell either Disc-based Software or Software Downloads, unless expressly authorised by us and, if the publisher is another company, additionally by the publisher.

I will admit that 6.3 is badly phrased (a big no-no in any term of service agreement), but in this form it specifically targets one area of usage, which where at blockbusters one could rent a game for a week. An interesting try before you buy approach (not debating the validity or invalidity of this).

It is 7.1 that is the big issue, by agreeing to this (if you do not you lose your PSN account and online abilities) you confirm that you will not resell your games or buy second hand games. This was the big killer for Microsoft in the beginning in addition to the fact that this issue hits 80 million consumers. How is this not in EVERY newspaper? Perhaps their bosses where in the act of ‘hustle for advertisement coin’ (whoring seems like such a harsh word here).

When we look at Eurogamer (at http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-12-sony-reiterates-you-can-sell-and-share-your-ps4-games), we see the following: “Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida added on Twitter: ‘If you are concerned about our new European TOS, we confirm that you are able to sell or share your disc PS4 products, including in EU.’” This is the flaccid response I referred to. If this is the case, then WHY make it part of the terms of agreement? Because Sony lawyers are perhaps cheap? (They really are not!)

We do not doubt the words of the Sony CEO, yet his word can be changed in a simple board meeting, the terms of service is a legally binding document between the consumer and the corporation offering the device and the service. Why am I the one person explaining this ‘oversight’ to the press?

This is a massive issue! The impact on the software industry would be felt in several countries. The fact is that many shops are in business only because they make a few extra dollars of second hand games. If not, new games would have to rise in price. Also, there is, especially in these economic times a large group depending on cheaper game solutions. A pre-owned game, which is at times at least 50% cheaper than the new alternative is one way for some to play a few games. The simple truth is that many cannot afford a $120 game, more often; their parents also are not in possession of such spending sprees, which makes the pre-owned game market an essential part to cater for a sizeable chunk of these consumers.

The second issue is the one that we see evolving now.

I was confronted with this almost two weeks ago, but something about the list of changes seemed so horrifying that I decided not to upgrade. This is still evolving and there are genuine concerns. Yet, what is the actual truth?

If we look at the Bull (at http://thebull.cbslocal.com/2014/08/07/facebook-crosses-the-line-with-new-facebook-messenger-app/) we see the following:

  • Facebook can change or alter your connection to the Internet or cell service without telling you.
  • Facebook can send text messages to your contacts on your behalf.
  • Facebook can record audio, and take pictures and videos, at any time
  • Facebook can read your phone’s call log, including info about incoming and outgoing calls
  • Facebook can read your contact data, including who you call and email and how often
  • Facebook can read personal profile information stored on your device
  • Facebook can get a list of accounts known by the phone, or other apps you use, it can connect all your accounts and Intel together.

It is in part the worry I had when I was looking through the rights I had to agree to when installing the Facebook Messenger app, which I decided against. If I lose my messenger history, so be it!

If we consider the Sydney Morning Herald (at http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/facebook-is-forcing-messenger-app-on-users-and-they-arent-happy-about-it-20140729-zycfb.html), we see the following quote “CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed during last week’s earnings call that the company eventually wants to monetise Messenger and the app will eventually ‘overlap’ with payments, though, as TechCrunch notes, he acknowledged the company still has a lot of work to do before users will see payments cropping up in the app“. It is fair enough that people will get to pay at some point. At that point people can return to the old Yahoo Messenger, which has forever been free!

My issue here is that there is a lot more visibility here, yet why this is not the lead with every news channel as this affects BILLIONS of people is also a little beyond me.

There is of course the other side. Is what ‘the Bull’ stated true? I am not stating that they were lying, but the android permissions are at times a little out there. This view is actually reinforced by CNBC (at http://www.cnbc.com/id/101911170).

The confusion seems to have stemmed from Android. “The app when you install it, it explains in a list what it needs permission to do, and this is the list that frightened a lot people initially,’ Simons said. ‘That doesn’t mean it sort of willy nilly goes about contacting friends or recording you as you go about your day using your phone camera,’ he added.”

I cannot disagree with this view, yet the truth is that just like with Sony, we agreed on something, we made a binding pact and that what is and that what could be are now intertwined and as such it is not about handholding, it is about clarity! When Big Business forces you the consumer, they will be precise (example: ‘we hereby charge you $11,732.34 to be deposited within the next 10 days‘). Yet when they would like something from you, they hide in ambiguity (example: ‘we can change all your savings into a fortune, deposit all today and the larger returns could be yours quite soon’). So, how large a deposit, how much larger, how soon? These answers would not be forthcoming until AFTER the deposit I reckon.

So where do we stand?

When we consider the issues that have plagued the tech savvy population, like the TPP, Sony, even government spending seems to be missing on the glasses of those ‘considering’ themselves to be Journalists. Another bash of that seems to have missed the larger view in news (at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/05/federal-spending-transparency-money-missing/13485581/).

The first quote is “the data that does exist is wildly inaccurate, according to the Government Accountability Office, which looked at 2012 spending data. Only 2% to 7% of spending data on USASpending.gov is ‘fully consistent with agencies records,’ according to the report“, which makes me wonder who is keeping track of the deficit and how much larger could it be?

The second one is “The Department of Health and Human Services failed to report nearly $544 billion, mostly in direct assistance programs like Medicare. The department admitted that it should have reported aggregate numbers of spending on those programs“, which reads like, if we aggregate numbers, you are less likely to find anything and we can hide it under a total header. Failing to report on half a trillion is a big thing, it is well over $1000 for every resident in America.

So, does that mean that the deficit of the US is a lot larger? That would indeed be news as it would put the US in a peculiar financial position, or better a position they no longer hold. I am not stating that I am right or that I am wrong (both are an option). It seems that the papers and newscasts we get bombarded with every day seem to become more and more selective on what they consider important. One article affecting 80 million (the combined population of Australia and the UK) as well as the new issue which hits over a billion people does not seems to be important. The last news of last week is one that does bear scrutiny, yet to get something from USA Today and not the Guardian or any of the Australian news bringers does pose questions.

The Facebook issue will hit us for some time and it might result in something different. The issue linked to this is whether Android has a registration system that bears scrutiny. Android has its own faults (also not too overly reported on by journalists) and just pointing the finger at Facebook is also not entirely the right thing to do.

There is also the difference on what some will do and what some could do. It is the ambiguity that is slowly getting to more and more people.

So what should the journalists be doing and what should Facebook not be doing?

 

3 Comments

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 22, 2014 · 11:55

8 Generations

I thought long about this and until this morning I had not made up my mind whether I would write this. You see, this is not based on facts (or at least extreme loosely facts), I had spoken to a priest about this, but as I see the article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/21/five-biggest-threats-human-existence), I decided to write the story anyway.

Consider the notion, the one that Anders Sandberg wrote in his story “Not those who will live 200 years from now, but 1,000 or 10,000 years from now“. In my view the man might actually be an optimist. For the most we have been deceived so long (not by the fore mentioned writer), that we have not been heeding anyone’s word in matters of survivability.

What if we are ending the option of life the way we currently are? What if we have at the maximum only 8 generations left? Did you consider this? Why 8 generations? Well, the number is slightly random, we might actually only have 7 or even 6 generations left.

This train of thought started with two events. The second one is the one I wrote about in ‘Tusks!’ earlier this month. It was about the Ivory trade and how at this stage, elephants will be extinct in 15 years (a claim by the World Wildlife Federation). The first one was the news by several sources that Japan was intend on slaughtering whales again for ‘scientific’ purposes (at http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/experts-concerned-japans-talk-scientific-whaling-n156766). The interesting quote is “What bothers Clapham is that ‘whaling nations have said forever that they advocate sustainable whaling, and then they go on to ignore mounting evidence of population declines in the interests of profit’“. I must say that the IWC has not been overly outspoken in visibility of the numbers, some they have, some are estimates and it can all be found here: http://iwc.int/estimate. The numbers imply that between the two markers 1985-1991 and 1992-2003, the Minke Whales in the southern Hemisphere were ‘culled’ for almost 30%. That is a MASSIVE number! So far Japan has not produced ANY viable information on why whales have to die for their ‘research’. In my view, Japan has an obligation to openly produce the entire scientific data on the whales, with the spectrum of issues they want to prove/disprove by slaughtering whales. If they do not, it is only fair that we perform medical experimentations on the Japanese population in regards to resistance to radiation for the term 1944-1947 and 2010-2014. Will they wait until 30% of the population is ‘culled’ until they complain? I do reckon that national interest in Whale meat would likely go down.

Let us all remain calm and realise that this is not some anti-Japanese issue! But, the example is here for a reason!

The whale has a massive impact on the aquatic balance “When one species of animal that is important to the food chain dies it allows other species to thrive” (from whalefacts.org). In addition there is the quote “Studies have shown that the nutrients in sperm whale poop helps stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which pull carbon from the atmosphere to provide a cleaner and healthier breathing environment for all animals. Estimates state that as much as 400,000 tonnes of carbon are extracted from the air due to these whales each year!“, the whales also keep the krill population in balance, who in term deal with some of the carbon issues we create. Here is where it all becomes a bit weird. It seems that we, Homo Sapiens need Krill oil too. We have been taking massive amounts of it from the arctic and as such, we have denied the whales their food source. Another part is the quote “The adult Antarctic krill feeds preferentially on phytoplankton” implying that the whales themselves foster and nurture their own food source, making it a symbiotic relationship. “Several threats to Antarctic krill have been identified, including increasing commercial demand for krill oil and meal for the aquaculture, medical and cosmetic industries, as well as advancing technologies which enable much greater catches and quicker processing” show that we need the krill food source too, making the whale a competitor, as such, in conjunction with global warming (which removes the chances of successful Krill reproduction), should give us a larger pause then it is currently giving us.

All this has further consequences, as these two species are culled stronger and stronger, the predators in the arctic will end up with different needs. Like the whale, the Elephant has a similar impact. As the Lions and subsequent the Hyena’s lose this food source, they will have to pick on other sources. Consider that an elephant carcass will feed the pride for a week, taking them out means that they become solely dependent on the other species, which will then take a downturn in numbers too. How is all this linked to these 8 generations?

We have been feeding ourselves and through this our biosphere into extinction. The time we could have had to resolve issues are slowly and surely getting lost to us due to sheer greed! You do not have to believe me, but when was the last time you have beef without the fear of horse meat? Is it about profit (partially accepted as correct), or is this because veal is getting harder and harder to get? We see part of this at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/us-usa-agriculture-inflation-idUSBREA4M0FI20140523, where it is stated that prices in the US are at a record high. They blame the drought, which might be true in part. Another side here is the fact that this planets population grew by 30% in the last 20 years, that is within two generations. This is the need to feed over one and a half billion more people. The US only grew by 22% in that time, but consider the given truth that you need greens and livestock to feed another 60 million and add obesity into the mix and you have the beginning of a food disaster.

It goes beyond food, which is the main event, but not the whole picture. The site IndexMundi is telling us, that the world requires 90 million barrels of oil EACH DAY! This number becomes an issue, when we know that the bulk of all oil comes from OPEC and the OPEC-12 reported in that same time a production of 31 million barrels a day. The entire world produces roughly 80 million barrels of oil a day, there seems to be the issue that we need more. Before you go into the idea that it is just oil, and like running water we have plenty. Think again, oil is begotten (for the lack of a better word), from the earth. These fields are finite plain and simple! If we take the following premise that over the last 12 years, we used on average 80 million barrels of oil a day and a barrel in 159 litres, then how much oil did we need to spawn? that number comes to 12.72 billion litres of oil each day for 4380 days, which gets us to a cube that is 59 Km by 59Km by 59Km. That is one massive cube and this is only for the last 12 years. If we accept that the atmosphere end (roughly) at 17Km, then we get an interesting rectangular cuboid which is just over 109 Kilometres long and wide reaching to the edge of our atmosphere (at twice the height of the Mount Everest). I think the picture is clearly shaping that we are seriously on route of consuming ourselves quite literally into extinction. That view is only enhanced when we see the extreme ways on how large companies are now trying to get a little more gas using shale gas methods of getting a little more out of rock. Do you think they would go this distance and setting themselves up to these dangers if it was not ‘essential’? The question becomes, is it greed, or is it finality that is getting us into these waters?

I do not claim to have the answers, but there is every indication that 8 generations might be optimistic. Yes, we see the words on ‘responsible’ fishing and on the need for other solutions. It was only last July when we saw on ABC the quote “Australia’s east coast is experiencing a chronic shortage of wheat and stocks could run out by November“. No matter what this precise reason is for that one newscast, we are confronted that a larger part of the 7 billion population (a 2012 number) needs bread on a daily basis. How much wheat is needed to make 7 billion buns of bread each day?

It is when we realise these astronomical numbers that we get a first inkling on the dangers we face when we hear the words ‘food’ and ‘shortage’ together. More important, what can we do to prevent the nightmare the eight generation will face once he/she arrives there. I am not the first one to make these claims and in many places, we see some ‘expert’ giving us numbers that it will not be such a harsh reality. Is that so? For decades global warming was ‘debunked’ by carefully selected ‘experts’ even today they are still trying to throw sand in many eyes to dissuade many from seeing the perilous times that lie ahead.

In this article I only raised two of the daily needs we face every day, what happens when we add the need for clean (healthy) water? Part of that was illustrated last February in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war).

The six areas in direct threat give us an indication that drought or not, we are in long term dire need for the one substance we cannot do without. If the human body needs 3 litres of water each day, then how will we get by on getting 21 billion litres of water each day for years to come? We all think too easy that this planet is 70% water. That water is not all fresh water and we have to share it with many other life forms (not just the fish). Feel free not to take my word on this. The WWF had this to say “By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages”, that is just a decade from now, will this come to pass? Consider that the current population requires a body of water the size of the Dead Sea is not entirely comfortable when we consider the amounts of fresh water we have been polluting in recent years.

Time will tell, in the end we might not even get 8 generations to figure it out, however I always was an incurable optimist.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 15, 2014 · 14:49

Tusks!

It is 01:55; I am just waking up after receiving a message on Facebook. It does not matter who it was from, it is about the message. The initial message was about doing something to save the elephants. They are expected to go extinct in 2030. This is not a good thing, yet when I looked at the message and then took another look, certain issues came up in my mind.

The article does all the marketing we would expect. Elements of corruption in Thailand from officials trying to keep it all quiet and so on. We have all heard it before! The picture is interesting as it show an African elephant with three Africans in it, so there is already that too.

The next feed I see (not send to me) is some article on how the Republican Party is trying to block new restrictions on the ivory trade, so what is ACTUALLY going on?

First things first! I am all for keeping all elephants (African and Indian) safe. This is not going to happen, for the very simple reason that until someone changes the approach on poachers, this will continue. In my view, detecting and hunting and trying to arrest these people will NEVER work! I see these poachers as ‘terrorists’ against life and against the natural balance. They were not alone. In the days of Queen Victoria, the rich and those who imagined themselves ‘mighty’, were all about shooting ‘big game’ in Africa. Opposing the entire pragmatic view on life, not unlike the white settlers in the USA with their buffalo, for greed and ego and so on, massive amounts of lives were needlessly lost. Those acts unhinged the balance that African and Asian tribes had with their natural environment. Now, some are driven to poaching, and I cannot condone it because this is all done for money, not for meat or survival. In my mind the only solution is to set out hunting parties and hunt down these poachers down with deadly efficiency, no arrests!
The hunters become the hunted and as such, the elephant might end up having a slightly longer life, yet for generations to come the elephants remain in danger of extinction.

Why this ‘extreme’ view?

It is pure pragmatism; shouting and sanctions will not work. If you think that this does, then take a look at Cuba, it is still there after 5 decades of ‘sanctions’, the sanctions are not working and if the calculations that some are publishing are correct, it means that he elephant will be extinct long before any form of sanction became successful, making it a useless strategy.

Now we get to the juicy part. The Republican Party, what is exactly going on? This is the part I do not know and for the most, I could not find anything from a substantial source. There was an article on WKRN, which is a Tennessee station, but that is about it. The summon here is that the Republican representative is stating that it is harder to differentiate between legal and illegal items, and these restrictions would make the owner of legal ivory items, as is seen in old piano’s, recycled ivory in the handles of guns and knives as well as the owners of many violin bows (which apparently also contains ivory), overnight criminals, their items, if need be, confiscated and their value reduced to zero. They have a point here, the biggest issue as I see it would be to keep people with legitimate items out of harm’s way, which makes the restrictions longwinded and in the end useless. So, there is a point, the part that I found interesting is that the article by the WWF, stating that it is the last chance for Thailand to tackle the illegal Ivory trade. I found it interesting that the newspapers were not all over the internet with this, then in the article I read is that the deadline is March 2015, so why was I woken up with this?

The answer is that this seems a long time to stem illegal trade, more than enough for some people to truly fill their pockets, which is what it seems to me. The article from the WWF, was however quite illuminating. The issue is not the legal domestic trade, which is an issue as Thailand depends on this commerce, it is that African Elephant ivory is smuggled into Thailand and these tusks become ‘legally valid’ commercial items and as such, according to figures 20,000 elephants, or better stated their 40,000 tusks make it to the souvenir shops, in many small ways.

So this is all about African tusks. I think it would have been nice to see such articles more prominently in several newspapers, but in the end, some X-Factor story will probably take centre page in such times.

What to do?

The important part is visibility and justice of exposure. Let’s not forget that there is an issue with the WWF part on the entire ivory issue. The WWF wants to put pressure somewhere, which is fair enough, but why Thailand? It seems to have a ‘valid’ (from what I read) ivory trade. The issue should not be with Thailand, but with the African source. The fact that hundreds, if not thousands of tusks per trip make it to Thailand should be the issue. We can clearly assume that it involves something massively larger than a dinghy, which means a corrupt crew for sure, and likely a corrupt captain too. So, while it is taking days to cross the Indian Ocean, perhaps getting better Intel on who and how should be the issue, if the numbers of 20,000 elephants a year is true, then this would take a massive amount of space, or many trips (a very regular schedule). Now, it is not that clean cut (or clear cut for that matter), so there are more sides and let’s not forget, with this amount of ivory, someone’s pockets are getting lined with $$$$.

In the end, we all agree, something will have to be done. The question remains, with these levels of extinction, how far are we willing to go? If the survival of the elephant is in such a critical stage, then sanctions will no longer be enough. There is also no question that it takes someone smarter than me (and someone who is better at hunting poachers then me) to solve the issue. Whoever gets the job, we should consider how extreme the handed mandate needs to become, because 15 years is not a long time. It implies that one of the most impressive land creatures on this earth will become extinct during the watch of the current generation.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Science

Tagged as , , , , , ,

June 29, 2014 · 11:05

What’s in a health system?

Another day, another view on the failings of an NHS system in the UK is presented through the newspapers. The interesting part is not that we read it or that we know about it, for the most it seems to be about a level of blind acceptance that the NHS system might soon be no more. We see more discussions (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/28/cameron-warned-nhs-in-danger-of-collapse). One quote is “the NHS needed an extra £15bn from the Treasury over the next five years ‘if you don’t want the system to collapse during the course of the next parliament’“. Now, that comes down to an additional 220 pounds for every person in the UK. The additional quote “The grim analysis is backed by some of the country’s top health experts“, Really? Is that the actual solution? Perhaps the UK has the ‘wrong’ experts in the field. First we see a 10 billion pound IT system that never works, then we get another failed infusion of 3 billion pounds. Could the issue perhaps be that throwing money at it is no longer a solution? In addition, in a greying economy, healthcare will be the most important thing over the next 10-15 years, so perhaps sitting down and designing a completely new NHS, then seeing how the old system could be migrated might be a much better idea (especially as the other ideas are not working).

“The quality of patient care will be compromised by not having enough doctors and nurses on the wards and in surgeries and clinics. The well-publicised failures of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation were caused by precisely this kind of cost cutting, with tragic consequences for the families concerned.” Is a quote that is in the article and I have a few issues with it. First of all, let’s take a look at the issue (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/28/mid-staffordshire-nhs-trust-fined-gillian-astbury), it is without any doubt a terrible event for the family. The quote “Mistakes were made as her ward underwent as many as eight shift changes and 11 drugs rounds per day. The system for handovers, when nurses arriving for the next shift should be informed of the needs of the patients, was ’inconsistent and sometimes non-existent’, the trust admitted.” So we can agree that there was a shortage, the point is, was it avoidable? This is where the issue starts. Throwing more money at it is NOT a solution, having 1 nurse per 5 patients is also a non-workable solution. The more people go into all this, the more time we see spend on handovers, with two sets of nurses getting/giving updates, not to mention the absolute fortune this setup will cost. I found the following (at http://straightstatistics.org/article/alcohol-related-hospital-admissions-set-tumble), it is about ‘Alcohol-related hospital admissions‘, the quote “If we limit the numbers to admissions wholly attributable to alcohol, the numbers have risen from 45,000 to 68,500, an increase of 52.2 per cent“. Really? Is that what doctors and nurses spend their time on? How about we change the approach to alcohol (and drugs for that matter) and take a page from the quotes of Ebenezer Scrooge “‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’”

It seems harsh doesn’t it? Does it? Now consider the possibility that Gillian Astbury aged 66, might be alive if something is actually dome about the alcohol cases. We see a little more clarity (at http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Resources/Documents/s/ss/SSPCTAlcoholneedsassessmentforStaffscountyJan08.pdf), where we find the quote “Trend data published by the West Midlands Public Health Observatory for selected alcohol admissions show that between 1999/00 and 2004/05 there was an increase in hospital admission rates by 40% for men and 30% for women across Staffordshire County“.

 

How about actually change people? So let’s do the following, a drunk in need is no longer given medical aid. If some youngling wants to be heroic and binge drink himself into a coma, then let his body fight it off in some cage (of course if they have money for private care, then that will be OK). If the body is unsuccessful, it will die. Plain and simple! We will call their mother telling them they should have raised them better and the case is closed. Consider the benefit of lower costs to the NHS, unemployment numbers will go down and we might even see an increase in rental options.

I know this is not a pretty picture, but these so called health experts need to see that the current course is no longer an option. We could do the same for the drug addicted population and get an even healthier commonwealth. The issue is not just the approach of certain people; it is the entire look that non-action gives all. Consider the PDF I added the linked to, in Table 9 (on page 26), we see a changed trend of 272%. So, almost three times as many go for the bottle in a group? The fact that this is not dealt with is a plain joke, especially as the NHS gets to clean up that mess in addition to dealing with the ‘actual‘ sick. There are alternatives! One is that all alcoholic beverages are raised by 23% taxation, which all goes to the NHS, which seems unfair to the population that can actually temper their alcohol use. The UK could instigate a Swedish approach to alcohol (also expensive), but you can only get hard liquor on an identity card, which gets registered and you cannot buy more than 2 bottles a month. Or we let the alcohol abusers die. You see, we can go in all directions, but most people, weak as they are, are unable to make the hard decisions and will force a situation where more money is given. This is fair enough, but then we add taxation, including to the lowest income bracket, to get more money for the NHS. Now, these same experts will tell you that this is not a solution either.

There is no choice; hard options will have to be selected in one way or another. It seems that steering clear of some zero tolerance options have been ignored for too long and those who are actually trying to get healthy so that they can contribute to family and society are dying, like Gillian Astbury. This part is however not shown to such a degree by the journalists at large. There is one more table to consider in that PDF. In table 19 we see that the total of the alcohol misusers cause a massive £1,701,900,000 to the UK health economy. So if we need cut backs, then here is one point seven billion in savings. Mr Prime minister! (I think I just earned my knighthood and a small cottage in saffron Walden) I think that the total savings in damages that these drinkers are causing is considerable larger than just to the health economy.

I am all for a better NHS, I am all for giving doctors and nurses a better tomorrow and if just throwing money at it would make that difference, then I would be all in favour of it, but there is almost 10 years of data disproving that, we see an NHS system that is rattled by big business (pharmacy and IT for example) and politicians and the approach as it is at present can no longer be maintained. Perhaps we need to make additional changes to the patients as well. The healthcare is all about keeping track of data and details, what if the patient becomes the data carrier? What if the nurse has a tablet with details and patient numbers, which is transferred to the new nurse and as they go over it, they can verify with the patient chip? When I go into ANY hospital, I see a multitude of papers, folders and more papers and people entering reports in computers and then printing it all. What if we take the next generation in solutions and take away 30% of that workload?

When people ask which company will do this, the answer should be ‘None!’. The UK is filled with universities, some of them regarded as the most prestigious and brightest on the planet. Consider that most IT people, might claim experience, yet their drama skills are the only ones that improved for the most, is it not up to the Universities, those who are introduced to the newest ideas, design a solution that would make the work of the doctors and nurses at the NHS better, slightly more efficient and a truckload of less hassle! Is that such a tall order?

We will get to the solutions if we are willing to navigate other options. We have seen that the current path is not a success; new methods might not be a failure. It is a road that politicians should be willing to go, if only to make sure that a possible solution was not overlooked.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

June 24, 2014 · 11:24

The sharks are circling

Today my mind was stopped by a Guardian article of a different kind (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/sir-tony-oreilly-irish-billionaire-insolvent). The headline was interesting enough ‘Bank pulls the plug on Irish billionaire who owned Independent‘, but that was not the reason for my interest. To be honest, it was not the fact that some rich ‘boy’ was hitting bottom either. You take any spoiled millionaire brat and the moment he is funding his trust into cocaine, you know he is worse off than whichever other rich person losing it all.

The following quotes are not the interesting part, but they are essential for painting the picture. “O’Reilly went on to a successful business career, rising to be chief executive and chairman of the giant US food group Heinz“, and whoever knows about their Ketchup, knows they have the good stuff! “Lawyers for Allied Irish Banks said on Monday the bank had run out of patience with O’Reilly’s efforts to repay €22m (£17.6m) of loans and a further €23m due from two of his investment companies. The court was told he had further debts of €195m. AIB accused the fallen tycoon of being insolvent and asked the courts to enter a judgment against him which would allow the bank to take control of key O’Reilly assets” gives us little more than the position he has gotten themselves into and “O’Reilly told the bank last month he had sold investments worth more than $150m in the past three years, all of which had gone to repay borrowings. But AIB claimed only a fraction of that sum – $300,000 – went towards repaying its loans. Other creditors, who are owed about €195m, have agreed not to pull the plug to give O’Reilly more time to sell his assets in an orderly way” gives us only a small indication on the matter how things are resolved. The next shows that this is no dumb boy, we know that the Irish can at times be pretty clever, yet the quote “He became chief executive, based in Pittsburgh, in 1979, and 12 years later was the first non-family member to become chairman. O’Reilly helped to transform the firm – its market value rose from $908m (£533m) to $11bn.” implies him to be a genius. When you change a company and up the value by 1100%, you are what some might say, the stuff of legends, which is only confirmed by “When he bought into the Dublin media company, it had a turnover of just €12m but under his ownership it grew into a worldwide company which at one point included the Independent in the UK as well as publications in Australia and South Africa. He stepped down as chief executive of the company on his 73rd birthday”

There is a lot more to the Independent News & Media group which runs into the billions and then it suddenly hit me. This was all strangely similar to the movie Meet Joe Black, made over a decade before these events were taking place. Was Anthony Hopkins portraying Sir Anthony Joseph Francis O’Reilly? If so, I would love to hook up with his daughter (Claire Forlani, we men have dreams too after all). His ownership also included Waterford Wedgwood plc; those who care about China porcelain will know it to be one of the most revered brands ever.

So what is this about?

Things do not add up completely as I see them. It is like watching a pattern that does not really exist. Giving into it is merely voicing the conspiracy theorist in us. Take this quote from Wiki (not as an academic value, mind you). “The markets reacted positively to the news, especially to the explicit truce between the O’Reilly and O’Brien shareholder blocs, with Denis O’Brien voicing public support for Gavin O’Reilly as CEO-designate“, the approach before was that he had gone in so deep that his hunger for media truly rivalled that of Rupert Murdoch. A group, having assets in excess of 4.5 billion, whilst having almost 1.5 billion in debts. Some will not see any issue at this point. Consider that the revenue is almost at 1.7 billion and the profits are set at 110 million. So, even though not too bad, it is not a great position. This is what some might say a good time to start selling off the smaller parts. Of course this is still not on the mind of Sir Tony. This is where the Wiki quote becomes interesting. You see, Denis O’Brien seems to be the pushing element and his son is set to get the CEO position. So far there is an awful close resemblance to that movie ‘Meet Joe Black’. From the moment Gavin O’Reilly takes over and he is pushed out due to the pressure of Dennis O’Brien, it is a mere 3 years. By that time Dennis O’Brien holds onto more than twice the amount of shares the O’Reilly’s have.

This is part one. In this time, from my point of view, as the power is still firmly with the newspapers, Dennis O’Brien is already moving into telecom and radio stations. He is now regarded as one of the larger players in the UK. However, this is about Sir Tony O’Reilly.

When we see his assets, I almost see a picture of sliding technologies and Sir Tony did not move with his times. Whether it started with the removal from INM is uncertain. What is clear is that he had grown several businesses into behemoths, which makes the collapse of Waterford Wedgwood plc a mere ripple in a very large pond. The fact that his second wife is even wealthier than him should not matter, but the losses he and his brother in law (brother to his second wife) seem to tally towards half a billion.

Here we now see a certain pattern forming, even though thus far I have not mentioned the elements to that loom. Any person has values, profits, incomes as well as credibility. One element is the pushed change by Dennis O’Brien from the side of Independent News & Media. It goes however a lot further. Consider the situations the banks are in and have been in for at least 5 years. There are literally tens of thousands of people too far in debt with little chance to repay it. Then the information in the Irish Times hit me (at http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/sir-anthony-o-reilly-locked-in-debt-negotiations-with-aib-1.1805920), and the one part I had almost ignored in the Guardian became a lot more visible. The bank, which was seen 4 times as ‘AIB’ in the Guardian article, gets a prominent place in the headline. So why is this an issue? Consider the following two quotes from the Irish times “A case has been listed for entry into the Commercial Court on Monday between AIB and Sir Anthony and two of his investment vehicles, Indexia Holdings and Brookside Investments” and “Brookside owns Sir Anthony’s coastal estate in Glandore, Co Cork, while Indexia is his private investment vehicle that holds his near 5 per cent stake in Independent News & Media and his share of the oil explorer Providence Resources“. So, there is no link, or so one would think. It is however weird that even in delayed matter, this is one customer that would repay the debts, so why this push? Is it not weird that forcing the hand of one party who will repay is somewhat strange in this day and age? Then we get this message (at http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/oil-giant-exxon-starts-160m-drilling-project-off-west-coast-29163728.html), which is more than a year old. Was oil found, is there a chance to find oil here? If not, then this is another half a billion bust for Sir Tony, making him pretty much broke. The following was found in the ‘ShelltoSea‘ site (at http://www.shelltosea.com/node/1890), considering that Providence resources (a Sir Tony company) is a partner in this then this quote “The Dunquin North and Dunquin South prospects hold combined recoverable reserves of 8.4 trillion cubic feet of gas and 316 million barrels of condensate, according to an offering document posted on Schlumberger Ltd’s IndigoPool Web site” means that there are vast amounts of money there, which makes the actions of the AIB odd to say the least.

 

Consider the Russian issues that are currently playing, whether they happen or not, will influence the value of the gas that was found. It is still the question whether oil will be found, it was not up to July 2013 as was reported through Reuters, yet the given options mean that there is still a vast amount for Sir Tony to hold on to his 750 acre cottage. It is the final link we get when we read this headline “Taxpayers will not lose money on the bailout of AIB” (at http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/taxpayers-will-not-lose-money-on-the-bailout-of-aib-bank-chief-30367989.html), So it was not about Sir Tony, it was about the other acts by the bank, holding onto the loans for Sir Tony that are now the issue of a possible upcoming forced fire sale. The banks statement “He added that the bank has paid more than €2bn to the State in fees and interest on rescue loans since the crash” give the message we were wondering about. The banks are slowly losing options, the money us due and as such, some visionaries are now under the hammer. Whether the acts of Denis O’Brien are at the centre of what could be seen as the fall of Sir Anthony Joseph Francis O’Reilly remains to be seen. The acts that are clearly within the realm of ‘the cost of doing business‘ are drawn in the sand. It reminds me of the quote Penn Badgley tells Zachary Quinto in the movie Margin call. ‘In the end one man wins, one man loses‘ is harsh and to the point, but as Zachary responds ‘You know that there is more to it than that‘ is equally correct. Two movies both created before the actual events that played out here are giving us the fact that sometimes life is like the movies, even the bad parts.

Sir Tony is a first eye witness to these events. What we at the sidelines see is that the banks are now slowly in a do or die presentation of liquidating what the banks regard as ‘risky investments’. For the most, we should be happy, but can we? The money remains gone and when the fire sale goes through and someone ends up finding any oil at a cost of 0.1 cent on the dollar, how many friends will the Allied Irish Banks end up with then, considering the boat load of scandals they were linked to?

Perhaps the most worrying part for most of us is not that a wealthy man has lost it all, but that banks are now closing ranks. We are so used to seeing the wealthy get away with proverbial murder shows that the banks are at the end of their ropes, which means that the little leeway we ones had is likely gone too. It should also be clear that this shows us all that the economy is nowhere near recovery; it is for the foreseeable future on a very tight arrangement with whomever has any actual wealth left.

A view we have not been introduced to until now.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 22, 2014 · 20:00

The Illusion of control

It is three days after writing ‘Concerning the Commonwealth!‘, I stand by my piece. I think that the Commonwealth is facing increasing issues all over the field and as the numbers go up and up and up, healthcare will take a centre seat in a diminishing population of workers, which by the way include issues that will hit Australian shores too. Today (at http://news.sky.com/story/1287088/government-has-lost-control-of-the-nhs) we get to see more about the NHS, the mention of a 3 billion pound fiasco, which gets attached to the name Andrew Lansley, who is currently Leader of the House of Commons. He is also behind the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which is regarded to be highly controversial. However, before we go into any controversial parts, try finding a document called ‘ABPI UK NHS medicines bill projection 2012 – 2015‘, it is a PDF file (the Google link was too messy). There is a massive revelation on page 5, which diminishes a bible chapter with a similar name to a mere Paddington bear story.

As we ignore earlier mentions of a shake-up gone awry at 3 billion and mentions of an IT structure at the price of 10 billion that never worked, here we see that over the term 2013-2015 the use of brands go up from 14.2 to 15.5 billion, yet generic medication needs only rises from 3.2 to 3.9 billion. The interesting part is that even though there is still a brand growth, the bio-similar mention (generics) go up from 134 to 328, so there is more than 100% growth in change to generic medication, whilst the cost is still growing steadily on both sides (generic versus brands), what would the brand side have done if the generic side did not exist?

Three days ago I was extremely outspoken in regards to the need to get the NHS costs down. It seems that the search for generic alternatives is taking a backseat to other options. In an age of finding ways to make ends meet, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has no space reserved in regards to the need for a stronger presence of generic medication.

When we look at:

233 General duties
(1) In exercising its functions NICE must have regard to—
               (a) the broad balance between the benefits and costs of the provision of health services or of social care in
               England,
               (b) the degree of need of persons for health services or social care in England, and
               (c) the desirability of promoting innovation in the provision of health services or of social care in England.

Why was the following not added?

                (d) the choice of generic medication where possibility for a responsible health care alternative warrants it.

Now, I will be the first one to admit that my choice of words is not the best one, but it seems where it is known that generic medication is such an important part for the survival of the NHS, that no mention at all (as far as I could tell) seems to raise a few more questions. Key message 4 on page 11 of the PDF shows exactly the part that matters: “Nine of the current top 20 selling brands lose patent exclusivity between 2012 and 2015” and when we consider the growth through bio-similars, we see that the right path seems to be taken as we read the numbers from the office of health economics. So, there is a path to better growth through managed costs (to some degree), the question becomes, why is this report quoting Jane Ellison as secretly taped? More important, why is Sky News not giving proper light to the NHS issues as they are (to a small extent) resolved? Why are they not taking a look a Professor Adrian Towse, Jon Sussex, Lesley Cockcroft or Martina Garau. I would think that the latter two as statistician and economist might be able to light a candle in the tunnel of ambiguous ‘tell tailing’ darkness ‘some’ are sailing.

None of these matters are coming to light at any stage. Even the Guardian on April fool’s day, did little more then http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/01/health-service-biggest-challenge-history-nhs-boss. I will admit that the article of the Guardian was decent, yet the quote “the NHS is facing a perfect storm of rising demand, funding pressures and worryingly low staff morale“, no matter how true, seems to be about the hardships (which remain true). Yet the information that the Office of health economics seem to have is escaping these Journo’s of bad news writings. Slide 13 of the initial PDF shows an even stronger view on how the UK is getting by, whilst the US is facing an overall hike from 176% to 281% compared to the UK index, Only Spain, Finland and France were barely better off. That part remains in question when we consider their population, if the results was correctly weighted (small oops on that slide), then the pressures for patent change from American shows just how desperate the American position is, which is shown even stronger on slide 6 when we see just how hard medication hits both Japan and USA as they spend well over 2% of GDP there, whilst the population of Japan is twice that of UK and the population of the USA is set at well over 400%. These slides will also leave is with other questions in several regards, yet the initial positive view is not reverberated over the press sites, or by the UK journalists. It seems to me that the information by certain newsgroups, especially in the LACKING sight on the importance of generic medication leaves us with questions. However, the Guardian was all over the business side of Pfizer trying to take over AstraZeneca. Did no one properly wonder why they were willing to dish over 69 billion? When did a US company EVER spend such an amount unless they knew that they would end up with double the amount? When we consider those events, we should wonder why the papers aren’t a lot more outspoken in regards to informing the public.

Even if this was all not true, don’t you think that the press would (should is a better word) have been all over the members of the Office of health economics I mentioned asking them the questions I am voicing and a few more after that? Is the silence of the press not deafening? The late April article in regards to Pfizer – Astranezeca headlines as ‘Pfizer refuses to guarantee UK jobs if AstraZeneca takeover goes through‘, which should make us wonder whether this is about income, jobs or patents. Would that takeover stopped any patents, or at least delayed them? If many patents have 1-2 years left, why pay that many billions, which information was kept hidden from us? It is the quote from Pfizer CEO Ian Read that states “The combination of Pfizer and AstraZeneca could further enhance the ability to create value for shareholders of both companies and bring an expanded portfolio of important treatments to patients.” This is a fair, honest (to some degree) and clear message. It is about the shareholders and the message that these billion will come back to ‘us’ and then some. This is clear business, I do not object, yet the overview for the UK? What will it cost them besides jobs? We saw little of that and the NHS has been played like a piñata donkey for a little too long. This is not me stating that the NHS is okay. Actually it is far from that, it is about getting the proper illumination on events, which does not seem to be happening either.

In the end, the quote in the Sky News article “A spokesman for the Department of Health told Sky News: ‘Giving operational control for the day-to-day running of services to doctors was the right decision but we’ve always been clear that ministers are responsible for the NHS’” might have been a correct one, the added information could have been a lot more insightful. When you Google ‘Office of health economics‘ you will not find any links to any newspaper, which is puzzling when you go to the Office of health economics and look at some of their publications. If I would add one more ‘light‘ remark then it would be that the members of the editorial and the policy board of the Office of health economics seem to have more degrees then a Kelvin scale, making them in my mind an essential source of health information for any journalist.

So where are these articles informing the public?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 21, 2014 · 20:48

Legally and Criminally Insane?

There is an issue that had been on my mind for a long time. First of all, I do not have a car. I had a motorcycle for a while, but not at present. I never cared for cars that much. When you live in the big city, a car tends to be an expensive asset and it rarely gives you additional time. I learned that if one manages their time correctly you get heaps done without a car. It does not always work that way, I can admit that and for almost half a century, I have only desperately needed a car around 10 times. So, for me, a car is really not that needed.

You might wonder where this is going!

I just read an article, basically the second driver in a series of thoughts (at http://news.sky.com/story/1286644/brakes-slammed-on-over-zealous-spy-cars). The first one is a number of articles all pointing back to speed cameras (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10613388/Motorway-speed-cameras-to-be-rolled-out-to-stop-those-driving-faster-than-70mph.html) and a third topic in this matter can be found at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/trending-news/parking-fines-by-councils-reach-nearly-255-million-in-2013-with-tables-of-the-top-finers-by-local-authority/.

So, why these issues? We have traffic laws (UK, Australia and heaps of other nations). They are not like the three rules I got explained for driving a car in Egypt (in 1982), where it seemed that:

1. If you did not honk your horn, you are at fault.
2. The heaviest car has right of way.
3. A non-Egyptian is always at fault.

They seem simple and pretty much fit the bill.

In most Commonwealth countries we have set rules on speeding and parking. So, I do not get the problem when people start bitching over speeding tickets. Was there a speed limit? There always is and there is always a reason why it did not apply to that person. I reckon 1 out of 250 will have the actual honest defence that they missed the speed limit sign, which gives us 249 people who should keep quiet and just pay up, or should they?

Now, I will admit that I am slightly on the fence towards the topic with the title “Brakes Slammed On ‘Over-Zealous Spy Cars’“. Is that really a wrong approach?

Even though the heart of the matter quoted “These measures will deliver a fairer deal for motorists, ensuring that parking enforcement is proportionate, that school children are protected and buses can move freely, and that key routes are kept clear“, which is fair enough. My issue is that these people parked illegally, so why is that an issue?

The quote “CCTV spy cars can be seen lurking on every street raking in cash for greedy councils and breaking the rules that clearly state that fines should not be used to generate profit for town halls” remains funny as most town halls will never ever make profit, even if we fine roughly 87.2254% of the London motorists, London would still come up short by a sizeable amount.

It is in the area of the parking fines article we see this quote “The capital is extremely congested so we’d expect to see a higher number of restrictions in place and penalties being issued. However, there is a fine line between fair and opportunistic that councils shouldn’t be tempted to cross.” Here I wonder how to react. You see, if the council revokes a driver’s licence after 3-4 fines for no less than one year, it seems to me that the congestion problem will solve itself overnight. I agree that these transgressions are not in the league of Manslaughter or Grievous bodily harm, but laws are laws and are traffic laws any less? (Well, less than murder, yes!) There will always be excuses and some will remain valid.
‘L or P plates correctly displayed at start of journey‘, which in all honesty could happen. There is ‘on medical grounds‘, where the driver was helping a victim into a hospital. There will always be a grey area that we in all honesty must deal with. These are the parking fines and there are a few more valid reasons, but some are just out there. I felt a lot less lenient when it comes to speeding. You see, there is always that joker who thinks he is in control and when speeding goes wrong, he refuses to die for the sake of it, but will have killed someone else. When we read that: “X (name removed) was jailed for eight months for causing death by careless driving“, I wonder why that person is not spending life in jail for murder. the quote “Believing they were walking ‘deliberately slowly’, she engaged the clutch and revved the engine of her Honda Civic to scare them off the road while her car was still moving at around the 30mph speed limit” gives additional feelings of anger. These pedestrians were at a pedestrian crossing? 8 months jail and a two year ban is all she had to do, which in my book seems just wrong.

It is the quote “We are opposed to speed cameras in general. The evidence of their success in promoting safety is not good and in reality what is happening now is that the police are using speed cameras to fund their other activities through speed awareness courses.” by Roger Lawson, a spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) that gives additional concern. Perhaps these measures do not go far enough?

It is currently stated that if you are caught speeding then you will be handed an absolute minimum punishment of three penalty points and a fine of £100. How about making that four penalty points and a fine of £200? Also during special times, like Easter, Christmas and so on, the demerits double, making the driver extra careful. Next we see that ‘if you accrue 12 points on your licence within a three-year period‘, should then in honesty become ‘if you accrue 24 points on your licence within a two-year period‘ the driving ban should be no less than 24 months, no matter how essential your driving license is. If someone states that this is too draconian, then I personally agree as well, but many acts do not change the mind of the driver now, so why not give them something to fear. It seems that public transportation frightens them a lot.

What do we get from this?

That is indeed the question. It seems that a total disregard for parking and speeding rules is getting out of hand, and whilst it seems unfair to some, this is also a possible way to stop congestion. It also stops a little pollution, so we do get a double whammy on this front.

This all gets me to Law and Morality by John Gardner (at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/pdfs/lawmoralityedited.pdf). It should seem clear that my approach is ‘aim to serve the common good (Finnis 1980: 276)‘ and ‘aim to justify coercion (Dworkin 1986: 93)‘. There is no denial that this is about coercing the driver to abide by the rules. We should at that point also consider how unjust the laws of traffic are (if that is the raised issue). But is it?

How often could you not park because someone had taken the spot that was rightfully yours? How often have you or someone you directly known to be in almost direct danger because of someone speeding? When a population above a certain level states yes to both (as it currently seemed to be the case), should these laws not change to something more draconian?

Is it not so, that in my imaginary change, we are changing the premise that we all have a right to drive a car, into the premise that driving a car is becoming a privilege for those abiding by the set rules? Is this not deprivation of freedom? We are to some extent already imposing those rules to pilots, considering the lack of accidents there, should we not take the same approach with car drivers? Should we not pass a certain parameter to be considered a driver? We demand skills to many environments that are a lot less hazardous, so why not car drivers? You see, as I see it, the car industry had forever been an open field as it was so lucrative to sell to so many people. Now, with the saturation we see, cars are almost too available and gas prices go through the roof. What if it becomes a privilege? What if the car driving population goes down by 20%? Cars might not become cheaper, but gas certainly will as there is a 20% less need. Public transportation will suddenly get a massive boost and the chance that all this reflects on higher safety standards and less need for emergency aid is also a good thing. We will always need emergency services, but consider that they will have on the emergency services. Here is where I got surprised. When we consider the numbers (at http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13040/acci-emer-focu-on-2013-rep-V2.pdf), we see that in the UK the response for ‘Road traffic accidents accounted for 1.4 per cent of type 1 department attendances in 2012/13‘. That was a number I did not expect to see, so am I looking in the wrong direction? When we look at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255125/road-accidents-and-safety-quarterly-estimates-q2-2013.pdf, we see a rolling statistic of 1785 killed and 23,530 regarded as killed or seriously injured, which makes the Accident and Emergency (A&E) data in England a slight question. Especially as we regard page 17 of that PDF and the spread of the traffic cases on page 22. Well, No! The numbers make perfect sense; it just shows that the 23,000 are well spread over the timeline; it is just that these 23,000 are in the end only 1.4%. Yes, in case you wonder, I did notice they are not all from the same frame, but we see only a few percent change over these time frames, so that overall the picture is still usable for the most, just that the relief for Accident & Emergency would be minimal (alas). I had hoped that the traffic changes would lessen their work a lot more.

So, am I just trying to add morality to a traffic case? Gardner explains that at times morality needs law, just as law is in need of morality at times. So we are still with the question, is adding draconian measures to traffic laws morally considerable, or will the act result in a lack of morality for the law? That issue is brought to light when Gardner gets to item 4. “Does law have an inner morality?” There we have a nice consideration. Is morality not a setting of norms, hence in reflection is it not a form of discrimination? I am doing that by discriminating against the transgressors, but am I doing this in an unbalanced way? If we accept that morality is seen as a system of values and principles of conduct, and the bulk of people break speed limits, is the morality of speeding not one that should change? If almost all break the speed limit, is the law not unjust to being with and as such is this law, draconian or not a transgression of accepted morality and therefor a law that should not exist?

The facts now fit the statement that Roger Lawson gave us, is this about funding, or about safety? That is not easily answered and without knowing the true and complete course of the 1785 killed. How many got killed through speeding? If we accept that the UK has roughly 34.8 million cars in use, should 0.00525% decide the consequence of the rest? When we look at the deaths, that is what we see; we get 0.0676% if we include the wounded. So, when looking at this, no matter how we twist or turn the data, well over 99% suffers because of a few. There is no question that none of this changes for the victims of these events, but it shines a harsh light on certain aspects of traffic safety and the approach it has. Should the laws change however? There is growing evidence at this point that my Draconian approach is just not the way to go, it shows an increasing tendency to be unjust. We can all agree that unjust laws should not be followed. But in the second degree, are the current laws too harsh?

Here we have several other factors to consider. If congestion is the cause of many evil, then my draconian approach survives the test as it solves part of the problem, yet will it solve the situation? There is no real way to tell. We should however question whether we want to take away the car as a basic freedom, because that is what a car embodies and revoking freedoms is as we can all agree highly immoral.

It seems like we took an opposition approach and through this we learned that people like Eric Pickles and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin have a clear case. The same could be said for Roger Lawson, which takes us to the question whether the UK should consider losing the speed limits all together. Would you believe that someone made that case? Norfolk Police Crime Commissioner Stephen Bett did this and makes a good argument for it, which gives wonder on what to do next? He stated “If we are going to do anything about speed and villages we ought to take down all the signs and say all villages are 30mph [48km/h] and you drive on roads like they do in Germany and Italy, as road conditions say”. So if this works in Germany and Italy, why should the UK not go that same way? It cannot just be the weather as the weather in Germany can be even more treacherous as it is in the UK. Is it not also the case that the simpler any traffic issue is, the less confusion we are likely to face? The Egyptian example at the beginning is an extreme one, but does show the effectiveness of simplicity (except for rule three which can be scrapped in Common Law on grounds of discrimination).

Perhaps some changes the UK could get by learning from its neighbours, who knows, perhaps after this the French, Dutch and others will follow the Italians and we might get a reasonable equal traffic system (one can only hope). The end of the article comes down on Stephen Bett stating “UK motoring organisations have dismissed Bett’s comments, with the Guild of Experienced Motorists describing them as ‘just nonsense’“. But is that so? The numbers seem to be in his favour, the evidence of simplicity as generic evidence has been proven again and again, so is it all nonsense or is Stephen Bett onto something? Even though he stepped aside as PCC while an investigation is carried out into his expenses (since yesterday), the points he made should be seriously investigated, especially if proof can be given that simplicity drives down the number of accidents and transgressions, which is a win/win for all people.

So as I see it, the act to add Draconian laws seems almost criminally insane, which is actually what is happening in Spain, but we will get to that in due time when we see the results of Spain implementing such harsh rules.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 19, 2014 · 21:22

Concerning the Commonwealth!

There is no easy news. The Commonwealth is having several issues that are not easily solved. There is always blame, but who to blame and more important, will it get us anywhere to begin with? I also believe that the Commonwealth has its share of solutions, but in that regard we will have to make some drastic changes. Some will be good, many will not be good and a lot of them will have to be different.

It is the last one that is likely the strongest salvation we might hope for, but we can no longer think the way we are, as we currently end up planning to go nowhere.

First of all, one member will need to step up to the plate and the others must protect this part. They started being regarded as a simple land, this land became a colony and later part of what would be known as the British Empire. It became independent and it is now a Commonwealth nation. Now, India must step up to the plate and become a Commonwealth leader. We (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United Kingdom) must stand firmly and strongly next to India.

India has basically become the world leader in generic pharmacy and many are so eager to take up the Trans Pacific Partnership that we ignore the part that this US and Japanese conclave is not just about ‘trade‘ or ‘fairness‘, the indications are that it will give even more power to the US companies. A level of power they should not have to this degree.

They were complacent; they were lazy and became the facilitator for flaccid economists (yes, that was a Viagra joke).

If we accept a Canadian source, we see the following: “One proposed TPP provision would require governments to grant new 20-year patents for modifications of existing medicines, such as a new forms, uses or methods, even without improvement of therapeutic efficacy for patients. Another provision would make it more expensive and cumbersome to challenge undeserved or invalid patents; and yet another would add additional years to a patent term to compensate for administrative processes. Taken together, these and other provisions will add up to more years of high-priced medicines at the expense of people needing treatment, who then must wait longer for access to affordable generics. Meanwhile, provisions in the proposed investment chapter would give pharmaceutical companies the right to sue governments for instituting any regulation that reduces their expected profits, using private tribunals that circumvent a country’s judicial process.” (at http://www.msf.ca/en/article/negotiators-must-fix-most-harmful-trade-pact-ever-access-medicines).

This is not what we signed up for in any way shape or form (nor should we ever). It had been stated in several sources that Australia was one of the least objecting partners. The fact that this would be done and through this ensure the consequence that a large part of the Commonwealth will then have another decade of expensive medication to look forward to is just too absurd. when we read the additional quote “U.S. pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly is using similar provisions in NAFTA to demand $100 million from the Canadian government for invalidating one of its patents, claiming, among other things, that the company’s expected profits were “expropriated” when the patent was overturned“, we see a pattern where the use of such a partnership is not a partnership at all, it feels more that America is applying republican dictatorship, through arranged courts in order to thwart almost two decades of laziness and stupidity. Them overspending their treasury by well over 17 trillion is not helping them either and is at the centre of the current push we see.

India is proving slowly to be the leading authority on generic medication, even now in the last two years we see players like Kroger, Axium, Pfizer and Wyeth in multi-billion dollar mergers. They are setting up shop to have their own corners, which will grant them stability and income for the next decade. Guess what! We cannot afford that. The UK NHS is in shambles, healthcare all over Europe is unaffordable and the other Commonwealth nations see the cost of medication go up and up and up. These costs forced upon governments are the new way to get the maximum revenue, whilst in the end not being taxed on it (or for the ultimate minimum). India as a Commonwealth leader in generic medication can step up to the plate. We will not go to India, no, it seems that under these conditions India comes to the UK, Australia and Canada to build their places for generic medication to be produced. India would become a leader here. I wonder if President Pranab Mukherjee had ever envisioned that, to visit the other nations, including the UK as a leader, paving the way for a solution to the other heads of states of the Commonwealth.

If you think that this is ludicrous, then think again. In the Independent we see at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-losing-grip-on-nhs-as-58-failing-trusts-now-have-241m-debt-9544181.html the following headline “Government accused of ‘losing grip on NHS’ as 58 failing trusts now have £241m debt“. Australia is feeling the pinch of healthcare hard and Canadian healthcare will soon be a sizeable chunk of a 2.2 trillion dollar debt. This must change!

We need to pull our resources. We need to think of other ways. Medication from India is only a first step. How about the option for healthcare graduates to work off their debts in a few years overseas in the UK or Canada? They’ll have a place to live, some income and over a period of 5-10 years (depending on the degree) their debt is settled. These are but a few of the options we can resort to. The old ways are not working and the few that do are drowned into costs of a faltering IT system. We need to group ourselves together and build a new system on different scopes. The old way has not worked and the more we delay the deeper the debt becomes and the less solvable the problem becomes.

This is no longer Labour versus Conservatives; this is now finding a way to avoid deaths through inaction. I agree that simply starting something new is not the way to go, the Labour IT systems of the NHS have proven that ten billion pound invoice, and yet doing nothing is another non-option. The heads of the Commonwealth must come together and find surpluses on one side to stop drainage in other sides. We are one commonwealth and we must save us! From there we will have the stability to come to the European aide, especially with affordable medication.

This side was ignored by the USA as the cash was flowing so nicely. Guess what, we are all broke and we need to find WORKABLE alternatives. The ones we claim to have at present do not work!

Let me also take a step back. This is not an anti-American thing, they are welcome to be part of this (even as a non-Commonwealth nation) and the issue is that they have been blocking affordable solutions through the FDA for a long time. What was good for Canadian was apparently not good enough for Americans and cheaper medication. The information from RxRights.org stated: “Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP Act). This new act moves far beyond COICA’s blacklist of pharmacy websites. It would categorize all non-U.S. based online pharmacies as a risk to public health. It would require that Internet service providers and search engines block these sites that credit card companies stop their payments. Even worse, under this new law, Canadian and international pharmacies would be prohibited from defending themselves against those who shut them down“. This situation is even more ridiculous as this is instigated by a president claiming to bring ‘affordable‘ healthcare. If that were true, then why not let people find the cheapest option? Is a Canadian less than an American? No, it is all about a Democratic party with minus 17 trillion and they are firmly in the pockets of big pharmacy! That is the part and the Commonwealth cannot afford this shallow minded greed based approach. We must entertain the best option for the Commonwealth. As General Motors left Australia for cheaper options in China, so we must find our cheaper options in India and the TPP will not help us here. Signing it would be a massive mistake. By the way, all them Americans spamming my email for cheap Viagra was legal? Interesting double standard the FDA has.

We can see more in regards to Indian patents (at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/all-that-matters/Changes-to-Indias-patent-law-will-impact-prices-of-life-saving-drugs/articleshow/32519848.cms), of course, as it is the Indian Times, it would be all in favour of India, but are the facts incorrect? That part is in debate on several issues. One question that has not been answered over a term of at least two years is “Access to Medicines – Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA allow governments to produce and/or obtain affordable, generic medications for sick people?”

That is not just the question which is not answered; it is one if the questions that seem to be actively avoided whilst the TPP is continued behind closed doors. The response from Doctors without borders is “Governments have a responsibility to ensure that public health interests are not trampled by commercial interests, and must resist pressures to erode hard-fought legal safeguards for public health that represent a lifeline for people in developing countries.”

This is at the heart of the issues for the Commonwealth, because if these steps stop affordable medication, then there will be no healthcare at all, the Commonwealth nations will be broke as they are decimated through age and sickness, after that what will be left of Western Europe?

It is only a first step; if we look at the NHS, then staffing and expertise are also a worry, which is by the way a worry in many Commonwealth Nations. Most of these nations have well over 5% unemployed; can some not be re-schooled in the healthcare sector? In the UK many IT trained staff are without a job, can they not help rebuild the NHS IT systems? Too many issues that are overlapping and someone threw away 10 billion. It is time to rewrite the tactical guide and start building a solution that will work. Sitting at home will not help anyone, not even one’s self.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 10, 2014 · 11:41

Drop the waste!

In a week where we see more issues with the Ukraine, issues on Nigeria (which are disturbing indeed) and what I personally call a waste of TV time, which is the Oscar P. trial live on TV. That trial has all the makings. Established Olympic champion, beautiful, now dead woman and so on. The court papers interest me as a law graduate, where I did pass my Criminal aw, but overall, I do not care, simply because I am not working on it. I will be very interested to read the Judges verdict, but that would be all for now.

The part that did interest me was of a slightly more sustained side; the article on ‘future foods’ gave us a few tit bits that are, pardon the pun, delicious!

Stated was that “when the population grows to 9.1 billion by 2050, food production would have to grow by 70%“. As our population has gone past 6 billion now, the interesting consequence from this statement is that food is already growing in short supply. One statement made was that people in the western world seem to chuck 50% unused or unfinished. This is HUGE! I know that I chucked two things myself last week. Two packages that I had forgotten about, and when I saw the ‘May 2012’ last night, I thought it would be OK (read essential) to chuck them and not try to inflict food poisoning on myself.

50% of wasted food is a huge amount and I am for the most still trying to wrap my brain about that part. Another side to this is that engineers are looking into solutions where we can eat the packaging. The man made references to the apple (not the Steve Jobs products). This approach makes perfect sense to me. Go to any place where they have a green section and we see the apple, the tomato and other articles, where we can basically rinse of the skin with a little water and start eating these ‘goodies’. Here is a novel idea (actually not that novel). What if we pick up a prepared paprika pasta salad, filled with salad components and we can eat on the move or sit down, spoon out the salad, eat the package and our lunch is done. It will drastically reduce the solid municipal waste on many levels. But that does not get us that 50% wasted food we need to deal with, will it?

Consider that retail is all about profit. Would we pay the same $1.35 (99p) for that package of chips when we get 30% less? This is at the heart of it all. This is what those big malls rely on in the US; get much more for the $1 package. I get that and most families will never not eat the very last chip in the package, so we have an issue with the ability to get rid of 50% of food that is not eaten.

In my mind this is a first sign, that greed driven economics are driving us to starvation. And my evidence for this is?

This is of course the issue with any thought. If we need to grow production by 70% in one generation and we see the shortages on space to grow crops, we should expect that our goose be cooked to some extent. Add to this the fact that whatever path we take we will have to pay more, and that is only a reality if our income go up by a decent amount. Yet, it is not about the money. The Swipe article (on Sky TV) also showed us a 3d printer, were food is getting printed on crackers, then this is not an immediate concern if you have seen the narrative of Stephen Fry talking about a 3d chocolate printer. Now consider that this is a protein paste that is processed from insects. How hungry are you now? Is this the future? Well I saw that in the Lion King, and I say Hakuna Matata to you too, I need a steak!

Am I short sighted in that regard? Well, quite possibly, but the food shortage that some face even today, whilst many in the (at the moment) not so hungry western worlds are chucking 50% is cause and reason for concern for all.

I think that food is at the centre, and perhaps even at the core of waste we need to deal with, but that core is for now greed based. I agree that the consumer side is not greed based, but getting more for that same dollar is at the heart of our food needs as we are trying to make ends meet in these harsh times. We buy from places that are all profit driven, which is the first part of that problem and I see no solution at present for that obstacle.

Greed remains our number one foe!

That side is shown in even more clarity when we consider Twitter (the Tweet and Send company). So, not too long ago, the results of Twitter were shown and the stocks dropped! Why? Twitter did its business and is still doing its business. It even nearly doubled its advertisements income in just over a year. I see that this should be reason for a massive party on all levels. Getting well over 90% growth from a division that was making some nice coin is just good and those people should be given a large bottle of bubbly (and there will be no waste when that bottle is drunk, believe me). Yet, analysts claim that Twitter is not growing its base of new members enough, which caused the decline.

So are these analysts just morons, enemies of the people or is it THEIR greed that is the real danger? It seems to me that Twitter is not a saturated market at present, but what is saturation? In my view Twitter is a much more usable business tool then Facebook ever will be! I see a real daily need for Twitter (I never saw a daily need for Facebook). This is at the core and these two issues do link. Our food needs are not set by us either; they are dictated to us by our internal fears and by economists driving these fears for THEIR needs.

Consider my Australian example. “Which single person has rejected a full loaf of ‘nameless’ at $3.99 for a 2/3rd loaf of Lawsons (Stonemill) at $4.35?” This is the serious question. Apart from the fact that I personally think that Lawsons bread tastes better, it was about the 1/3rd less. At the third day the bread is at the edge of what I call ‘just for toasting’ and as I have 2 slices left it is not an issue for me. I stated ‘single’, as families have these smaller elements (kids), which tend to be hungry all the time. To buy what you need is at the core, and even though it would be nice that this is a little cheaper, getting what you need, not what you can get, remains at the very centre of the feeding frenzied danger we are all facing within the next two decades.

When people decide to completely disagree on these matters (which remains a fair call), then consider he past we had. In the mid 70’s we saw a movie called ‘Soylent Green’. This movie gave us a scary view of a future, which was denounced by many as a possible future. Spokespeople from every walk of life (economy and politics) did not see this as any reality ever. The shot with the crowded streets in New York (a similar view is already reality in India), the fact that real jam was extremely expensive, an option we are still racing towards when you consider that in some places you pay $8 for a small slice of Salmon, which is almost 120% more then what I paid for in 2010. So the movie ends up giving us the small fact that the seaweed extract ‘Soylent Green’ turns out to be made out of processed dead people. Well, we are not there yet, but considering that processed insects are a possible new protein source, is that future really so farfetched?

We need to start getting clever about the needs we actually have, not about what we can get for the $20 we get to live on. We have come at the mercy of analyst, they seem to condemn places that achieve 90% revenue growth, but they will set us in a place where our lives revolve on the $0.02 share increase at whatever cost it takes. People and Politicians are setting a stage and state where we are listening to the wrong voices.

I am not stating that I have the right voice, but I do know that these economic analysts are definitely the wrong voice to listen to.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Science

Tagged as , , , , , ,