TECHNOLOGY and MEDIA

 

Steve Jobs - robber baron?

 

Anyone who has read this blog before under Technology or Media knows I have never been an Apple fan.

 

The upcoming bio-pic, Jobs, is said to cover his strengths, quirks and Howard Hughes-like behaviours and autocratic style.  It was his way or the highway. 



His ability was to copy and re-shape devices and services already created by others - into cool(er) looking (usually white) items that were promoted and hyped spectacularly, created the illusion of an innovative (sometimes) genius (at marketing).



Job's iTune store has been a smash success far beyond the dreams of the small companies that pioneered that niche, and his entry into e-books, again, following others, has made the company a mint of cash.



But in the last week of July, a long running charge of predatory practices and market manipulation came to a head - with a ruling that Steve Jobs and Apple, by compelling e-book creators to sell at a fixed price set by Apple - thereby guaranteeing Apple's profit margin and blocking lower competition - was ILLEGAL.   In fact, the final decision came with the requirement that Apple introduce an 'Ethics' office to ensure such blatently unethical, monopolistic pressure tactics - that clearly crossed the legal line - never happen again with any Apple products and dealings.



Put simply, Steve Jobs, who personally spearheaded this e-book arrangement, had crossed the line and was acting like a robber baron of the past.

 

YOUR HEALTH

Behold the light!

Soon, blindness due to macular degeneration, diabetes, etc. or defective light sensing cells from birth will be reversible as scientists in the United Kingdom have discovered how to use stem cells to regenerate photoreceptors and vision.

This great news is reported in Maclean’s, August 12, 2013 issue, p. 10 --  buried among other “Goods News’ tidbits and ending with the tacky line “Which means even more people may be able to see the [newborn] royal baby [son of William and Kate]”.

So far, I have not read or hear more about this fantastic and major breakthrough in North American media.

Too bad, because it is more important and beneficial to millions around the world – present and future – than much of the Hollywood, scandal and Panda bear drivel that fills our news.

For a full report – with colour diagram - you have to go to the British newspaper The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/21/embryonic-stem-cells-sight-blind-retinas) or the original publication in Nature.  The underlined, key facts were not mentioned by Maclean’s; only The Guardian.

* * * * * * *

Good for science and, by the way, say thanks to former president George W Bush.  He banned using aborted fetus material for scientific research and cloning studies.  So scientists went to an alternative approach – stem cells: from our own skin and bodies, and thereby eliminating as well rejection issues.

Technology and Media

Cell Phones - hitting the wall while revolutionizing banking

The cell phone era of revolution and hardware/software innovation seems to have come to an end in the last few weeks as incremental evolution has taken over the previously hot and dynamic smart phone handset market.

With Blackberry’s Q10 and Z10 and its new operating system, iPhone’s OS upgrade and improvements to Android, we seem to now be at a stage where nothing more of significance can be developed – at least in the hardware.

The wall has been reached and smart phone ‘new handset’ sales have already started to level off and decline in North America.  BlackBerry’s new phones will be going on massive discounts in the U.S. to clear up pre-bought supply by cell phone service providers, and the latest and greatest Samsung smart phone, the super thin and faster Galaxy S4 has barely caused a ripple or stir.  No standard newspaper or popular magazine reviews. The subject is now almost passé.

And once thinner becomes the new ‘feature’, as with Apple’s ‘major’ focus last year for its desktop screen ‘breakthrough’, and the Samsung Galaxy S4, how thin does a monitor or handset really have to be?  Is  0.8 cm that much better or needed than 1.1 cm of depth?  And is not the trade-off between thinner and lighter VS stronger and more durable metal a fool’s game, as new smart phones require extra screen protection and drop protection cases that suddenly balloon their size to handsets of a half-decade ago.

So what is the future for this hardware industry, especially North America’s Apple and BlackBerry, and for    market investors (i.e., hotshot speculators)?

Answer:

1. Cheaper smart phones for the poor masses of Africa and Asia -- like the Blackberry Q5 already on sale in emerging countries and soon to be followed by an iPhone version.  And hopefully soon. Walmart prices for us too!

2. Using smart phones as they do in Africa – using apps such as M-Pesa - to buy food and goods without the need for cash, ATMs, local bank branches and—most importantly – NO CREDIT OR DEBIT CARDS that waste plastic and bloat our wallets. Smart phone instant bank transactions is now rapidly spreading like wildfire across Asia, with Barclay’s finally and tentatively introducing this African breakthrough to the U.K. as Pingit.

It’s anyone guess when North (and South) America will be allowed to catch up to Africa, as we are usually the last on the planet to implement banking changes.  If almost illiterate people in Kenya can buy a hot dog or its equivalent from a food vendor on a dusty road, both using their cheap smart phones to complete and verify the sale by text messaging – wirelessly and instantly sending the money through the banking cloud in the sky -- maybe highly educated Americans, the so-called world leaders in technology, will eventually catch up!

In this race, with billions of people doing transactions simultaneously, BlackBerry has the edge -- as its encryption is the world’s best and its messaging system the fastest and cheapest (as it uses the least broadband per call).

 

Corollaries:

Smart phone banking will have the following and easily predictable results:

1. Elimination of plastic credit cards and a halleluiah moment for environmentalists and anyone with a bulging wallet.  Without credit/debit cards galore, a greater surplus of the raw materials should lower the cost of other plastic goods, even panty hose.  Maybe even reduce demand and costs up the stream to crude oil prices.

2. Massive reduction in ‘debt charge’ interest rates as the billions lost to credit card theft and fraud is eliminated and the banks behind the system no longer need to jack up charges to more than 5% to 6% ‘interest’.

3. Say goodbye to stand alone and even bank branch ATMs.

4. Say goodbye to many local bank branches and most teller jobs – sorry, but these job losses are inevitable.

5. Say goodbye to U.S.-style small banks and small credit unions as the big guys will team up with the big service providers such as Verizon or Bell and buy up all available bandwidth in bulk.

    **** My prediction is only 5 banks will remain standing in the U.S. and probably only 2 in Canada.

6. The paper trail of receipts, credit card print outs in duplicate or triplicate, ATM receipts and teller paper slips will all disappear and go into text messaging ether. 

So expect, at last, the promised decline in paper use and manufacture that was promised some 3 decades ago with the invention of computers and floppy disks. Boy was that a joke for the last 30 years!  Tree huggers rejoice while paper manufacturers retrench.

So, in the end, banking will go through a gut retching downsizing and transformation not seen since the invention of paper money, while billions of people world over smile ear to ear as buying and selling gets easier and faster and with far less time and effort and hassle. The extra so-to-speak money in their so-to-speak pockets from reduced ‘charges’ and less wear and tear on shoe soles or car tires will make life a lot cheaper and free time more abundant.

All thanks to the invention of the smart phone and some bright people in Africa.

 

YOUR MONEY

Media Market Shills – oil, gas and the Real Future

Anyone who has read my blob before under this tab heading knows I consider most Bull market analysts, all 680News radio business reports, and many newspaper business sections simply shills hawking fool’s gold, soaring stock prices and priming the average investor’s gambling bug to jump into the market and get rich – or – dirt poor – on their biased advice.

Reality and probability play less and less in their ‘advice’ as a rumour or some data out of China or anything affecting oil supplies and shipments suddenly turns the stock market world upside down. Their goal is not to ensure your future wealth and retirement funds, but to ramp up stock broker and financial investment FEES and COMMISSIONS!

NB: Contrary to common belief, no stockbroker committed suicide by jumping out of a skyscraper in October 1929, because they were all too busy and too elated with so much trade volume (and commissions) that it looked like an early Christmas-bonus time!!!

Yes, slowing export growth in China and less Chinese demand for raw materials is the future and will affect commodity prices and such businesses, but this should not be surprising. 

The Great Recession (which is now 6 year on and still running, and which historians will re-label as a 10+ year DEPRESSION) has reduced European and North American demand for Chinese cheap goods but that is not the main factor.  10% or higher Chinese industrial growth is no longer viable because no country can keep on growing and growing forever – especially at 10% or higher a year. 

And China is now a ‘first world’ nation (the second largest economy in the world) with skyscrapers and super-trains and super-highways, and has wisely realized the future is as a ‘consumer economy’ – with its well over a billion ‘customers’.

As for the price of oil, it should be falling,  just like natural gas, because so much of it – and clean natural gas – is being discovered and pumped out all over the world. North American pipelines are filled and even trains are being converted to move these gifts of Gaia. At pipe and rail costs of from $3 to $13 a barrel U.S., and supply outrunning demand in North America for the next decade or more, there is no justification for West Texas crude being anywhere above US $85 a barrel let alone the current run up past US $100!!

In 2011, according to the Saudi OPEC representative, , the Canadian tar sands were the most expensive source of crude on the planet and, according to his insider information, was profitable at US$70 a barrel!!!!   And fracking is cheaper!!!!

Again, as a Saudi royal family member stated this week, U.S. oil and gas production is threatening  the OPEC cartel pricing and endangers Saudi Arabia’s economy and society – which depends  95% on oil revenues!

So, expect abundant worldwide oil and gas leading to lower prices at the pump and your home furnace very, very soon; and anyone who relies on super-inflated prices for these commodities is looking at bankruptcy!! 

Also say goodbye to Wind Power – that economic fiasco – and even high cost solar power.

Put simply, the future and bounty of the earth, the gifts of Gaia to mankind, are all underground; not in the distant Sun and not the unreliable whims of the wind.

YOUR MONEY

Is the Globe and Mail finally reading my blog?

The day after allocating most of its July 31, 2013 Report on Business section to the breakup of the potash cartel of 2 companies and bemoaning the event because one was a Canadian “robber baron” whose stock would be plummeting soon, the Globe and Mail, August 1,2013 allotted an equally large, front B1 report on the flip side of the cartel’s demise – as stressed in my last blog.

The expected drop in potash fertilizer prices,  it states, will especially benefit farmers in  “China, India and Brazil” (B1) and their populations and markets – or, in other words, at least the            2.84 billion people who current live in those three lands and who alone account for a whopping 40% of the world’s entire population (see  http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/) .

The 8” x 5” massive picture used (B1) counterbalances the same size image of  Canpotex’s potash storage pile from the day before, and  shows two men collecting cut grain stalks by hand and about to place them in a wicket basket;  clearly, the message is these people are the poor, those at the bottom of agricultural technology.

So did the Globe and Mail read my scathing blog of yesterday?  Probably not in time for the August 1 newspaper run at 3 to 4 a.m., so others must have responded more quickly when they read their morning paper – delivered about 6:00 a.m..  And there must have been enough outrage and flak from individuals and groups for the Globe and Mail to rush and create this second, flip-side, major report.

Too bad it did not think the issue through from the start and give balanced coverage on day one!

Oh, and the G&M’s mea culpa and social conscience was clearly half-hearted, because the August 1 issue, on page 10, has a major advice piece – are you ready for this – advocating buying potash shares for those willing to take a high risk gamble.

Yes, the media game of encouraging stocks and buy, buy, buy never gives up!!!

 

YOUR MONEY

When is monopoly a good?

 The Report on Business section of the Globe and Mail, July 31, 2013,is dominated by articles on the split in the cartel that control’s the global potash industry.

Two companies, one Canadian, the Canpotex group, and the other Russian have cornered 68% of the world’s market and ‘determined’ prices to customers and countries around the world as they saw fit. The Russian co-venture partners: Urakalin and Belaruskali have split and promise to compete for market share.  (G&M, pB1)

This should be a GOOD NEWS story for two reasons:

1. Monopoly and cartels are the bane of free capitalism and have been considered the great enemy since Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency and his cartel busting legislation that ended the era of the so-called “robber barons”.

Having two or even three companies collude and set world potash prices should be unacceptable and illegal at 68% of market share.  OPEC by comparison is tolerated because it only controls some 40% of world sales. So were have governments and the World Trade authority been on this file?

2. Potash prices are expected to drop world-wide: benefiting millions if not billions of people as farmers and nation states who import this crucial fertilizer will be able to feed their populations and increase world food supplies at lower costs!

 

But the G&M sees this change as a singular disaster because the Canadian cartel member is just that, Canadian, and its stock price will plummet!

Too bad the G&M cares so little for the farmers of Canada who barely make ends meet with inflated oil and potash prices, or the end consumer – you and me – who buy food that goes up or down with the price of potash and oil.

But this should not be surprising. 

G&M’s Report on Business section, like most market media reporting, is a stock market mouthpiece promoting buy, buy, buy and shilling for broker commissions and fee; and does not look beyond tomorrow’s stock price.

Yes, potash company profits which have been soaring will drop and supply-demand forces will dictate prices again – as they are supposed to in Economic 101.

It is a GOOD NEWS STORY for capitalism, ordinary consumers the world over and the future, but the G&M’s reporters and analysts do not see this. Their crystal balls are too clouded and distorted by short term greed.

And Warren Buffett, in America’s agricultural heartland, will be smiling and continue to plan for the long term benefit of his shareholders and all the people of America.

JUST DO THE MATH

Has the U.N. food agency lost its mind, and the Globe and Mail?

This week the UN report FAO: The State of Food and Agriculture 2013 ( found at http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3300e/i3300e00.htm) was highlighted in a  half-page spread in the  Globe and Mail, July 15, 2013 L3 “Obesity is taking on epic proportions globally” which was simply a list of statistics and an oversized, fat-at–the-waist globe graphic.

The data and G&M focus on obesity is interesting as the actual report mentions the issue but it is almost - but not quite - buried in the 79 page report -- whose actual focus is on world hunger and malnutrition.

Obesity, in fact, accounts for less than 4% of the print space and UN focus.  The country by country obesity statistics used by the G&M are from the tables of the Statistical Annex, pp. 71-79, and are the last column of five columns; the first four focusing on malnutrition and its effects on child growth stunting (col 1), Anaemia (col 2), Vitamin A Deficiency (col 3) and Iodine deficiency (col 4).

So why the G&M focus on only the obesity data?

Because it is a hot issue and the new ‘enemy’.

And the UN statistics are horrendous – if they were credible!

Yes, the U.N. report mentions on p. 1 that 500 million people world-wide as of 2008 are obese. Pages 57-58 discuss the mixed results from enforced nutrition labels and reviews the literature on junk food advertising and beverage restriction recommendations.  And it concludes, p.60, that better nutrition education will help everyone: from the  2 billion who are malnourished to the millions who are obese; and of course, regular exercise is important.

What earth-shattering news!!!!

The Obesity numbers, country by country, as highlighted by the G&M, are truly dramatic.  The U.N. report in fact notes the obesity rates worldwide have gone up from 6% to 12% between 1980 and 2008 (p.12) citing the study by Stevens et al., 2012.

 

Canada is listed as having 24.1% of the adult population as obese (i.e., 1 in 4) and the U.S.A., in the actual report, Statistical Annex p. 79, is rated 31.8% (i.e., 1 in 3)!!!

If these numbers alone do not warn you that SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE UN METHOD OR CRITERIA FOR OBESITY, then the other statistics should.

The top 20 obese lands are Nauru at a whopping 71.1%, Cook Islands at 64.1%, Tonga at 59.6%, Samoa at 55.5%, Palau 50.7%, Marshall Islands 46.5%, Kiribati 45.8%, Kuwait 42.8%, Micronesia 42%, Saint Kits 35.2%, Saudi Arabia 35.2%, Belize 34.9%, Egypt 34.6%, Jordan 34.3%, U.A.E.  33.7%, South Africa 33.5%, Barbados 33.4%, Qatar 33.1% and Mexico at 32.8%.

At the opposite extreme are Bangladesh 1.1% obese, Ethiopia 1.2%, Nepal 1.5%, Vietnam 1.6%, Madagascar 1.7%, Eritrea 1.8%, D.R. Congo 1.9%, India 1.9%, Cambodia 2.3% and Burkina Faso at 2.4%.

Regionally, only Africa, Asia and Oceania are below 12% in obesity with the Americas and Europe all over 20% obese.

So what is going on here?

Since medical and government records are limited for many of the over 2.6 billion people of India and China (which make up over 1/3 of the world’s population) a tiny sample with massive extrapolation must have been used.  The same extrapolation would be needed for the Arab world and rest of Africa, so the statistic methods used may well be skewed.

What is more likely, and more important, is that the U.N.’s assumed ‘normal’ weight range is too low and does not sufficiently take into account the fact that once drought and famine are eliminated, people eat more and gain weight – returning to a more normal weight for their bodies under optimal – or more optimal -- food conditions.

But the real culprit in distorting the numbers is the BMI – again!!!!!

Too bad the G&M and U.N. did not pay more attention to this yardstick used in the report for determining obesity – the now highly disputed and error-prone BMI!!!

Yes, that BMI against which I have railed in previous blogs; using both more recent expert reviews and common sense observation: Do 1 in every 4 Canadians over age 19 look OBESE to you? – as the UN’s Canadian BMI statistic of 24.3% claims?

The U.N. report, to its credit, does give its BMI definition and mentions some concerns:

 

p. 72    Obesity

Adults over 20 years of age are considered obese when their body

mass index (BMI) is greater than or equal to 30. BMI equals body

weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared (kg/m2).

And it does point out that the BMI has been criticized by reputable experts, and has been shown to be especially unreliable regarding Asian populations.

To quote the U.N. report and its many caveats – which it then ignores --

 

p. 17 (my underlining)

 

Limitations of using the body mass index in measuring excessive body fat

Body mass index (BMI) is a convenient and widely available measure of underweight,overweight and obesity. It is a proxy measure of excessive body fat. BMI does not distinguish between weight from fatty tissue and that from muscle tissue;

nor does it indicate how an individual’s body mass is distributed. People who carry a disproportionate amount of weight around their abdomen are at a higher risk of various health problems; waist circumference can therefore be a useful measure to gain additional insight, but it is measured less often and less easily than BMI (National Obesity Observatory, 2009). BMI classifications were established based on risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but populations and individuals vary in terms of how BMI relates to both body fat composition and the prevalence of disease (WHO, 2000). The limitations of the international BMI classifications are particularly evident among Asian populations. For example, in 2002 an expert group, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), found that the Asian populations considered have a higher percentage of body fat as well as higher incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease at lower BMIs than do Caucasians (controlling for age and sex). However, the experts also found differences in the appropriate BMI cut-off points among the Asian populations themselves. The expert group decided to maintain the existing international standard classifications, but also recommended the development of an additional classification system for Asian populations that uses lower cut-offs and encouraged the use of country-specific cut-offs and the waist circumference measure (Nishida, 2004).

 

 True obesity is not, contrary to general belief and UN conclusions, simply the result of prosperity, good food supplies and manufactured food processing. It is a metabolism issue, not a food access issue.

Only surgery to reduce the size of one’s stomach or intestinal tract -- to allow for weight loss by reducing the body’s organs which extract calories from food – really works.

Even medically supervised, short-term weight loss dieting does not last,  and lifetime Weight Watcher programs are just that: lifetime semi-starvation to get that thinner look your body’s genetics refuse to allow under normal conditions.

So the U.N.’s report, like the other studies using the misguided and error filled BMI standard, is JUNK science and dangerous!!!

The outlandish numbers defy reason and what our eyes see all around us.

A reality check says they are wrong.

Shame on UN and shame on the Globe and Mail for promoting this false mania.