Who am I kidding? (Weekend cartoon)

How You Will Pay For Things In 2025

Hard to imagine yet but possible!
Article from Zero Hedge on July 17, 2019

This Is How You Will Pay For Things In 2025

A startup in Sweden called Biohax International has microchipped more than 4,000 people across the country who can use their hands to open secured doors, replace credit cards and cash, pay for transportation tickets, and share emergency information with medical personnel, reported New York Post.

The microchip is about the size of a grain of rice, and the procedure to inject it into a hand costs about $180 -- is similar to getting a vaccination.

"It's very 'Black Mirror,'" Swedish scientist Ben Libberton told The Post.

Biohax founder Jowan Österlund told Fortune magazine that his chips are considered "moonshot" technology --  has sparked institutional interest in the last 6 to 8 months. Some have even said they want to take the technology of microchipping humans to a global level.

"Tech will move into the body," Österlund said. "I am sure of that."

Österlund said the tiny microchips are implanted in the hand allows people to unlock doors or gym lockers, operate office printers, pay for lunch, or purchase a train ticket, all with their hand.

The company has positioned itself for the cashless society, expected to flourish in Europe in the next several years.
Österlund insists the technology is completely safe -- but said some people fear the chips could fall victim to cybercriminals.

Libberton told The Post that the potential health benefits of internal microchips would be accurate health metrics taken from within the body.

"Think if the Apple Watch could measure things like blood glucose," he said.

Libberton suggested that if big corporations got a hold of this highly personalized data - it would be super invasive.

"The problem is, who owns this data?" he asked. "Do I get a letter from my insurance company saying premiums are going up before I know I'm ill? If I use the chip to buy lunch, go to the gym and go to work, will someone have all of this info about me? Is this stored and is it safe?"

Libberton added, "It's not just about the chip, but integration with other systems and data sharing."
Those who have been chipped don't have to worry about being followed by the government or corporations, that is because the chips aren't powered, thus cannot support GPS or 3G, LTE, and or 5G.
There are a handful of companies progressing human microchipping at the moment, such as Cyberise. Me, in Melbourne, Australia, Three Square Market in Wisconsin and Dangerous Things in Seattle.
The proliferation of human microchipping and the cashless society could become more widespread when governments ban cash after the next global reset.
So basically Biohax is an eyeopener into how you will pay for things in 2025.

Why inflation is higher than it seems

This is an instructive article from Wolfstreet
Published on July 13th, 2019 that you can find on:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/07/13/my-advice-to-the-fed-on-low-inflation-use-different-index-tell-bls-to-be-less-aggressive-with-hedonic-quality-adjustments/

Why inflation is higher that officially recorded?
In reality, as explained, the Fed, and every other financial authorities could restate inflation to announce: "Mission accomplished!"
But of course they won't. The Fed is by nature obliged to give some "room" to the government and that room takes the shape of a missing 1% of inflation per year which allows deficits to be higher than otherwise possible.

We are currently in a deflationary period thanks to technology and globalization. This means that whatever inflation we have is entirely manufactured. One day this will end, resources will become scarce again and inflation will explode. Until then, let's enjoy the ride!

The Fed could instantly claim victory and pocket the kudos.

For the first time in history, the Fed is officially and vocally considering the use of monetary policy to increase inflation, or at least inflation expectations. On Friday, it was the turn of Chicago Fed President Charles Evans to drill this message into the minds of recalcitrant consumers and workers, whose fruits of their labor get eaten up by inflation:
“Because inflation expectations seem to be below our 2% objective and it’s been stubborn…it tells me our current setting for policy is on the restrictive side,” he told reporters. He sees two rate cuts this year, of 25 basis points each, not because the economy needs it, but to hammer into consumers and workers that their hard-earned dollars weren’t losing their purchasing power fast enough, and that they should change their attitude and gratefully expect more inflation.
But the problem isn’t that there isn’t enough consumer price inflation. There’s plenty. Everyone has their stories. Inflation is different for everyone. When your rent rises 10%, and 50% of what you earn goes to rent, and when in addition, your health insurance premium rises 30%, and 20% of what you earn goes to health insurance, no matter how you look at it, you’ve got a shitload of inflation on
your hands.
And so that you can deal with this increase in your costs of living, there is 3% wage inflation, hahahahaha….

Other people don’t face those kinds of massive inflation pressures. They may live in places were rents are flat. People who own their homes – over 60% of households do – face little inflation on the housing front unless they move. Electronics, furniture, appliances, apparel, shoes, and many other things have gotten cheaper over the years if you know how to use the internet. So it all depends. And it all gets averaged out across the US, across everyone in the US, and this data gets summarized in various consumer-price inflation indices.
The consumer price inflation index the Fed uses as yardstick for its 2% “price stability” target is the PCE index. This index usually shows the least inflation of the major indices. And the Fed focuses on the PCE index without food and energy because those two categories are highly volatile; food and gasoline prices can surge and plunge.
The Fed’s target is “symmetrical,” as it keeps saying, meaning that inflation can be a little above or below target without triggering a monetary response.
Then there is the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. It too comes with a “core” version without food and energy, which makes it a lot less volatile. The CPI is usually higher than the PCE index.
There are constant complaints about CPI – that it doesn’t reflect the full brunt of increases in costs of living that consumers and workers experience. As mentioned above, everyone experiences inflation differently, and no one is going to be happy with any national average, but that’s what we’ve got.
Nevertheless, core CPI is a notch less unrealistic than core PCE. The chart shows core PCE (blue) and core CPI (red), and the Fed’s target (green). Note how the red line (core CPI) has been slightly above or below the Fed’s target in a fairly “symmetrical” manner since the Great Recession. If the Fed chooses core CPI as its target, its mission of “2% price stability” is accomplished, and would have been accomplished for years, and it can pocket the global kudos for “accomplishing” its mission:

To further improve the Fed’s success ratio, after switching its yardstick to core CPI, the Fed could have harangued the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which puts the CPI together, to be less aggressive with “hedonic quality adjustments.”
The “hedonic quality adjustments” make sense on a conceptual level. For example, with cars. They are a lot better today in myriad ways than they were in 1980. Performance, comfort, safety (multiple airbags, side-impact protection bars, crumple zones, antilock brakes, traction control, warning systems, etc.), electronics to dream of in the 1980s, backup cameras, suspension systems, emission control systems, materials, durability, etc. All this costs money to develop and build.
So if new cars get better year after year, this additional cost, as it is added to the price of the car, is conceptually not inflation because you’re getting a better product, and so you’re paying more for it. Your cost of living goes up, but you’re presumably safer and more comfortable and get better quality of life.
This is a key thing about inflation: If your cost of living goes up because you’re buying higher quality products, the portion attributed to the costs of higher quality is not inflation: Yes, life gets more expensive, but it gets better presumably, and that part is not inflation. Inflation is when the same thing with the same qualities gets more expensive.
So price increases that are based on product improvements are adjusted out of the inflation index. These “hedonic quality adjustments” for new vehicles are based on these factors, according to the BLS: Reliability, durability, safety, fuel economy, maneuverability, speed, acceleration/deceleration, carrying capacity, comfort or convenience, and added or deleted equipment.
This gives us a situation where new vehicle prices show essentially no inflation since 1997, while actual transaction prices have surged:

Conceptually, I get these quality adjustments. But they’re applied to many items, such as consumer electronics and the biggie, housing costs (rent and “owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence,” meaning a nicer apartment, house, or condo). And even slightly aggressive quality adjustments, spread across the items in the basket, have a significant impact in the peculiar world of judging the Fed, where folks labor over one or two-tenth of a percentage point – say, an annual inflation rate of 1.8% (below target = Fed failed) versus 2.0% (on target = Fed succeeded).
But these quality adjustments are aggressive – and likely overly aggressive by enough to where actual inflation is understated by some relatively small amount that makes a huge difference with regards to monetary policy where a change of five-tenth of a percentage point can cause Fed judgers to go into hyperventilation, especially on the undershoot side.
So the Fed needs to first switch its yardstick from core PCE to core CPI, which would solve just about all of its current “low inflation” problem in one fell swoop.
And then, once the switch is accomplished, the Fed needs to lay out the data points for the BLS to be less aggressive in its quality adjustments. Just a tad here and there. And core CPI, even with today’s price data, would be uncomfortably high above the Fed’s target and “low inflation” would be vanquished.
The Fed could claim victory on the “low inflation” front and pocket the kudos and build its iron-clad credibility that it will always vanquish “low inflation.” And then, it could switch its rhetoric back to fretting over how to contain inflation, and how this spurt in inflation was just “transitory,” or whatever.

Sunday's algo (Weekend cartoon)

Algorithm are more and more crucial, not always better written and almost always relying on older ones!

The Japanese model

PS: The video proper starts at 2:33!

This is an interesting take at the Japanese model and living in Japan I agree with most of the points.

There are still a few not so minor problems to solve:

The debt which is exploding.

The dependence on trade in a world less an less trade friendly.

The imbalance between the growths in the cities especially Tokyo and the accelerated decline of the countryside.

Managing the risk of a major earthquake which will unavoidably strike the capital and other cities sooner or later.

Relations with the neighbors, China, Korea and Russia which are not good in spite of increased mutual reliance.

But this said, yes the Japanese model is unique and may represent a different way to move forward.

This nevertheless presuppose that Japan declining population will stabilize at around 100 million in 20 years as the video explains. But how is this going to happen when at that time, the decline will be close to 1 million people per year!

In this respect, it is worth remembering that population statistics are the most predictable of all projections.

The effects of AI on our society

This video is called "Global Economic Collapse" but it's not that. It is an interesting reflection on the effects of AI on our society and especially on jobs. It is compared to the advent of the automobile in New York at the beginning of the 20th century when suddenly, in less than 10 years, cars replaced horses displacing millions of jobs, just much worse, as this time it is 10s of millions of jobs which will be displaced and most will not be replaced putting stress on our social structures beyond what has happened in the past.

This is not the future, it is happening right now and it will keep accelerating over the coming decades. The robots are really coming this time. So what should we do?

What is the future of Facebook?

Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal last year when Facebook gave direct access to a client list to Cambridge Analytica for political purpose, the demise of the platform has been announced every other day. Meanwhile the numbers did not support the assertion. (see Social Media trends in 2019 )

That was until last week when suddenly data from the UK showed a stark inflection. There has been an impact indeed! (see exodus-britons-abandon-facebook-usage-plummets )

How much? Difficult to say yet. The data is limited to the UK which for obvious reasons is the country where you expect the impact to be maximum since Cambridge Analytica was in the news for months. But the earlier example of MySpace shows that the Internet is fickle and the fall from grace can be swift.

At this stage, we should expect Facebook usage numbers to plateau over the coming months. Most developed markets are mature and unlikely to grow much. The company confirmed this point when they said that from now on they would focus on markets like India where the potential is in the hundreds of millions. (But the unit is people which means that the income will be in Rupiahs, not dollars or pounds!)

The scandal may be behind and it is likely that Facebook will be more careful now but the underlying principle of the "free" Internet remains the same: "When it's free, "you" are the product." and this is starting to be understood by more and more people.

This should not be a "problem" as such. The information that Facebook extracts from us is anonymized and provided to clients as cluster data so that companies can target "35 to 45 years old employees" for example, improving their targeting and hopefully the quality and relevance of the advertising we see on the platform.   
But targeting itself is a moving target which "more" data helps refine. How much more data do they need to do the job right? In reality, there is of course no limit to the amount of data you want to analyze and this is where new concerns about privacy arise. (see The end of privacy - How AI will destroy our privacy )



The exercise is fraught with risks as eventually you necessarily kill privacy. It is unavoidable as explained in the article above. When you are dealing with millions of information "points" about people, patterns start to emerge and these patterns can easily be analyzed with AI (Artificial Intelligence) and big data tools to give unique insight about individuals.... killing privacy.

This is what Steve Wozniak is telling us in a stark and direct way when advising people to close their Facebook accounts now! (see Apple Cofounder Steve Wozniak's Dire Warning: Delete Your Facebook Account Now )

Will people listen? Should they? It depends. For most people it doesn't matter. This is not an assessment but the lesson of 20 years of social media on the Internet. Short of a major scandal, most people simply do not care, and even then it is quickly forgotten. But as discussed above, big data is a moving target and its growth is not only relentless but exponential. So the question becomes, "When will people stop acquiescing quietly?"

Well, the answer from the UK is in and it seems to be, "Now, but slowly" As Facebook answered, it may not matter much since the company can easily outgrow in India (for example) whatever market share is lost in developed countries. But this presupposes that everyone is worth the same. This may be true of human beings as such but certainly not as ROI (return on investment)!

Could this be what we are starting to see now: Static numbers but lower profits? This is quite possible and in that case the future of Facebook may indeed be much less bright than the shares of the companies on NASDAQ indicate. We will see what comes out of the US market in the coming months.