RE: Creating Value. Several months ago, in response to “the next big thing” question, a guest of yours replied, “I can’t say for sure what it will be but it will create value!” and I found myself nodding along with it, just accepting that on its face. As I thought about that statement later in the day I came to realize it was just a business blandishment, like “buy low and sell high“, with no real meat on the bone, no method just direction. Everything that has been done with the economy since the market crash, the too small infrastructure projects and the too large Fed intervention, none of it has created any real value. Unlike the Great Depression which gave us roads and dams and lasting projects too numerous to mention (most of which are still in use 80 years later) this Great Recession has netted us what? Please tell me, I missed it. I keep hearing the “housing is only 5% of the economy” argument, over and over, but it’s the 5% that creates a lasting value, a value to the country that lasts decades. The government gives a tax break for new IT spending: hey, terrific, create 0 jobs and give business a break on equipment they’ll be replacing just about the time they finish installing it. Don’t get me wrong, I love the whole tech thing, very clean and shiny, but all that effort just to save a little money on accounting, demographic research (yes, social media is a bubble, Erin, if you look at what it really does: targeted marketing-that’s it) and, let’s not forget, robots, who actually destroy jobs just when we need them. I’m just saying, I remember what daisy-chains used to mean before the nerds got a hold of the phrase but perhaps it will mean the same thing in the end. People keep saying the economy’s building a lasting momentum and I have to wonder on what exactly? On tech that’s outdated by the time a consumer buys it, on the constant churn of the steadily devalued consumer’s dollars, on a Fed bloated market? What are we doing right now that will have an effect 80 years from now? Well, I hear in one of the New England states (I want to say New Hampshire) they’re painting over a mural that honors working class Americans because they think it sends a “socialist” message. If art is the simple, and subtle, answer to a complex question, painting over that mural qualifies as performance art in just the irony of it but that IS the first time in a long time a painter has gotten paid by the government, so at least that’s something. Wait till the conservatives find out about that. All the Best, TVA Ps. I’m old enough to remember when England used to actually make things, not just exchange paper, but they had a recession in the 70’s that they responded to, well, just like we’re responding to this one. Ask Simon how that’s worked out overall. (I really miss Triumph cars…) Pss. Erin, you’ve got to quit looking at me like that. I’m only human and, at that, just barely so. Oh, what the hell, it’s okay, I can handle it. Continue.
(The interesting thing about this post is it was sent on the last day Erin worked at CNBC and I had no idea she was leaving until she said goodbye to Mark Haines. BTW, her farewell to him was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen... Easy to find on the internet if you've never seen it.)
(The interesting thing about this post is it was sent on the last day Erin worked at CNBC and I had no idea she was leaving until she said goodbye to Mark Haines. BTW, her farewell to him was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen... Easy to find on the internet if you've never seen it.)
