Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

Click Here for the exact time:

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/maya

(me and the wife are going to stand outside at 3:11am Vancouver time, not often you get to live through the end of a planet)

In 2008 I was working on a movie set (cruise ship jazz club) for a film called "2012". After work I would occasionally stop of at a totally excellent cafe called Brazza, in North Van and order myself a Machiato Dopio as an after work treat. One day I came in and the place was empty apart from one table accommodating two women and one man of a darker complexion. I got to talking about the days work at the film set with Misha, the barista and the conversation shifted to the theme of the movie and we started talking about the Mayan calendar, as well as the Aztec, Hopi, I-Ching calendars &c.. As we were talking the guy sitting with the two women stepped up to us from the periphery and commented:

• "Excuse my interruption but I could not help but to overhear your conversation. Allow me to introduce myself: My name is Juan Carlos, I am from the Yucatan. I am Mayan. Would you like to know what the Maya believe is the prophesy for the end of the Long Count Calendar?"

We said "sure, we'd love to".

• "The prophesy foretells of a new enlightenment of all mankind, where all of mankind will become aware of all of mankind. Peace on Earth. It is projected to take place over a fifty year period, twenty-five years either side of the Solstice of what we know as 2012.

Mishi and I took pause for thought. I thought about the scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allan pulled Marshall McLuhan out from behind a potted plant in order to successfully win an argument in a theatre queue ~ and how similar that was to this Mayan stepping up to our discussion. Then it occurred to me what had happened in the last twenty-one years with the advent of the internet, the cellular communications that ultimately led to the demolition of the Berlin Wall.... Since then we've had the Arab Spring, albeit still ironing out the rough edges.... I have the Faith that the Sun will indeed come back to us, even if it does take six bloody months of rain and overcast ~ at least in Canada ~ I can't speak for the rest of the world, perhaps we are the chosen ones.



A Blessed New 14th B'ak'tun to you and yours!

Falco.

Remember Godzilla Wednesday?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVEPvXBEOSE

I can't speak for the rest of the world, perhaps we are the chosen ones.

That's an understatement. Have you ever heard of the "bottom of the pyramid"? It is a marketing term for the 4 Billion people on this planet who survive off less than $2.50 a day? And when I say a marketing term, yes, this means there are corporations who seek to make profit from them (like cocacola.)

Our sense of entitlement is strong as ever, but lets face it, western democracy has been in steady decline since the late 60's. Anyone who remembers the 70s and before has witnessed this decline of the great American middle class (us included). That strong middle class is what fueled our economy, and our position as global leaders. A strong middle class also means a strong democracy.

I sure don't have much optimism that the next 25 years will reverse much of the damage to our way of life that neo liberalism has squandered away over the previous 25 years. And that's not even considering the hardships that a changing environment might bring. I'd say, tough times ahead.

The next century just might belong to China.

glenn wrote:Have you ever heard of the "bottom of the pyramid"? It is a marketing term for the 4 Billion people on this planet who survive off less than $2.50 a day?

I think you've been looking at information that someone with a political agenda has cooked. I just did a calculation based on data from the Penn World Tables (https://pwt.sas.upenn.edu/index.html) that suggests about 290 million people living on $2.50 a day or less, worldwide, in 2010 PPP dollars. That is a very long way from 4 billion!

Ok, these are 2005 numbers, but the level of poverty of the BOP is astoundingly low. Do you have a more accurate figure for the bottom 4 billion? I think you will find it does not change the sentiment of what I posted: it's hard to deny that these people are very, very poor.

The point is, we are the "lucky" one billion. And we are losing our edge. How many single income families do you know? The income gap within this top one billion is widening to levels higher than they were just before the great depression. All the concessions that were granted to the working classes and led to the golden age of the middle class (1950's -70's), are now being systematically clawed back in the name of austerity. Manufacturing is all moving overseas, the middle class is shrinking, and all the major western economies are struggling to get back on their feet - all of which leads to more austerity and more struggling. I'm just saying that I am not seeing an overall positive trend over the last 20 years, punctuated by the end of the Mayan calendar.

I wish I shared Falco's positivity. I would love to be convinced I am wrong.

glenn wrote:Ok, these are 2005 numbers, but the level of poverty of the BOP is astoundingly low. Do you have a more accurate figure for the bottom 4 billion? I think you will find it does not change the sentiment of what I posted: it's hard to deny that these people are very, very poor.

The point is, we are the "lucky" one billion. And we are losing our edge. How many single income families do you know? The income gap within this top one billion is widening to levels higher than they were just before the great depression. All the concessions that were granted to the working classes and led to the golden age of the middle class (1950's -70's), are now being systematically clawed back in the name of austerity. Manufacturing is all moving overseas, the middle class is shrinking, and all the major western economies are struggling to get back on their feet - all of which leads to more austerity and more struggling. I'm just saying that I am not seeing an overall positive trend over the last 20 years, punctuated by the end of the Mayan calendar.

I wish I shared Falco's positivity. I would love to be convinced I am wrong.

We are not losing our edge. The economy is changing. It always has, and it always will. Societies forget this often. England certainly forgot it, and it is what lead to their downfall as an empire. Greece and Rome never learned it, nor Spain or others.

The Chinese expansion is huge, but they also have a further part to start from. It is much like Japan after World War II. However, at some point the growth has to stop. Exponential growth cannot continue forever. We are already beginning to see the signs of a Chinese slowdown as the "middle class" in China is becoming less willing to work sweatshop style jobs. Again, this change won't happen overnight.

There is still a huge amount of opportunity in corporations and investment in North American companies. If you fail to see this then you also fail to see the investment opportunities in North American equities. Chinese stocks on the other hand, have a low intrinsic value, and are generally overpriced. This is not a good sign.

Things will change in the future to be sure. But there is no reason to be doom and gloom over it. Lifespans are getting longer, diseases are being pushed back or cured. The standard of living for everyone (even the poor) has gone up dramatically, and it continues to do so. Even if China does ride over the world roughshod (extremely unlikely) North America will fall back to the default position that the UK is in now, and the UK is not a bad place to live.

If you are ever worried about the future, and in particular the economics. Understand that right now, Mr. Market is depressed - I expect him to start feeling manic again in a few years. http://wiki.fool.com/Mr._Market

Mr Flibble - hope you're right. Time will tell.

Not the place to get into this anymore, to be sure.

The middle class boom of the 50s and 60s happened because the U.S. and Canada were in the situation China is in now: most of our working population was involved in making stuff, the rest of the world wanted the stuff we made, and, when necessary, we were willing to loan them the money to buy it. We moved away from that position basically because we got rich enough that we could afford to. People found that they liked white collar and retail jobs better than actually making stuff so, for the last couple of decades we've done that, instead, living off the wealth we accumulated by being good at making stuff in previous decades. I'm simplifying, obviously. We're still pretty good at making stuff, and still very good at making certain things. But the general trend has been away from making stuff and toward services of one kind or another.

At some point that trend has to reverse, and I have some thoughts on what we ought to do about that. But this probably isn't the place for them. I do want to remind people, though, that a return to a production-based economy (instead of a consumption-based economy) is going to mean that a lot of people are going to have to do things they don't want to do. It's easy to forget that in those "heydays" of the 50s and 60s there were millions of people doing dirty, difficult, and even dangerous jobs, for not a shit-load of money. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- not at all. But it might be a shock to the system, for some people.

ealanm wrote:The middle class boom of the 50s and 60s happened because the U.S. and Canada were in the situation China is in now: most of our working population was involved in making stuff, the rest of the world wanted the stuff we made, and, when necessary, we were willing to loan them the money to buy it. We moved away from that position basically because we got rich enough that we could afford to. People found that they liked white collar and retail jobs better than actually making stuff so, for the last couple of decades we've done that, instead, living off the wealth we accumulated by being good at making stuff in previous decades. I'm simplifying, obviously. We're still pretty good at making stuff, and still very good at making certain things. But the general trend has been away from making stuff and toward services of one kind or another.

At some point that trend has to reverse, and I have some thoughts on what we ought to do about that. But this probably isn't the place for them. I do want to remind people, though, that a return to a production-based economy (instead of a consumption-based economy) is going to mean that a lot of people are going to have to do things they don't want to do. It's easy to forget that in those "heydays" of the 50s and 60s there were millions of people doing dirty, difficult, and even dangerous jobs, for not a shit-load of money. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- not at all. But it might be a shock to the system, for some people.

And this is why a lot of youth are opting to forgo college/university, which in the 60's and 70's could be paid for without loans while going to school with a part time job. Now opportunity exists in the "dirty" jobs of the oil fields, staring pay is $50,000 a year, and you can work up to $250,000 if you are smart about it. Pulling six figures a year without a student loan is not a bad idea.

The idea of "the right thing to do" changes constantly. Previously it was that you ALWAYS should own a house - but the market crash showed that is not always true. The truth is that you want to read what is going on and adjust accordingly. In my case, I am buying North American Equities.

Glenn:

glenn wrote:Ok, these are 2005 numbers, but the level of poverty of the BOP is astoundingly low. Do you have a more accurate figure for the bottom 4 billion? I think you will find it does not change the sentiment of what I posted: it's hard to deny that these people are very, very poor.

The data I have isn't easily broken down into that form because it's organized by country. However, if you take the poorest countries adding up to a total population of 4 billion then the population-weighted GDP per capita is $4625, or about $12.67 per day, per person. Again, a very long way from $2.50, especially when you consider the non-linearities. I'm certain the numbers you've seen have been cooked by someone to make the problem seem worse than it is, for some political agenda.

The important thing to understand is that, with only a couple of exceptions, poor countries are getting less poor. And even though the increase in wealth isn't as evenly distributed as we might like to see, the lot of even the very poorest is improving. (Again, with a couple of "failed state" countries excluded.) I'm not saying it's okay to become complacent. But it's important to have an accurate understanding of the situation.

you can not divide the total amount of money by the total number of people...as most of us know we do not get an equal part of the pie....

Ealanm - I think you nailed it on your earlier post. And don't forget it was the "new deal" that was the catalyst for the boom. The opposite of austerity.

OK, it's wikipedia but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

GDP is not a good measure of poverty, I'm sure you know. The income gap is increasing globally, and the vast majority of increases have been seen in the highest income brackets, especially the ultra rich - just like they have been here. By many measures, the working poor are worse off after the multinationals set up shop. Take Lesotho as an example.

I know we can't put the genie back into the bottle, and we are all addicted to low cost labour - but it feels to me like we have lost our way.

glenn wrote:And don't forget it was the "new deal" that was the catalyst for the boom.

I believe there's a very different explanation. When WWII ended the economists who had promoted the New Deal were predicting doom and gloom because, according to their theories, the massive reduction in government spending at the end of the war would result in a huge recession. "Austerity," as it is being described today. But the exact opposite happened: freeing capital and the economy from government control and influence resulted in the largest economic boom of the 20th century. American voters got drunk on that growth and, still believing the neo-Keynsian theories of some economists, voted in the Great Society programs of the sixties and the strong growth subsided.

Unlike the 30s, we now have massive peace-time debt, so even Keynes, if he were around today, would not be promoting spending increases. It may be true that increasing government spending can stimulate aggregate demand when government debt is low, but not when it's high, because the government debt itself is soaking up the capital that's needed for the economy to grow. To make matters worse, the nonsense that governments these days describe as "Keynsianism" is no such thing. Keynes advocated spending to stimulate aggregate demand so that the underutilized productive capacity of the economy would be put back to work. What western governments have been doing for the past couple of decades is stimulating consumer spending, which is great if you own Walmart or a factory in China, or if you're a politician who gets elected by a gullible public for promising such nonsense, but is just a chain around the neck of the productive parts of the domestic economy.