Well There Goes My Hope for a Gold Encrusted Office Chair

 

 ...and my hopes for a series of ornate, wooden thrones for dining room chairs, and my office desk that doubles as an aquarium for sharks. These are all things that, if I had just an insane, inordinate amount of money, I would like to partake in. I read an article on Bloomberg the other day titles "Why Rich People Feel Poor". When I started reading, I laughed to myself. The hypothetical couple had two children! (Every Chinese person knows you should cap at one, max. It's just more efficient that way.) They lived in New York! (You can't live there. C'mon... unless you're on a consultant stipend...just don't bother.) And the hypothetical couple makes $450K a year! I know, I know, by New York standards you're living in a one bedroom above a really good shwarma place, if you're lucky. The inside me mocked at the poor choices this couple had made, and the fact that they made so much money and still "felt poor". 

Then I found out that for a hypothetical couple to have two children and, I don't know, send them to college, they would need to save $2 MILLION DOLLARS. And have next to no emergency fund.

 

How can this be?! Well, they rely less on social security than lower income households, they get Medicare but have to cover the gaps that Medicare leaves, they have to pay for college, they get taxed to death (effective tax rate is close to 50%) and they have to pay for long term care to prepare for their old age. Absolutely insane. 

As I look into the future and think about how I'm going to live in San Francisco soon, arguably one of the most expensive cities to live in the country, I'm suddenly very nervous about my financial future. Ramen it is then.

Why Technology Is Awesome: Part 184

I feel like the daily deluge of information from newspapers (always digital (except for the WSJ), sometimes important things, depending on which one I've been reading), internet (omg cute cat pictures and more videos of otters doing adorable things? Yes please.) and magazines (always in paper, wtf is wrong with me?). But every now and then I get really excited about all the interesting things that I'm reading. And every now and then I get really excited because instead of reading about terrible things (gunmen killing innocent people, the unemployed people trying to get by) I find some truly inspirational things in the news that assures me that other, more positive things are still happening. Which reminds me not to be depressed about the way that society is going. So I got that going for me...

• We're trying to help the environment. As a society, we're moving toward meatless meat according to The NY Times, which is interesting (I watched a TedTalk about the upside of moving from meat (cows, chickens, pigs) to insects (that's right) as an alternative form of protein since it takes an inordinate amount of (increasingly) scarce water to produce even a pound of meat. Meatless sales have hit $550M market volume, which is impressive. Additionally, a lot of the new players are not only trying to move away from meat, but to make something that's actually better than meat by taking out saturated fats and lowering total fats. Maybe we won't end up like the fat people wheeling around in Wall-E after all...
• What. The. Hell. People. So Brendan Eich contributed $1,000 to Proposition 8 (anti-gay rights). When this was found out, some two weeks into his new tenure as the CEO of Mozilla Firefox (yup, that Firefox) people went on rampage. OkCupid put up a landing page that asked users to switch browsers if they tried to access using Firefox, developers clamored for him to rescind his donation and bloggers lit it up like New Years Eve. I can see one side of this-- it's actually no one's business who he decides to donate money to in his personal life. It's actually kind of an infringement of his privacy for people to be going through his personal affairs like that. However, on the other hand, you are a public figure Brendan Eich. If you really want to donate, make your donations anonymous. Particularly if it's a hot-button issue. Particularly if you live in California, a traditionally more liberal state. Particularly if you're located in Silicon Valley, where your reaction to Proposition 8 is almost a foregone conclusion. I mean hell, even my mom doesn't support Proposition 8. I'm not saying you can't do whatever you want in your private life, but please, for the love of, take precautions to make sure that you do them privately. If you did, you wouldn't have needed to step down
• Amazon announced the Amazon Fire TV, which will be $99 and will be there move to basically put a cash register in every person's living room. This isn't a surprise. I feel like the TV craze has been going on for awhile now and although Apple entered to small amounts of excitement, all the buzz after the CE show in Vegas that focused on the amounts that could be made through the TV from people at home (my generation's version of the home shopping network, pretty much) pretty clearly shows us what the future holds. Strangely, Bezos wasn't on hand for the announcement (very different from the era of Steve Jobs-esque announcements). However, TV as a cash register won't be successful until access is easy (that means integration from multiple sources, much like what any, say, PS3 does now, except better), content is deep and varied (that means sports-- c'mon Amazon, you know your demographic. At least get your offerings up to the number of sports options that are available on Roku) and it's got to be affordable. So they got that going for them
• Rumors continue to circulate about Apple moving toward mobile payments. Passbook and a given group of established customers that are used to the user interface already through iTunes make a convincing argument

And finally... I forgot that Dita Von Teese existed. I also love that she was married to Marilyn Manson. Don't ask me why, but I was Googling her the other day because I kind of forgot she was a thing, and I stumbled on a bunch of her quotes. They made me laugh. I posted my fave up above. Though I like to imagine her saying, "You can be the ripest, juiciest peach in the world... and there's still going to be somebody that just fucking hates peaches." (insert shrug)

Nokia's Next New Thing

So. It's finally happened. After back-to-back years of loss, Nokia has decided to let itself be acquired by Microsoft. According to the terms of the deal, Microsoft gets Nokia's phone business, Qualcomm and other key IP licenses. Microsoft licenses Nokia's patents for all Microsoft products as well as the ability to use Nokia HERE broadly in its products. Nokia retains NSN, HERE, its CTO office and its patent portfolio.

Reading Nokia's earnings reports is a sad, sad thing to do (more accessible presentation here). Losses each quarter, and being particularly hit hard in its mobile devices due to slimming margins means that there is little relief coming for this company. However, contrary to the market (Microsoft stock fell this morning upon opening while Nokia's soared), I've been big on Nokia. For nothing else, because it's clear that its patent portfolio could be its golden goose to get itself out of this mess. Nokia probably will not last for much longer as the Nokia that we know it as today, but between its geo-centric capabilities (HERE) and its highly innovative technologies focusing on its camera (Lumia 1020 supposedly has the best phone camera in the world), Nokia should get acquired by a bigger entity, and Microsoft is the perfect candidate.

From Microsoft's perspective, they've instantly bought their way into the location-based game, and now could potentially rival Google in the future with mapping and geo-centric data on its users. Additionally, with all of the hype coming around regarding the photographic qualities that a smart phone gives its users (augmented reality, personal digital assistants, entertainment, bar code scanning, geo-centric streaming data, object recognition for mobile shopping, mobile payments), don't be surprised if Microsoft parlays the excellent camera as something more utilitarian....perhaps even as a rival to Google Glass. Officially, in Microsoft's official M&A announcement/call/related presentation, they seem pretty tight lipped on their plans, however, the growth and popularity of their new windows phone bodes well for their new relationship. Microsoft did explicitly call out that they're looking at "a family of devices with integrated services" with a specific call-out to geospatial. Particularly if Microsoft can parlay it into their existing portfolio of Xbox (entertainment) and Skype (communication), this "geospatial" play could really work out well for both them and Nokia.

Mary-Gonna-Make-Me-That-Money

Why are we still talking about this Marijuana Business? The Mary Jane roaches, the sweet purple smoke? C'mon, I can be a little gangsta. I listened to a Vanilla Ice album once.

I was watching a segment on MSNBC earlier today and the two talking bobble-heads (not to be mean, but they actually do bobble their heads a lot), and they were appalled at the very idea of legalizing marijuana. Even the Washington Post picked up the story soon after Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana in their state, with the ability to manufacture, process and distribute for medicinal purposes.

I know that everyone has heard the arguments against legalizing marijuana. It's a slippery slope, it's a gateway drug, it breeds an unsavory culture, it could increase the many opportunities for public danger. But what about the upsides? Tax revenue alone could help us in the gigantic financial hole that we're in, means more jobs if you're going to open it up completely like Washington and Colorado did, by regulating it, you're actually taking power away from the large black market that supplies it now, and you're also limiting the... negative international relationships that we're making in for the drug suppliers south of the border. Why not?

I feel like we have bigger problems to deal with as a nation. A fiscal cliff, a eurozone- now-global problem, an unemployment problem and other national drug problems that have a much larger consequence. Maybe it's time we focused on the important things.

Things I Learned Today

Let's get ready for another remix of "things I learned today".

• They released the US Olympic uniforms today for the opening ceremony. They were designed by Ralph Lauren, which is an excellent choice for a true, innovative American designer. That being said, I think they're atrocious... I showed them to a couple of friends and we all laughed that the tagline for the article was that the uniforms are "meh", because I got a response ranging from "We look like the French girls from the Harry Potter movies" to "What are we now? Hitler youth?". So there you have it.... in choosing an American designer, we've unknowingly associated ourselves with the French and Germans. Thanks Ralph
• Apple released the MacBook and then the MacBook Air, which spurred computer makers to launch this idea of the "ultrabook", which is basically code for "a smaller, thinner laptop that is light, but that we can also upcharge you to death on". IDC and Gartner released a report today that showed HP, Lenovo and Dell taking a wallop-ing, while Apple smoothly cruised by with a rise in units shipped and in overall US market share. They attribute the lacklustre adoption of ultrabooks to the high price and the changes on the horizon (Windows 8)
•  I hate to be a hater...well, actually, that's kind of a lie. I kind of like being a hater. Especially if it entails me being right. I feel bad because Groupon is from my hometown, but their stock took a plunge again today, meaning that they've dropped approximately 70% (!!!!) since their IPO. The drop is attributed to the public's uncertainty of a sustainable business model, which is something I've been questioning for awhile, though I did read an article recently that although there's a lot of copycats out there, Groupon is still killin' it with a definitive lead as the market share leader. There's a fun little infographic too
• Chicago seems to be getting some notice in the travel scene, and was featured in the Travel Section of the New York Times. Note to self: Make a trip to The Roof at the The Wit before the summer is out. I am long overdue!
• Viacom apparently is demanding a 30% increase in fees from DirecTV, and because they are getting in a bit of a tussle over it, Viacom has pulled Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central from its offerings. Media execs seem increasingly worried (and rightfully so) that the Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Primes of the world will soon be taking over. Viacom pulled full episodes from the redirected options that DirecTV provided its customers, but have left full episodes on Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime
• Apparently the average working week in Spain was 35 hours a week. Rajoy recently raised it to 37.5 hours a week as part of an effort to restructure his country to be more productive and to align better with the austerity measures that he is phasing in place. In response to some cutting of coal subsidies, miners marched from surrounding regions and threw rocks and firecrackers at police, who responded with truncheons and rubber bullets. Can you imagine if that happened in the US? "Today, hoards of white collar workers gathered on Wall Street to protest the tax subsidies. They threw rocks and firecrackers at police, who responded by shooting rubber bullets into the crowd"-- America just doesn’t know how to throw a good public riot like Spain does I suppose
• Airlines have consolidated their flights into the higher-volume airports, and due to this shrinking sphere of activity, some of the cities on the periphery (Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Oakland) now have a lot of extra space sitting idle. Airports generally generate revenue in two ways-- through fees paid by airlines and general aviation operators and through income from parking, rentals, concessions, advertising space and rentals of maintenance and other buildings. If no airplanes come through, no people will, and without people, an airport is a giant empty space. Options?  Sell space to commercial interests (DHL), transform into a giant maintenance hub (Pittsburgh), or sell to expanding budget companies that specialize in smaller planes typical of a smaller airport (Southwest). Not so friendly skies anymore I suppose

The Valley: Sex, Drugs and Open Platform Development (oh yeah)

Ahhh.. sweet revenge. First there was "House of Lies"-- that supposedly showed the consulting world in all of its ugly, fattening, debaucherous glory. I haven't watched the show myself, but the clips I've seen insinuate that all consultants are hip, young, attractive professionals making an ungodly amount of money to say things like "let's leverage learnings" and making approximately one powerpoint slide a day. If this is true, I would like to say that I'm available and very much open to change, but alas, consulting is not an exception to the age-old adage that nothing is free. I would just like to note that, in reality, consulting (particularly at the levels where you actually matter and are having all of those shmoozy client dinners) are dominated by older, typically white, men. And for every "team dinner" you get, you pay for it with about 120 hours of sitting in a conference room, eating greasy Chinese food, madly tapping away at your computers in a rush to do something ridiculous, like manually clean data from over 12000 lines of Excel or something. If you're lucky and nothing goes wrong, you can assume 60-80 hours a week on average, no social life on the weekends due to exhaustion and days upon days of modelling, powerpointing, client meetings and scope creep (which is a fun term we use that basically means "being made to do things outside of our contract because our client says so").

Anywho. Bravo apparently is starting a new reality show that focuses on Silicon Valley. Frankly, I'm just surprised that they didn't do this earlier-- a bunch of young, smart kids making it big and potentially coming into a lot of money very fast? Sounds like a sexier version of "The O.C." to me. Realistically though, Silicon Valley was never really in mainstream media (from an entertainment perspective) until "The Social Network", which apparently made quite a lot of people mad in the valley because they felt it focused on Zuckerberg's desire to woo a girl more than it did the fact that he wanted to change the world. (Let's be honest though, in all reality, it was probably a little bit of both. Like a "Hey I bet I can show her!...Wait, I can make money off this?" type of moment). Funnily enough though, one of the executive producers is actually Randi Zuckerberg, Mark Zuckerberg's sister. Bravo has even admitted to portraying this false sense of reality by saying "In the editing process, we try to get rid of everything that is going to be a snooze"-- and that was said by Bravo's president. I suppose that there are a lot of really boring, unimportant things like raising capital, actually coming up with an idea, recruiting resources, figuring out a business plan, figuring out your investment model... you know, things that will probably be cut out in editing.

Among others, Bravo's cameras will focus on the Way siblings, Ben and Hermione, who are developing a fitness app. Already, they had a chip company and a coconut water company sponsor Hermione's birthday party and have thrown a lot of their filming time to focus on their pad in San Francisco, which oh, by the way is $17,000 a month. "If you divide by the five roommates, it is not so much money" Mr. Way has been quoted saying (as he works out with his personal trainer --see above). But the best quote has come from Ms. Zuckerberg herself:

“Silicon Valley is high school, but it’s only the smart kids and everyone has a lot of money.” (Later, she qualified her remarks on Twitter. “Apologies that I said Silicon Valley was like high school. I meant middle school.”)

Things I've Learned Recently: The Remix

• Comparative cost of woolly mammoths
• The going rate for fake SAT/ACT test-taking
• JC Penney turnaround strategy
• General retail (apparel) pricing strategy

Let's get started. Due to the demand for elephant tusk (mostly from Asia, where it is seen as a critical ingredient in medicine and health supplements), elephant tusk is currently averaging about $900/kg in China's wholesale market. Which is interesting. More interesting?  A cheaper type of tusk comes from extinct woolly mammoths, which are periodically excavated from Siberia's tundra. Who would have ever thought that extinct animals would be cheaper than existing animals?

Ahhh, and then there's standardized testing. After a slew of fraud cases recently, the SAT and the ACT have decided to crack down on the security around testing to ensure that students aren't paying other students to sit for tests for them. In the Nassau County district last fall, 5 students were charging $500 to $3600 to test for 15 other students. What this tells me is that kids these days have wayyy too much discretionary spending. Just sayin'. Getting some prep books would probably be cheaper. To heighten security, SAT and ACT will be requiring that students upload photos of themselves when registering, scores will be automatically sent to their high schools afterward, they will eliminate the option for standby or "same-day" testing which doesn't require pre-registration and are even considering potentially giving these photos to colleges as well (this last one is under discussion as there is concern that pictures might unduly sway the admissions process). My response is, if the kids are paying that much to fake it, I'm sure they're going to find ways to get around this process too. It's really only a matter of when and how.

Finally, in a world where "showrooming" has become commonplace in the discussion of things we use our mobile phones for (not as scandalous as "sexting" I know, but when you live in the nerd world I do, "showrooming" is just as bad), the consumer has become king. Showrooming occurs when a consumer walks into a store and performs price comparison on their mobile phone while in the store. Because of the competitive prices that eBay and Amazon.com offer, this usually results in the consumer walking out after trying out the product (touching, feeling, weighing, testing) in the store and then buying it online. This has inspired some retailers like JC Penney to try kind of radical ideas in terms of straight-forward pricing, or "everyday low prices", including extending their "deals" to be monthly instead of weekly and introducing clearance items on the first and third Friday of every month (conveniently matching up with paychecks). Good in theory, but it seems to be confusing customers and sales associates are struggling to explain it. When American Airlines attempted a similar system in 1992, they abandoned it after 6 months because competitors were savagely undercutting their pricing.

The average markup for apparel at a department store begins at around 65%. Over 10 weeks, the stores will go to 25-30% off, then 50, 60 and 70% or more, which results in (sometimes) discounts so deep that the stores will sometimes sell below cost. I can't help but wonder, for large department retailers like Macy's or JC Penney how they can survive. Granted, they probably can distribute their loss and risk over the number of stores they have (since they have so many) but for every one Herald's Square Macy's, you have three Macy's in Chicago that are struggling. How much longer can they survive?

"And as every sci-fi nerd knows, you totally need a tricked-out battleship if you're going to engage in serious battle"

Well said Fast Company! They're referring to the AppleShip that Apple is planning on building (on 150 acres to house 12,000 Apple employees), and I have to admit, all the internet trolling I've done all definitely point to "giant Apple expansion", "Apple cult" (isn't that redundant?) or "Steve Jobs secretly was an alien trying to get home" (is it too early to make Steve Jobs jokes? He was a nice alien). I'll let everyone take their pick on which one they want to actually be the truth.

So anyway, I recently read this article in Fast Company about "The Great Tech War of 2012". I found this interesting because apparently they're totally reading my blog and saw my post about the brewing war between Amazon, Google and Apple (okay they added in Facebook, big whoop). Ha! Okay, but seriously, this article is interesting because it argues that 2012 will be the year when this battle will come to a head. Why? Well because like all wars, there is limited supply, exploding demand, and these behemoths are slowly but surely expanding into each other's turfs, and (unsurprisingly) they don't share well. Fast Company thinks Facebook will take it all, but...let's look at a break down:

Apple:

• Still dominates the tablet market (The Kindle Fire and the slew of Android attempts are making a small dent though)
• Cutting edge in terms of user experience and next-gen design, therefore has huge market share in (mostly consumer) products
• Very secretive about their growth strategy

Facebook:

• Really gunning for Google in its collection/manipulation of user data (also has "deeper" data, Google may have your search preferences, control over your email and the beginnings of social networking in their giant aggregator, but Facebook knows who your friends are, what you talk about/"Like", how you're feeling, where you check in and with their image recognition software, what you, your friends and your city all look like)
• Young and nimble (youngest of the Fab Four mentioned here)
• Has huge cult following and connection with a wide demographic base. Zuckerberg is the hunk of the nerd world, and it's not particularly hard to see why. Bottom line, he embodies the new wave of thinking and understands what future generations want

Google:

• Leadership! Larry Page is "bold, unpredictable and unapologetic". In non-PC terms, he's moody and no one really knows what he's doing or what he's planning at any given time (aka "might be a little crazy in a completely intriguing way"). Perfect qualities for someone who wants to try out for the part of Lady Macbeth or for someone who wants to run a multi-billion dollar, global company that is trying to stay nimble and effective, regardless of size
• Great partners/name recognition-- Facebook might have partnered with Netflix, Spotify, etc., but Google bought Motorola (and its underlying security division). If that's not a play to expand into hardware, I'm not sure what is...

Amazon:

• Amazon has lower margins than Google or Apple, but again, its leader (Jeff Bezos) is impressive in his uncanny ability to predict (to inform?) what consumers will want next, invest heavily, and invest early (e-readers, cloud outsourcing)
• Wider variety-- not mired as a "consumer products" company, a "search engine" or "a social networking site". They have effectively made themselves an "all of the above"

So where's my head at about all of this information? If I had to rank, I would say that Google and Amazon are really going to be the big dogs in the fight, with Amazon beating out Google this year by a hairs breadth. Here's why: the economy is still recovering and people will always need things, this could be Amazon's edge for the near future. Moreover, Amazon has already invested heavily in providing these physical objects through its e-commerce website, but also branching into intangibles (Amazon Player vs. Google Player, Amazon Kindle/Amazon Store vs. iPad/iBooks, etc.). Google, meanwhile, is still defining how to jump into the physical space (remember Google TV? Yeah, neither do we.) and in the meantime is trying to capitalize on their intangible services. Add to the mix all of Google's bad press over the past year with all of their legal troubles and they're probably going to want a small period of re-grouping/restrategizing before heading out into battle again.

In the long run however, I'd say Google and Amazon could be given a run for their money because I expect the other half of this delicious tech pie will either a.) begin a partnering spree to inflate their market share or (this is kind of crazy so prepare yourself) b.) partner with each other. I know...you're thinking I've finally lost it. But hear me out. Apple has great name recognition, huge market share in consumer products but struggles to harness and analyze the data that they receive. Enter Facebook, who is almost the father of hyper-targeted mini-ads. For a company that focuses so much on the end user and their relationship witih the company, it would make sense that they'd like to date a company like Facebook (aka integrate with a heavy-hitting social media stakeholder).

So what's in it for Facebook? A tangible piece of hardware in a large percentage of the highly affluent market. An "in" to a company that already knows how to capitalize on "add-ons" (did you know that analysts estimate Apple to make $368 on the iPhone through the subsidies that are paid back to them through wireless carriers whereas Google makes less than $10 annually/device due to its subsidies for market share? Granted, Google focuses on profit through ad revenue, which is a smaller margin, but higher in volume. But still. ). A company that has a ton of data on user preferences and hardware manufacturing connections to back it up.

So what if I'm Google and I'm breathing down the neck of Amazon? Or what if I'm Amazon and victory is justthiscloseIcantasteit? Find new revenue streams. Target the emerging markets (China, India, Brazil in particular where there are growing middle classes/growing appetite for digital media/huge investments in wireless infrastructure). My suggestion for a first step? Get into people's homes in a big way. There's a lot swirling around about integrating payment systems into TVs so that the buying experience becomes an integral part of everyday behavior-- and not just with digital goods. If you can convince consumers that you're there to take care of them (buying, selling, socializing, suggest, etc.), listen to their feedback to adapt and offer them the convenience of being physically present in their home...it could be the end of the Fab Four.

Things That Go BRIC in the Night

It's sweeping the nation faster than the Bieber Fever (way to date myself in my antiquated pop culture references, everyone knows that the new hot reference is KKs failed marriage). I've mentioned it as a potentially passing phase before, but I think it's safe to say its never going away. Yup. We're scared of India. It's okay. Embrace that fear. To be clear, we are not afraid of Indians, those guys are our friends! We're scared of India as a country-- as an amalgamation of a heaving, growing beast, slightly unpredictable, widely rumored to be highly corrupt, perhaps untamed and slightly off balance, but barreling full-fledged toward our unknowing consciousness.

I am here to quell your fears though! For once, instead of throwing gasoline and household objects into the burning flames of worry, I am here to say, "Hey, maybe it won't be as scary as you think. Let's just think this through." I think one of the biggest worries that is generated from India is how, with all of its positive momentum, it will usurp America's number one spot. It's scary, I know. We'll get through this together. Just keep reading.

First of all, India will grow and India will most likely be a very successful country in the future. This does not meet our downfall. This means we will have new partners to work with. Also, let's keep in mind this will take time. In recent articles, it doesn't seem that India's path is all roses and kittens. They will need to work through some problems also before they're inevitable conquering can begin (take a breath), which will take time.  An easy comparison is to look at China, Brazil and India (the C, B and I from the BRIC countries--it surprises me how many people use that term but don't know what it stands for. To be completely clear, the R stands for Russia. Don't want to be a jerk, just want to make sure we're all on the same page.). They're growing economies, very intimidating.

Whereas China is growing out of control, it is currently in "copy-cat" mode for a lot of its machinery, and depends on more developed countries for a lot of its innovative hardware and know-how. Because of its size, its having a hard time getting everyone on the same page, trying to reconcile the explosive growth of business cities like Shanghai with its deserted, new and booming factory towns, and its wide stretches of remaining agricultural land. It has made significant moves forward in growth over the past couple of years, but, as we all know, those last couple of miles are the hardest. It's going to struggle with its own issues of balance, particularly as their middle class grows, demand for freer speech continues, the prince-ling generation struggles to reconcile its place in an increasingly lonely generation gap (prince-lings are how we know those that were born during the 1 child policy).

Brazil on the other hand, has a more stable population, with a population of working age that is growing quickly. It is rich in natural resources (like iron ore, timber, oil, etc.) and has a very long growing season thanks to its very favorable location (three harvests a year!). However, many of its problems are intangible. The flood of investments coming in has created a strong currency that hurts exporters outside the resource industries. Internally, they struggle in a mire of bureaucracy where hiring and firing can take years, the tax system is indecipherable, government corruption is commonplace and real interest rates are considered among the highest in the world. Its consumers, although growing and with a large percentage of growing affluence, have not fully embraced a saving mentality, so credit demand still outpaces supply. On a basic level, government entanglement has delayed basic building, like roads, for far too long, resulting in a stall simply because its hard to move stuff around!

India is very much a middle child in this situation. Like China, India has enjoyed a fantastic growth rate, but is poorer than China (bad in short term, means greater opportunity for growth in the future, which is good). Like Brazil, India also needs some infrastructure, and has significant corruption issues that need to be overcome. Additionally, India needs to educate its incoming worker-age population appropriately if they hope to be successful in the world market and internally within its own country. Anecdotally, I've heard that the red tape surrounding both the school and job placement process is mired in mystery and so many levels thick that it requires multiple stakeholders to navigate.

So. I tell these stories not to say that the US is still supreme and will be supreme forever. Already, we know that is not true, and that there are countries that we'll need to work with in order to share the prestige and the responsibility of being part of the developed world. My point here is that emerging countries, however scary, are also facing significant hurdles to define their own space. India is often the poster child because of their exponential growth, large English-speaking population and direct connections with our nervous centers here in the states (which, I think is safe to say, are located in New York, San Francisco/Silicon Valley and other major hubs of commerce) through brain drain (bidirectional) or investments (also bidirectional).

So...instead of worrying about this. Worry about narrowly missing a world where there could be even more procreating Kardashians (zing! Got it in there to prove my knowledge of US Weekly), that there is a new season of Teen Mom (WHY?!?!) and...oh yeah, that Euro Crisis thing. And bed bugs. Be ever vigilant my friends!

Amazon vs. California

As a former resident of California, I am saddened by how low my state has gone. Alright, I can accept that we elected the governator (this was kind of sad/awesome, to be honest), that we produced shows like The O.C. and (the infinitely sadder and more pathetic) Laguna Beach and The Hills. Yes, my state is the origin of "stars" like that blonde girl who started her own clothing line, that girl who is famous for her implants and that girl who moved to New York to "strike out on her own" in a new reality T.V. show- and yes, they all came from that Laguna Beach show. I'm sorry!

My state is now drowning in debt (can I blame that on the Laguna Beach-ers too? Somehow? No? Okay fine.),  forcing government employees to take mandatory furloughs (this means that going to the DMV on Fridays got even more annoying than before) and is currently (desperately) trying to collect backed taxes from all the people in fancy houses in Orange County and L.A. We are in dire straights people!

But apparently when it rains it pours, because now even Amazon has turned against us (for background see the article in The Economist "Interstate Sales Taxes: The Amazon War"). Don't get me wrong, I really love Amazon- not only has it revolutionized the choice and convenience that allows consumers to buy products online, it has generally changed the whole consumer system altogether- allowing for a digital storefront has increased competition, ultimately decreasing consumer costs. (In all fairness, I should also point out that this decreases overall profit margins, particularly for small businesses, but I think that's a topic for another day.) Moreover, Amazon is a fantasy for people who enjoy talking about operational logistics- moving beyond supply and demand, you can talk about regionalization, localization, market and merchant segmentation, warehouse location strategy, and now (wonders of wonders) as they move into digital music lockers (Amazon MP3) and more targeted customer experiences (which potentially one day could rival Google's- I mean they are one of the first to offer consumer reviews to "socialize" the buying experience and "suggest" new products based on buying history).

Back to the topic at hand. Enter California, America's largest consumer market. In the opposing corner, Amazon, the largest online retailer. California argues that because residents buy so much, Amazon (and the merchants that fall underneath it) should charge taxes. Amazon argues that it is unlawful for them to mandate out of state merchants to charge taxes to in-state residents. The law (from 1992) says that states cannot force retailers that do not have an in-state presence to collect sales tax. The argument centered around "where" Amazon was located, because although Amazon has no brick and mortar stores, they do have warehouses all over the place. Fearing that these warehouses would be counted as an "in-state presence" or "nexus" in legalese, they pulled many of their warehouses out of states on the east coast (like New York). They are currently taking this to the ballot boxes by getting Californians to "support mom and pop shops".

Here's where I'm sad about Amazon and California fighting each other- not only because I am deeply tied to both of them. The reason is this- at the end of the day, Amazon pulling out of states means that mom and pop stores have less leverage to sell their products. On the same note, states that have gotten Amazon to collect taxes, like Rhode Island, have openly admitted that they have raised no money from their efforts to increase tax revenues. So if it's really just hurting the little guys, the ones we want to protect, and the money at stake is not as large as we had hoped it would be (some predicted it could be up to $10B a year), is this a fight worth fighting? In the meantime, I would imagine that Amazon, long the defender of the little guys- the catalyst for those microbusinesses that are based out of someone's apartment- would want to continue to offer support. This means not pulling out. In all reality, Amazon will probably collect enough signatures to suspend the law until next year, in which case it really doesn't make sense to add all of that extra overhead by moving out of America's number 1 consumer state.

Please don't fight anymore Amazon and California. I feel like I'm watching my parents fight.

Osama Bin Laden- World's Most Wanted Man- Now Dead

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest news stories recently is the death of Osama Bin Laden. Announced around the night of May 1st, President Obama held an impromptu press conference to announce that Osama Bin Laden "was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan". In the New York Times report, Obama claimed that "justice has been done" and that the body had been buried at sea. He also explained that they had first received leads late last summer and had finally tracked him to a comfortable mansion in Pakistan. Supposedly the operation was actually quite efficient, killing only three other people (one believed to be his son, the other two his couriers) and the burial at sea was justified as a way to avoid his followers building him a shrine.

On one hand, it seems that Americans are largely relieved- and as a people, we seem jubilant. Understandable, because this seems to prove to the world that "America always gets her man". That there really is nowhere to hide, and that, after 9/11, justice is being done for all of the lives that were ruined that day. Obama has seen a significant increase in poll numbers after this Bin Laden raid. Initial response in New York, the city that has to see ground zero every day, was borderline gleeful, and students gathered outside the White House shortly after the announcement, chanting "USA! USA!". Mayor Bloomberg commented that "New Yorkers have waited nearly 10 years for this news. It is my hope that it will bring some closure and comfort to all of those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001."

However, there are concerns about a backlash throughout the middle east due to this raid, and the long term impact against terrorism has been called into question as new successors are already being appointed. As it is, Al-Qaeda has confirmed Osama's death and has already vowed a retaliation against the United States for his death. The statement, released on jihadist sites stated that Bin Laden's blood will "be a curse that chases the Americans and their agents, and goes after them inside and outside their countries" and that "Soon- with help from Allah [American's] happiness will turn into sorrow, and their blood will be mixed with their tears. We will fulfill the oath of Sheikh Osama, may Allah have mercy on him: America and those who live in America will never enjoy security until our people in Palestine enjoy it".


I worry though, if maybe we are all celebrating a bit prematurely. In fact, Osama's successor has already been somewhat implied. Washington Post reports that there has been speculation that a man by the name of Ayman Al Zawahiri, an Egyptian surgeon and bin Laden's longtime deputy will take over as the al-Qaeda leader. My thoughts are more in line with Harry Waizer, a survivor that was interviewed for the New York Times.When interviewed, he stated, "If this means there is one less death in the future, then I'm glad for that. But I just can't find it in me to be glad one more person is dead, even if it is Osama Bin Laden". After all of the trauma that the American people have been through I feel justified with the death of Osama bin Laden, but I find it difficult to celebrate death, even if it is his. I feel like after all of the sadness in our post-9/11 world, maybe we should look forward instead of focusing on and celebrating the continuing death.