Video: There is No Great Stagnation

Click here for a VentureBeat article summarising Musk's many big ideas.

Video: Richard Duncan on The New Depression

Adventures in Alternative Currencies - Bristol Launches Its Own

The Bristol ten pound banknote

Here is another reason to love the quirky, iconoclastic south western British city.

From the BBC:

It is a direct assault on global trade. The city of Bristol has launched its own currency, which cannot be used in Bath, never mind Berlin or Bombay. 

More than 350 firms in the city have signed up, making it the UK's largest alternative to sterling. 

Unlike previous schemes which have relied on paper, the Bristol Pound can be used online, even by mobile phone.

h/t Tyler 

The Hyperloop - San Francisco to L.A. in 30 Minutes

Good article here on entrepreneur Elon Musk.

The article briefly touches on his lastest, still relatively secret paradigm shifting idea, the Hyperloop.

Video: Michael Burry 2012 UCLA Commencement Address

Video: Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost - How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It

Note to video departments everywhere that the below video is a fantastic way to show a presenter and his/her slides.

h/t Barry

Video: The Great Stagnation vs. The Singularity

For anyone who missed Tyler Cowen's presentation at the Singularity Conference from earlier this year.

Recommended links & Photo of the Week

Coming soon to a Eurozone bank near you?

1. Beware of falling masonry (Economist) Good tactical overview of the eurozone crisis and some of the options being considered. See also 'Banks Build Contingency for Breakup of the Euro' (NYT)

2. Latvian bank Krajbanka set to be wound up (AFP) Above bank run image is of Krajbanka.

3. The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin (Wired) Contrary to the title I don't think this is the last we've heard of Bitcoin, or other virtual currencies, but an interesting and informative read nonetheless.

4. Prepare for riots in euro collapse, UK Foreign Office warns (Telegraph)

5. Why Not Break-Up Citigroup? (Simon Johnson) Citibank has blown-up and required a bailout three times in the last three decades, or once on average every ten years.

6. How could Reebok sell trainers for $1? (BBC) Contrary to popular believe it's not all glum news here at TPC. I was able to see the remarkable Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Muhammad Yunus speak this week (video below). His bank, Grameen, is doing amazing things and gets a BHAG nod.

7. MF’s Missing Money Makes You Wonder About Goldman (Jonathan Weil)

Video: Bank Transfer Day, Bravo!

Very nice to see consumer activism working to solve Too Big to Fail. My SeekingAlpha article encouraging something similar last year can be found here.

For more info about Bank Transfer Day the link to the Facebook group is here.

Video: Steve Jobs 2005 Commencement Address at Stanford

Steve Jobs RIP (1955-2011)

The King of the BHAG is dead.

Steve Jobs (1955-2011)

Official statement from the Apple Board:

We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today. 

Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve. 

His greatest love was for his wife, Laurene, and his family. Our hearts go out to them and to all who were touched by his extraordinary gifts.

For more reflections on Jobs recent resignation as CEO and some rare, early interview footage of the Apple co-founder see End of a Tech Era.

The Great Hope - An Update on the Holy Grail of Clean, Limitless Energy

Good story from the Guardian on the state of fusion research here.

While economically viable fusion may be decades off at the current low relative level of investment, it's good to see the world's great geopolitical powers working together:

Last year, bulldozers began clearing land 60km north-east of Marseille in southern France. By 2019, it is hoped that the world's largest and most advanced experimental tokamak will be switched on. The €15bn International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is being funded by an unprecedented international coalition, including the EU, the US, China, India, South Korea and Russia.

h/t Tyler Cowen

My Dream TV Setup and the Present Nightmare

I'm not a huge TV or movie watcher, but I would like to do the following:

1. hang a flat panel HD TV on my wall
2. connect it wirelessly to broadband internet so the only cable I need is the TV power cord
3. use my smartphone or laptop as my remote
4. and (here's the hard part) watch all the world's video content (in full HD resolution when available), whenever I want for a reasonable price.

That's my seemingly simple (in terms of the necessary technology) TV dream.

Now, let me introduce you to the present state, which amounts to a nightmare of massive fragmentation.

TV Hell

Not surprisingly given the money at stake, nearly every major tech firm, media conglomerate, TV manufacturer, along with a number of innovative startups, are angling for a piece (or more often control) of the connected TV market. The result is today's dizzying array of incompatibile and walled off offerings, such as:

• Content sources: iTunes,  Bravia Internet, Hulu, SeeSaw, Plex, Netflix, Freeview, LoveFilm, etc.
• Wireless technologies: WHDI, WiDI, WirelessHD, Wireless USB, WiGig (see Wired's article for more on this topic)
• Devices: separate boxes like Apple TV, Boxee, Revue, Roku, PS3, Xbox, and TVs like LG's Smart TV and Google TV which have features built into the TV itself

The net-net of this media-tech cacophony is consumer confusion and painfully slow progress on delivering a complete wireless HDTV solution.

The failure is not for lack of effort. Google TV tried to bring it all together and promptly had the door slammed in its face by the major U.S. television networks. Scrappy startups like Boxee and Plex have developed innovative offerings, but they lack the heft at present to deliver the goods. On the content side, Hulu is great, but it engages in an extensive game of cat and mouse to keep users from outside the U.S. and Canada from accessing the site. The same is true of the BBC's iPlayer for users outside the UK. Apple has a lot to offer, but Apple TV can't do full HD and the iTunes pricing model makes it significantly more expensive than Netflix. Lovefilm doesn't stream content in HD, only standard definition at present.

It is Netflix, with its large catalogue of streaming HD content, that is perhaps the best of the lot. But it is only available in North America at present and (worse) the company is still beholden to content owners which means it can't control prices (e.g., the recent unpopular price increase).

In short, many have tried but everyone including some of the most creative and powerful companies in the world have failed to deliver wireless, on-demand HD TV.

Keeping the Dream

For now the Big Boys have all decided that, rather than sharing with other kids in the sandbox they're going to try to keep their toys to themselves. But what they fail to realise is that on demand, HD, wireless, anywhere, any device TV is coming whether content owners (Hollywood) like it or not. Hollywood can either get out in front of this tsunami and try to ride the wave of the future, or it will get crushed by it.

The future of TV will look something like Spotify or Netflix, meaning it will be:

• On demand
• HD
• With a comprehensive library of content
• And reasonably priced for all you can watch

When? The wireless and smart device technology exists right now, so it's all about content licensing. It was hoped that 2011 would be the breakthrough year for connected TV, but it's July and I don't see it happening.

Hollywood and content owners are fighting tooth-and-nail to maintain the lucrative status quo for another season. Freeview, talk of Netflix international expansion, and perhaps other important steps are in store for 2012, so here's to hoping we'll see major advances in wireless HD TV next year.

How to Fix Our Optimism Deficit

Europeans, Japanese, and even rose-colored glasses wearing Americans are suffering from what has been described as an 'optimism deficit'. This rather unthreatening sounding phrase should not be mistaken for an insignificant economic problem.

Optimism fuels all sort of important economic activities, such as entrepreneurship, saving for the future, and social cohesion. It may in fact be the most fundamental immediate challenge facing the developed world today. But with pre-election political gridlock setting in, our leaders are big on rhetoric and short on concrete actionable ideas which can restore confidence.

There is one idea, however, that I believe could make a significant impact on restoring optimism, but before getting to that a brief personal backstory.

Blowing Bubbles

I lived in San Francisco and worked in tech during Dot Com bubble and bust a decade ago, and it taught me a lot of lessons. But perhaps the most important one didn't come until several years afterwards.

Having been away from California for a few years since the burst, I moved back (this time to Southern California) in 2003. To my disbelief I began noticing similarities between the still nascent housing bubble and the one which I had just recently had a front-row vantage. The tech bubble seemed still too fresh in my mind for the kind of speculation on housing that was taking place. While the assets were different (tech stocks vs. real estate), the underlying psychology was eerily familiar.

I did not have the foresight of Michael Burry, Steve Eisman, and the founders of garage startup hedge fund Cornwall Capital to cash-in on this observation. Instead I simply ignored peer pressure and pesky real estate salespeople who warned me that if I didn't purchase a home now I would be "priced out of the market forever". Another memorable ribbing from that era was the "you're throwing your money down the drain" by renting year-after-year. When the 2008 financial crisis hit it made the Tech Bubble look like a small financial radar blip.

Forget-Me-Nots

Witnessing two significant financial crashes in such close proximity to each other left an indelible lesson, which was to never underestimate how quickly a large number of people can forget a traumatic financial event.

This month marks the four-year anniversary from what was arguably the canary in the coal mine moment, the July 2007 collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds, both of which were heavily invested in mortgage securities. Bear Stearns itself blew-up approximately nine months later, and it would take until September 2008 for the crisis to reach its nadir with the simultaneous implosion of Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and a bevy of other financial firms.

The case of Citigroup bears special mention. Its collapse and bailout marked the third time in last quarter-century that the firm needed to be rescued by the government (the other two instances being the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the late 1980s bust in commercial real estate which sparked the S&L crisis). Yes, that's right, about once every 8 years on average Citibank blows-up and needs a taxpayer funded bailout. If an inglorious banking prize equivalent to baseball's golden sombrero doesn't already exist then one should be created and promptly awarded to Citi!

While Rogoff and Reinhart caution against the following type of thinking, I do suspect that this time is different from 2003-2004. I don't believe as many people have forgotten the financial crisis as did the dot com bust, and not just because the 2008 crisis was much more spectacular in its magnitude. There are two big differences between then and now:

1. Protracted high unemployment, which in the U.S. is at 9.2%, and in places like Spain is over 20%.

2. The sovereign debt crisis that is hitting not just European countries such as Greece, but is also hammering away at confidence in the U.S. with daily headlines about nearing the debt ceiling.

A sense of widespread and growing economic unease can be seen in recent polling data:

A New York Times/CBS News poll finds that 39 percent of respondents believe “the current economic downturn is part of a long-term permanent decline and the economy will never fully recover.” (in October, only 28 percent of people believed the U.S. economy was in permanent decline -- marking an 11-point increase between now and then) 

The survey is only one of a recent spate indicating widespread distress over the state of the economy. On June 8, a CNN poll found that 48 percent of Americans believe another Great Depression is either very likely or somewhat likely.

The 2008 financial crisis was a severe blow to economic confidence and optimism, by far the biggest since the Great Depression. The most important and personal asset for the vast majority is housing, which lost one-third of its value from the peak and recently began a double dip. This combined with high unemployment and the suffocation of too much debt is at the heart of the current economic unease.

What Did Taxpayers Receive in Exchange for Bailing-out Banks?

The fundamental instability of the financial system was laid bare for all to see during the 2008 crisis. The public also got a glimpse of just how dangerous Too Big to Fail financial institutions are as governments around the world rushed to bailout megabanks and firms like AIG with taxpayer money. What did taxpayers get in exchange? As much as Paul Volcker, Adair Turner, Sheila Bair, and other well meaning and respected technocrats would like us to believe that Dodd-Frank, Basel III, etc. repaired the foundational cracks, the ongoing sovereign debt crisis casts serious doubts on these claims.

Today, people aren't wondering whether the next proverbial shoe will drop. People are instead bracing for when the next economic tsunami will make landfall. Will it be this week with Greece, end of this month with the U.S. debt ceiling, or sometime around the next major elections, when historically (and peculiarly) financial crisis seem to appear? The exact timing is uncertain, but there is broad understanding that another major financial crisis will strike, and perhaps soon.

This sense of pending chaos has left many people in a state of economic paralysis and dealt a collective blow to confidence and optimism. As Austin Powers would put it, we've lost our economic mojo.

A Key to Fixing Our Optimism Deficit

A big key to restoring economic optimism is the establishment of a sturdy foundation for the financial system.

Our current financial system is opaque and not well understood by the general public or many experts, such as macro economists, almost all of which failed to see the crisis coming. Apocalyptic terms are often employed when discussing it, and a fear that it may come crashing down at any moment feeds existential worry and creates a drag on productive economic activity. For example, concern of another crash inhibits lending and investment, reduces entrepreneurial risk taking, and may be responsible for the stockpiling of cash we're seeing at many large corporations, like Apple which is sitting on approximately $60 billion.

How best to provide the financial system with a rock solid foundation? Is simply restoring Glass-Steagall enough? I don't think so.

The most far-reaching, comprehensive and achievable plan is the one outlined by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, which he calls Limited-Purpose Banking. I believe that title may in fact do a disservice to his well thought through ideas, which go far beyond banking and include insurance and other areas of the financial system (e.g., regulatory consolidation of the 120 government agencies currently charged with supervising various elements of the financial system).

Professor Kotlikoff has written a book on his ideas, which you can find in the Good Books and Films section of the right-side column of this blog, titled Jimmy Stewart is Dead: Ending the World's Ongoing Financial Plague with Limited Purpose Banking (the Stewart reference is to the thespian's role as the likeable community banker, George Bailey, in It's a Wonderful Life). You can listen to an excellent talk he gave at the London School of Economics here. His proposal has generated bi-partisan political, regulatory and intellectual support around the world. Mervyn King of the Bank of England has been one of its foremost champions.

Without going into all the technical details, Limited-Purpose Banking basically removes leverage from the financial system and makes the entire system more like mutual funds, which did not collapse or suffer from fraud during the recent financial crisis.

Here are some of the promises of Limited-Purpose Banking:

• We’ll never have another financial collapse.
• We’ll never see a run on banks ever again. 
• We’ll never see insurance companies insuring the uninsurable. 
• We’ll get rid of all the con jobs underlying the current financial system. 
• There will be no more insider rating deals, liar loans, director sweetheart deals, bonuses which amount to corporate theft, bribing of Congress. 

In short, we’ll have a financial system that’s honest and that we can trust. The financial plague will be cured, once and for all.

Interview with Larry Kotlikoff Author of "Jimmy Stewart Is Dead" from Daniela Guernica on Vimeo.

To bring back economic optimism we must build a new, more stable foundation for economic activity. This foundation can be created with a new financial system like the one proposed by Professor Kotlikoff, who is quite optimistic about the likelihood that his ideas will ultimately be implemented. It may take one more financial crisis and bailout of the banks to get the public and politicians on board with this type of reform, but I agree with Professor Kotlikoff that something along the lines of the reforms he's outlined will happen eventually.

FDIC's Bair: "They Should Have Let Bear Stearns Fail"

Today's must-read interview is with just-departed FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, who sets the record straight on:

• where Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner went wrong (e.g., bailing out Bear Stearns)
• the disconnect between President Obama's 'heart' and the people he chose for his economic team 
• what the future holds for Too Big (or more accurately 'Too Bigger') to Fail

Bair's argument on letting Bear fail is that it would have sent a strong signal to the larger, more systemically integrated firms, like Lehman, that they should raise capital because the government was not going to bail out everyone. Whether Lehman could have in fact raised sufficient capital in the wake of Bear being allowed to fail is a great counterfactual question. 

One has the impression from reading Sorkin's Too Big to Fail that Dick Fuld and Co. either expected Paulson to bail Lehman out, or that the storm would pass soon enough for the prices of Lehman's assets to recover. Paulson purportedly appealed directly to Fuld to raise capital on numerous occassions in 2008. However, given the Federal Reserve's bailout of Bear, Fuld's skepticism that the systemically more important Lehman would be allowed to go under is understandable. If Bear had been allowed to fail Fuld likely would have come away with an entirely different interpretation of how things might play out should his back get pushed up against the wall, as it did during that fateful September of almost three years ago.

The interview also makes reference to former CFTC head Brooksley Born. For anyone who hasn't watched it already I highly recommend Frontline's profile of her battle with Greenspan, Rubin and Summers on the regulation of derivatives, a Wall Street product which Warren Buffet has called "financial weapons of mass destruction".

South Sudan: A How-to Guide on Setting Up a New Country

Tea Partyers, Seasteaders, the mapmaking industry, and all others pushing for more independent sovereigns are taking notes on how the world's newest nation, South Sudan, just came into existence.

There is quite a long to-do list that comes with starting a new country, including:

• Minting coin and printing currency (South Sudan Pound)
• Writing a national anthem
• Determining citizenship
• Securing a seat at the United Nations
• Designing a flag (pictured above)
• Picking a capital city (Juba)
• Securing your country internet domain name
• Creating a postal system and printing stamps
• And, the perhaps the all important selection of a national football (soccer) team

More on what all is needed to get South Sudan up and running over at the BBC and CNN.

Pakistan 101: Bhutto Movie Review and Trailer

Pakistan is complex, messy, and an absolutely crucial place for the world to better understand.

Pakistan is described as a military that happens to have have a country attached to it. The Economist recently argued that the Pakistani-Indian border is the world's most dangerous (although I'd argue back that the North Korean-South Korean border is perhaps equally if not more dangerous). The country has nuclear weapons and has trafficked nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. It is also perhaps ground zero in the War on Terror.

In the U.S., many questions have arisen since Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan about just how reliable a friend is Pakistan? Since 2002 the U.S. has sent nearly $20 billion in military and other aid to the country, with another $3 billion slated for 2011. How is that aid being used? Is this policy helpful or harmful to not only the U.S.'s interests, but Pakistan's?

The film Bhutto, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last year, is well made, engaging, informative, and highly recommended. While it perhaps can justifiably be accused of painting a positively-biased picture of Benazir Bhutto, it does not shy away from interviewing her critics and pointing out at least some of the accusations of corruption made against Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan.

This film is a recommended piece of edutainment for anyone interested in learning more about Pakistan and who likes learning through movies. It provides a helpful introduction to the history of Pakistan and the significant role the Bhutto clan have played.

Even more highly recommended is the book Ghost Wars by Steve Coll (who is interviewed in the film), which you can find on the right side of this blog in the Good Books and Films section.

Video: Moneyball Movie Trailer

Video: Cowen's Great Stagnation vs. Kurzweil's Singularity

Ray Kurzweil vs. Tyler Cowen. The inventor vs. the economist. Which one is right about the speed of technological change and progress? It would be interesting to see these two on stage together ala Keynes vs. Hayek.



Upon closer inspection of the specifics of their respective arguments, the initially perceived differences may prove somewhat of a false dichotomy. But in terms of which narrative, or meta idea, is better supported, at this point I'd say Kurzweil's case is more compelling.

Was putting a man-on-the-moon peculiarly un-American?

First-image of ISS docking by a soon-to-retire U.S. space shuttle

The Economist has an interesting read on the 50-year anniversary of President Kennedy's speech which set a goal of putting a man-on-the-moon within a decade.

Here's the key excerpt:

He (Kennedy) set out to make America’s achievements in space an emblem of national greatness, and the project succeeded. Yet it did not escape the notice of critics even at the time that this entailed an irony. The Apollo programme, which was summoned into being in order to demonstrate the superiority of the free-market system, succeeded by mobilising vast public resources within a centralised bureaucracy under government direction. In other words, it mimicked aspects of the very command economy it was designed to repudiate. 

That may be why subsequent efforts to transfer the same fixity of purpose to broader spheres of peacetime endeavour have fallen short. If we can send a man to the moon, people ask, why can’t we [fill in the blank]? Lyndon Johnson tried to build a “great society”, but America is better at aeronautical engineering than social engineering. Mr Obama, pointing to competition from China, invokes a new “Sputnik moment” to justify bigger public investment in technology and infrastructure. It should not be a surprise that his appeals have gone unheeded. Putting a man on the moon was a brilliant achievement. But in some ways it was peculiarly un-American—almost, you might say, an aberration born out of the unique circumstances of the cold war. It is a reason to look back with pride, but not a pointer to the future.

Barring a crisis or existential threat, are the prospects for the U.S. undertaking an ambitious, focussed transition to a sustainable energy based system, or an affordable healthcare system, extremely remote?

In short, was the U.S.'s Race to the Moon success, as The Economist puts it, a 'glorious one-off'?