Societal collapse in mid 21st century

[living sounds]

At least there are actual tangible advancements made with phone hardware. Phone cameras for instance have improved incredibly in the last 15 years. But the software mostly is one giant mess (unless you buy a rather pricy Apple device).

But clothing? Furniture? Stuff to stuff your house and garden with? Entertainment? Popular music?

 

[john12ax7]

Also: Boston consulting group has found out decades ago that the middle sector of well-made but affordable products is the least profitable.

Those types of goods do seem to be harder and harder to find. Music gear has been on a similar path.

Was there an underlying reason that they are less profitable? In part it seems a feedback loop. Consumers want cheaper goods, manufacturers deliver but often with lower and lower quality.

 

[fazer]

Growth is fueled by capital investment.

But buying back your stock is a faster way to making your stock options worth more in a 3 year bonus plan for top executives. Simpler than actual developing a new growth product.

 

[JohnRoberts]

But buying back your stock is a faster way to making your stock options worth more in a 3 year bonus plan for top executives. Simpler than actual developing a new growth product.

Some companies (like IBM) were notorious for gaming their P/E ratio by buying back stocks to reduce the denominator. This is not a secret and you do not have to buy those stocks.

Thanks for making me look, I just checked my portfolio and some green shoots. One small drug company I bought a couple weeks ago is up 35%. The bigger conservative drug company (PFE) I bought at the same time is only up about 1%.... but that's the difference between a trade and an investment.

Walmart is down 1% since I bought them but I feel lucky as long as they don't pursue space travel.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Those types of goods do seem to be harder and harder to find. Music gear has been on a similar path.

Was there an underlying reason that they are less profitable? In part it seems a feedback loop. Consumers want cheaper goods, manufacturers deliver but often with lower and lower quality.

It wasn't BCG after, but Porter (long time since I studied this):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter's_generic_strategies

 

[PermO]

Consumers are stupid, instead of asking for cheaper goods they should demand a fair pay !

I's a world upside down, and we created that by not paying attention and drinking the capitalist coolaid promoting socialism for the poor.

 

[Brian Roth]

I'm now just shooting from the hip....but competition in the marketplace of the pro audio/home entertainment/music instrument/etc. biz (my universe since late 60's) involved a complicated "dance".

Taking pro audio as an example.... when I was much younger, Ampex tape machines were king of the heap in the USA. Slightly Later, I learned that Studer machines ruled the rest of the world. Both companies had amazingly intelligent engineering designs, and the companies sold VERY solid products on a small production line (compared to say, automobiles or washing machines). Ampex and Studer machines still live in 2021. They weren't cheap when new!

Then, we began to see things like Tascam (and later Fostex) which drove the marketplace into a much lower price-point. Midrange companies like MCI battled in the entire market. Ampex gave up, Studer kept up the product lines. Sony bought MCI and soon killed that acquisition.

We went from "military spec" machines down to disposable crap in only a few years.

LOL...glad I'm semi-retired now. But, I keep a "fleet" of Ampex ATR-100 machines running.

Bri

 

[Script]

Just watched the J. Peterson video clip from above. Man, not much you can do about it but in that clip he comes across as a bitterly ranting, arrogant shmock with a popularity complex. (Not meant as an ad hominem, just an unfiltered observation on this particular gig of his.)

Unfortunately, he starts his excursion with a truism guised as a reproach to catch the audience and then, in two instances, scolds this very same applauding audience to underline his authority. I'd call that an overall poor performance. What's with all this bitterness? There must be better discussions featuring him.

Two things he said there though that I like . He seems to suggest to:
- raise all people out of poverty
- provide better education for all

Well, now I am curious what Peterson envisions to achieve that.

 

[user 37518]

Just watched the J. Peterson video clip from above. Man, not much you can do about it but in that clip he comes across as a bitterly ranting, arrogant shmock with a popularity complex. (Not meant as an ad hominem, just an unfiltered observation on this particular gig of his.)

Unfortunately, he starts his excursion with a truism guised as a reproach to catch the audience and then, in two instances, scolds this very same applauding audience to underline his authority. I'd call that an overall poor performance. What's with all this bitterness? There must be better discussions featuring him.

Two things he said there though that I like . He seems to suggest to:
- raise all people out of poverty
- provide better education for all

Well, now I am curious what Peterson envisions to achieve that.

Well, after that cheesy, kumbaya question I would've probably reacted the same way, you have to know more about Peterson to understand the question that guy asked, Peterson wrote a book called "Maps of Meaning", and the guy in the audience strated brown nosing Peterson by ending his question with something like "humanity could discover its global Map of Meaning", also note that the guy who asks the question says "we could move beyond bill C-16", that bill is a Canadian bill which made Peterson famous due to his strong rejection and his public speech in congress against that bill, so Peterson's "No" was more than appropriate towards the Woke poetry that the guy disguised as a question, I bet the guy in the audience prepared and rehearsed that question all week before the interview thinking he was delivering "gold".

I guess he is tired that people praise climate change as the biggest catastrophe above anything else, and he is telling them not to be hyprocrites.

He proposed a solution, he mentioned Bjorn Lomborg's work, haven't read it thou, I saw that there is a recent video of Lomborg talking with Peterson, perhaps it is better explained there.

By the way, if you are familiar with Peterson, he is usually like that, he smiles sometimes but he is not a sweet character, actually I've seen him cry more than laugh, he always tells it straight, in fact in the first speech which made him famous in the UT, he is actually grinding his teeth while he yells at the crowd. He scolds the audience because he is not trying to be funny, and the audience was laughing thinking he made a joke. He is an interesting character, he seems dark and pessimist, but in all that pessimism he delivers some really uplifting ideas and truth. He is one of the great ones that will make a mark in history. And yes, I have a little bit of positive bias towards him.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It wasn't BCG after, but Porter (long time since I studied this):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter's_generic_strategies

I stopped sending contributions to wikipedia since the founder criticized it for being edited to tilt left ( a risk of the open editing).

I find it amusing to hear a college professor's version of business strategy. At least Harvard did case studies of successful businesses. I used to joke that they needed to study failed businesses too. IMO there are lessons from both. I performed my own research over several decades of hands on experience.

JR

 

[cyrano]

There's only one big problem: the number of people on the planet...

Of course, it's very much aggravated by the number of old people on the planet getting ever larger because we also live longer.

The math is simple enough.

 

[user 37518]

There's only one big problem: the number of people on the planet...

Of course, it's very much aggravated by the number of old people on the planet getting ever larger because we also live longer.

The math is simple enough.

I don't believe there is too much people on the planet, if any, in the future there will be too few, with the fertility rates of most westernized countries, massive investment on birth control and abortion from goverments, global and private organizations in both the developed and developing countries, the promotion and legislation of policies such as assisted suicide and the lack of marriage and/or unions which produce offspring (and the advanced age of those who actually do), the massive decline of testosterone and sperm fertility levels in men since the 1980s, the promotion of hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers, add to that the ineffectiveness of antibiotics towards common diseases (i.e. antibiotic resistant gonorrhea), plus more of these weird pandemics in which as soon as it seems to be under control some delta variant or israeli variant or indian variant or the black fungus seems to appear.

In some years the "big problem" that you mention will be no more.

 

[cyrano]

Math counts...

Belief doesn't matter one bit.

 

[living sounds]

I stopped sending contributions to wikipedia since the founder criticized it for being edited to tilt left ( a risk of the open editing).

I find it amusing to hear a college professor's version of business strategy. At least Harvard did case studies of successful businesses. I used to joke that they needed to study failed businesses too. IMO there are lessons from both. I performed my own research over several decades of hands on experience.

JR

I fail to see what this has to do with Wikipedia. They only provide an overview over material that can be found in most Marketing/Brand Management textbooks.

Also:

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"
Stephen Colbert

 

[user 37518]

Math counts...

Belief doesn't matter one bit.

Ok, so what is the objective number according to "Math"?

Ohhh and yes, belief does matter... You believe there are too many, I believe not. In fact this post is about an article of scientists who "believe" that in 2040 society will collapse.

P.S. I find it odd that you read the first 3 words of my post and neglected the rest.

 

[living sounds]

Of course there are way too many people on this finite planet of ours. Every year we use up its yearly resources at an earlier date. Check this website:

https://www.overshootday.org
Conspiratorial thinking and conjecture won't get us out of the mess we are in.

 

[user 37518]

Of course there are way too many people on this finite planet of ours. Every year we use up its yearly resources at an earlier date. Check this website:

https://www.overshootday.org
Conspiratorial thinking and conjecture won't get us out of the mess we are in.

Whats conjecture?or conspirational, all I said were facts. In the future, if things keep going as they are going, there will be no overpopullation problem, relax.

 

[ruffrecords]

Of course there are way too many people on this finite planet of ours. Every year we use up its yearly resources at an earlier date. Check this website:

Yup, over population is the elephant in the room. Global warming is the the cloak of invisibility hiding it.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

I fail to see what this has to do with Wikipedia. They only provide an overview over material that can be found in most Marketing/Brand Management textbooks.

The founder of wikipedia (an authority on the subject) complained that groups of liberals have changed the content on wiki pages to reflect a left leaning bias.

Also:

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"
Stephen Colbert

Colbert is not an objective observer IMO (at least you added the emoticon so maybe you are joking).

Of course there are way too many people on this finite planet of ours. Every year we use up its yearly resources at an earlier date. Check this website:

https://www.overshootday.org
Conspiratorial thinking and conjecture won't get us out of the mess we are in.

This is a very old arm waving (sky is falling) screed... "The population bomb" (Paul Ehrlich) published in 1968 predicted world wide famine by 1970s-80s due to overpopulation. Instead we have a massive obesity problem.

We will never run out of existential threats to rally the uninformed against.

JR

 

[Tubetec]

Yeah but then again maybe cost/ poor dietary choices and subsequent obiesity are just a covert way of giving less well off less well educated people enough rope.

Im not a huge fan of chef Jamie Oliver , but he did a series on school canteen food in the USA a few years back thats is worth a look at . The man was in tears when he saw what was being schlonked out , poverty could well mean these kids have no frame of reference on what good food actually is , the least the state could do is try and set a good example . Theres many kids out there now throw tantrums unless it chicken dippers or other cakadoodle-do on the menu . With both parents working to keep the boat afloat and for the sake of less resistance at the dinner table many cave in to poor food choices .