Where not to sit on business class

If you're traveling business class by plane, do your very best to avoid the last row of the cabin. That's where families with babies using skycots attached to the wall are seated on economy. Avoid that last row seat if you're headed on a long trip and you're tired or in desperate need for some rest during the flight. You will be thankful later.

If you can't be seated anywhere else, perhaps it would be a good idea to ask if the airline can give you a discount.

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Need a new job? Work in a bar

If people lose their jobs by the millions and can't find a new one, how and where will they release their despair and frustration? Drinking in a bar for former golden boys or at home for the bronze ones! So, if you have money to invest, invest it in alcohol and wine manufacturers and if you need a new job consider working in a bar!

http://thinkaloo.com

Would it be too embarrassing to order just dessert?

Dessert is a course that typically comes at the end of a meal but I am thinking that in a weak economy people should become creative with cost-cutting and try to keep doing as many of the activities they were used to as possible. One is going out to eat in a restaurant. I guess I can eat at home and then go out in a restaurant with my friends and just order dessert and perhaps a drink to go with it.

Restaurants which will experience a huge drop in business need not advertise their plight in their websites by saying they accept dessert-only meals but if customers come in and order just dessert they should be happy to provide it and train the staff not to express any sign of surprise when they take the order.

http://thinkaloo.com

cc: Customer Capitalism!

With so much talk going on about how to save capitalism from the global economic crisis, I like to use radical thinking and toy with totally unheard-of thoughts in my mind.

Here's a recent one that's been toying my head.

We know of shareholder capitalism. Shareholders buy stocks and own a company. Shareholders make a profit (or loss) when they sell the stock or when the company pays dividends out of profits.

Now how about this. Imagine for a moment there are no shareholders and no stocks to buy in a publicly listed, publicly owned company. The company is owned by the founders but the rules are that dividends are not exclusively paid to the owners. After the company's profit is taxed and some money is invested in the business and a portion of it retained by the owners, dividends are paid back to the customers that bought the services and/or products of the company.

In other words, only customers who bought the products/services of the company and are the source of the company's profit get to receive the dividends. Every receipt for purchase of goods and services essentially functions as 'stock'. It entitles the customer that holds it to a portion of the dividends the company normally pays out. The individual portion each customer gets is equal to the percentage of his purchase amount over total sales.

A customer who buys a product and is entitled to a portion of the company's profit will tend to be a loyal customer. He gets a stake in the company and its products because he can make money from it. This incentive will keep him busy consuming because he will get some money back from doing so.

At a time where the global economy and certainly the US economy could be plunging into a deflationary spiral where prices go down with no bottom in sight we need people to consume and buy to help us get out of it.

Customer capitalism in the sense I described it above could be a smart trick to use to get everyone buying again.

Of course the system I just described is a thought exercise, a brain game if you like. I find it very exciting and stimulating to imagine how the economy would function if certain rules are changed.

If you also share a similar passion, I look forward to reading your comments thoughts and reaction on this. Thanks!

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Why the China man won't spend

SunTzu said: If the enemy is weak because he overspent, don't overspend or you'll become weak too. Said it but didn't write it.

SunTzu then said and wrote: "All warfare is based on deception...If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles"

The world hopes the Chinese and the other Asians will spend the West out of recession. Ok, here is why if you read SunTzu you know this will never happen.

The Chinese know themselves. They like to save. They look at the West and they see that it overspent and is in trouble. What's the lesson they get?

Stick to saving. Don't do what your rival did and got him in trouble. Just give the appearance you might in the form of big government spending plans.

How deception works. The government announces big spending plans and the world thinks the Chinese man will suddenly start spending. But the Chinese man will not do that because he knows it will get him into same trouble as the Western man.

He remembers Sun Tzu and decides to save a big portion of the money in order to buy the enemy later and win the battle without a fight.

Sun Tzu said: He who hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer.

Time to read Sun Tzu from the Chinese man's point of view!

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Madoff give me $1 million and I'll co-sign...

Madoff was released on a $10 million personal recognizance bond secured by his $7 million Manhattan apartment. But because he failed to secure the required number of co-signers for his bail bond home detention was required. No chance of leaving the country now for a Ponzi-friendly jurisdiction...Madoooooff if you give me $1 million I'll jump in and co-sign on that bond. It's all for the public good! I have so many debts and people to pay and I promise to spend all the remaining money on charities and the economy. I know you have internet at home and if you don't mind you can wire the amount here. No prob. Do we have a deal Madoff?? :)

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Crisis? What crisis?

Of course we have a crisis, people lose jobs, companies go bankrupt and all explained on the basis of greed, lack of regulation and wall street walking on clouds. Some people argue that the good times was just an illusion. Well, if the economic growth, wealth creation and the excess profits of the last few years were an illusion, shouldn't then an illusion's fall and demise also be an illusion? That's the only logical conclusion you can make if you accept the premise of the illusion.

So it wasn't an illusion and we have a real crisis which means we did have real growth and wealth creation. Is it simply changing hands now in which case the crisis is a process of wealth reallocation and ensuing disruption? Or is wealth actually destroyed at a level below the one that existed before excess growth building began?

Physical wealth in the US, Europe and Asia is not being destroyed. We are not experiencing a World War. With the exception of oil depleting and a climate changing, bridges, roads and buildings are still in place. So the major destruction is mainly happening to the intangibles. That's why prices fluctuate like crazy.

Isn't the creation of intangibles, however, infinite? If you look at history and also believe in human nature then you must accept its ability to create new intellectual words out of old ones.

I am optimistic. To those who argue previous wealth creation and economic growth was just borrowed time and an illusion, I rest my case.

Crisis? What crisis? It's just an illusion!

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Toilet paper money

It's been suggested before only as a joke, now let me reiterate it as a half-joke. If printing money is the answer to massive debts and global deflation could we ask that central banks print money on toilet paper so that it's rendered useful if zimbabwe-style inflation sets in? If the quality of paper is smooth and rectum-friendly we won't need foreign exchange markets either. We can just barter, trade, swap, insure or invest in each country's toilet paper comparative advantage. And unlike forex markets, almost every single person in the world uses toilet paper. We're talking of a potential 7-billion-people-essentially-single-currency economy here. Keep it in mind please!

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Post-it note economics

I am not sure if this falls under psychology, ecology or economics. My friend works for a company which is currently facing severe economic difficulties and management is frantic about reducing costs. Half-jokingly someone suggested that they use both sides of a post-it note. When I heard it, I was surprised but after giving it some thought I realized it's not such a bad idea. If we use less paper, that's good for the environment, isn't it? The only time I used both sides of a post-it note was when, having run out of sets, I had to make do with the last note in the pack. It never occurred to me to think of the environmental impact so I'm now reconsidering my one-side only use.

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Sometimes I just like to bitch

I hate when I complain about my job, and someone says, "Why don't you look for something else?" I don't want to look for something else. I want to stay in my comfort zone and bitch about this job. And anyway, the economy.

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Special glasses for laptop use in plane

Some airlines (Delta, United, Virgin etc) are rushing to offer Wi-Fi internet connections in economy. Most people cite cramped space on the tray table as the major problem for laptop use in a flight but I think privacy is a more serious problem. Text chatting with my girlfriend or friends, I wouldn't want the guys sitting next to me reading what I write. We are all curious creatures by nature and easily tempted to read into everything that gets displayed on someone else's computer screen.

One way to solve the privacy issue is with special use glasses that the passenger puts on to watch what is displayed on the computer screen which stays turned off. I looked up online and found out that head mounted display glasses already exist. They connect to common video sources and are ideal for mobile entertainment and information applications.

I expect that as in-flight Wi-Fi becomes available and people take their laptops with them, there will be a big demand for use of such glasses to protect privacy. I think it's a smart investment to buy stocks of companies that make them.

http://thinkaloo.com

Message to Obama: Don't markets amply reward value anyway?

The message from the Obama team is that we have to reward people who add value to the economy by producing real products and services instead of rewarding bankers with sky-high bonuses and salaries which they haven't really earned nor they deserve. While I agree with the principle that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded and people who don't should not, I'm very confused by that message being repeated by Obama over and over.

Entrepreneurs who add value by innovating and creating successful new products do get rewarded very handsomely. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin etc. These people Are rich unlike bankers who get paid well but receive nowhere near the rewards successful entrepreneurs receive.

When there is no money around to give, bankers get fired. When there is, bankers get it. When a banker gets a high bonus, it's because he has earned it. When he hasn't earned it but still gets it, it is because the government gives it to him. My point is that bankers don't create money out of nothing, they get it from somewhere.

So long as they can be creating ways to get it, it sounds awkward to say that we need to reward other professionals more, unless Obama means we disperse taxpayers money directly into other professionals' bank accounts as bonuses for services or products they have not yet created or might never will. Just like he did with recent AIG and Citigroup bonuses for example. At least I can understand how that works. Hey you failed but here is your paycheck. I, the government, give it to you.

Saying however, that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded more than bankers who don't add any value, that I don't understand. Doesn't the market already reward successful people in every field anyway? What's wrong with that to want to make it work otherwise or differently? I don't understand why and how, in a merit-based market economy the reward system should change.

For the government to say we got to change the reward system in our market-based economy when the government rewards failed bankers with taxpayers' money it's confusing and convoluted. If the government gave the money to the failed bankers already, that means that they somehow deserved it, so be clear with your message Obama, what exactly do you mean when you say other workers should be rewarded more than bankers in a market-based economy that already rewards success in the market? Do you plan to play market or do you plan to subsidize the market? Or are you just saying?

You know, just stop paying high bonuses to Failed bankers and we are back to square one. Let them fail. Regulate. Simple. Stop preaching if your actions don't measure up to the message. Stop preaching about not wanting to reward failure in the system when you have already rewarded failure by keeping failed banks alive. Not cool.

Market failure and regulation is change we can understand and already believe in. That's why we elected you anyway. Be cool.

http://thinkaloo.com

How to keep the unemployed busy

Obama is talking of a new Green Economy and governments all over the world spend billions of dollars to spur economic growth. What if all unemployed people were immediately hired to work part-time to clean up the environment? Restore polluted sites, clean up beaches and cities from litter, install renewable energy infrastructure.

They would be paid for their work on top of the unemployment benefit and use their spare time to look for another job. It's better than no work at all and the government can hire them right away.

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Movie scenario

2011. The US economy is going through its Greatest Depression. People everywhere are gloomy, depressed, unhappy. The government is too embarrassed and stops reporting suicide rates. Government-provided universal health coverage in the US has been implemented and all medical records are digital. All patient-doctor communication is electronic, therapy is delivered online and patients rarely visit the doctor at his office. The government wants to do something drastic to end the Depression and decides to write a software that will inform every citizen that they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. You get informed that you have 1-2 years of healthy life in front of you before the illness takes over.

Will the government's action, however drastic, energize people to ostracize misery and gloom from their lives and turn a whole nation away from depression?

Do you think it is an interesting scenario for a movie? I imagine that the end will be that the whole nation will recover fast from the economic slump and misery but when the people realize that their diagnosis was fake they will be shocked not knowing whether to forgive or not forgive their government for lying to them.

How would you develop the story?

www.thinkaloo.com

US Presidential Elections, who can use who?

This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 21 March 2008 by member monica

Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people

---

I am interested in your opinion on this. If Hillary wins, she could use Obama in her cabinet, possibly as Secretary of State or at the Department of Energy to oversee the transition to a green economy. If Obama wins, however, I don't think there is much room to use Hillary. Their positions on health care and foreign policy in Iraq are different. Which do you think is more likely to happen?

If it's true that Hillary and Obama are a dream ticket, would you vote for Hillary so that you can also get Obama's talent or would you go for Obama with less chances to use any of Hillary's experience?

Electric oultets for laptop on Economy class seats!

This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 11 March 2008 by member james85

Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people

---

You can only plug your laptop if you fly business or first-class, but I certainly wouldn't mind it if I was asked to pay a few dollars more for my economy class ticket and have electric outlet for my laptop. I also think that since passengers can place calls during a flight, companies should make internet access available as well. When you fly on economy on a long flight, internet access and a laptop that works on the plug can make a big difference!