Olive Oil and climate change

 Growing Olives

A Mega Drought Is Threatening To Drive Up Olive Oil Prices
[Via ThinkProgress]

Southwest Spain is experiencing its worst drought since record keeping began 150 years ago, and agricultural crops, especially olives, are suffering badly. With climate models and Spanish researchers both predicting that Spain’s droughts will get more intense and more regular than before, this is the second year since 2012 that heat and drought have threatened the country’s trademark olive harvest.

Spain produces around half the world’s olives and is the number one producer of olive oil. The drought has speculators, including forecasting agency Oil World, worried that olive yield could drop up to 40 percent year-over-year in 2014. Olive trees flower and start to bear fruit in the late spring and early summer which was an especially dry time in Spain’s main olive-producing regions this year.

“The drought in Spain and its impact on the olive market is potentially very significant,” Lamine Lahouasnia, head of packaged food at Euromonitor International, told the Wall Street Journal. “If the drought does end up adversely affecting Spanish yields, it is very likely that we’ll see rising consumer prices in 2014.”

European olive oil prices are already up over 30 percent since the beginning of the year, a phenomenon driven by above average temperatures and low precipitation across the Mediterranean olive-growing belt. According to the IPCC, the Mediterranean may be one of the most impacted areas of the world from climate change. Already a hot, semi-arid region, hotter summers and more intense and frequent droughts will threaten water supplies and agricultural production.

[More]

It may sound minor but this will happen more and more.

Climate change will severely disrupt agriculture in many countries. Places that got a lot of water will no longer. Other places will get too much.

We have designed our civilization based on relatively stable climate conditions. With those changing, so too will our civilization. 

Changing the lives of billions.

More Medical disruption: GoPros in surgery, to be watched with Oculus Rift by students

GoPro 

Virtual surgery gets real 
[Via — Medium]

Virtual surgery gets real What the Oculus Rift could mean for the future of medecine Technological innovation takes time : virtual reality has been a thing in the medical field for more than three decades, and despite great promises it isn’t widely available yet. Things could change quickly, and the innovation won’t come from the usual suspects in medecine, but the gaming world.

[More]

The cost for devices continue to drop so far that individuals can now accomplish what used to only be seen in science fiction.

Instead of 10s of thousands of dollars for a virtual operating room and the cameras, a couple of GoPros and some software is all that is needed.

The cameras are small enough that they were mounted on the doctors head during surgery. The Rift allows 3D viewing. The ability to rapidly educate students is tremendous.


Can real capitalism be returning? I think so

 Apple CEO Tim Cook

Shareholder vs. Stakeholder Capitalism
[Via Economist's View]

Quiet day in blogland. Here’s something to kick around for those of you who are so inclined:

Shareholder vs. Stakeholder Capitalism: …We may be witnessing the beginning of a return to a form of capitalism that was taken for granted in America sixty years ago. …

Are we witnessing the reemergence of “Stakeholder Capitalism”? I’m doubtful.

[More]

I’m not. Let’s look at one of the 21st century corporations that recognizes stakeholders, not shareholders – Apple.

At this year’s annual meeting, Tim Cook was visibly angered by the questions from a climate change denier group. They wanted to know if Apple’s investments in controlling the environmental  impacts of its business helped or hurt the bottom line. They wanted him to commit only to things that made money. Period.

Cook does not get angry in public much. But he knows the value of using it when necessary.

He stated that Apple tries to do what is right and just, to not focus purely on the return on investment (ROI) of what they do.

When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.

Then  he said something I have never heard a CEO state, one that the sociopathic leaders of shareholder-driven corporations would never even think:

If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.

A shareholder corporation focusses only on the ROI and screw anything else. A stakeholder corporation cares about that “anything else.”

That “ anything else” used to encompass a lot.There used to be a multitude of stakeholders a corporation needed to serve – shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, lenders, and the local community.

For much of the last 25 years, the only stakeholder a corporation focussed on is the shareholder.

It is the Costco model vs the Walmart model. One posits that corporations are run by the sort of moral and ethical people that Adam Smith described. People like Tim Cook.

The other envisions a corporation run by sociopaths. One that ignores its necessary impact on employees, suppliers, lenders and the community.

It ignores its social obligations.

Capitalism only works because of its social connections and norms. It cannot work by itself. It cannot exist in isolation. It is a social construct. It needs people who will participate.

And people are learning the power of that participation more and more to control the social behavior of a corporation. 

Apple has always been focussed on much more than its shareholders (one reason Wall Street has never treated Apple well). That is one reason it has such a dynamic community of fans.

Same with Costco.

The sociopaths tried to convince us that their path was the right one because it would raise up everyone. We have seen that this is not the case and people are beginning to use their power to make companies serve the public more.

It will increase and perhaps we will again return to the stakeholder view of capitalism.

Some  corporations and CEOs may not be as wealthy but society as a whole will be.

The chart that shows why the S&P finally noticed wealth inequality

11111Lifeboats

S&P: Wealth gap is slowing US economic growth
[Via The Seattle Times]

Economists have long argued that a rising wealth gap has complicated the U.S. rebound from the Great Recession.

Now, an analysis by the rating agency Standard & Poor’s lends its weight to the argument: The widening gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else has made the economy more prone to boom-bust cycles and slowed the 5-year-old recovery from the recession.

Economic disparities appear to be reaching extremes that “need to be watched because they’re damaging to growth,” said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at S&P.

[More]

Shorter post: not surprisingly, the S&P only cares about the income gap when the wealthy are no longer seeing increasing incomes.

The S&P states: “A lifeboat carrying a few, surrounded by many treading water, risks capsizing,

Finally a metaphor from Wall Street to counter the rising tide raises all boats.

The S&P is correct and the increasing disparity between the wealthiest and the rest of us distorts the economy. The small number of wealthy exert different incentives on an economy than the multitudes of a middle class.

From the article:

Adjusted for inflation, the top 0.01 percent’s average earnings have jumped by a factor of seven since 1913. For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, average incomes after inflation have grown by a factor of just three since 1917 and have declined for the past 13 years.

And almost all of the increase for the bottom 90% came between the years of 1947 and 1980, when their income doubled. A three-fold increase in 100 years when it went up two0fold in the post-War boom.

Things get skewed. This has been going on for 100 years, with no notice by Wall Street.

But why hasn’t the S&P said something earlier. I believe this chart shows why.

NewImage

I’ve written about this graph before but this one has it broken out into wealth categories. The wealthy and the middle class saw incomes rise in lockstep from 1947 to the early1970s.

They both went up two-fold. During this period,  the middle class grew at rates never seen in our history.

Something happened in the early 70s. For the top 5%, the growth in income continued. For the rest of us, income growth stopped.

But, look at the top 5% since 2000. Their incomes have been flat for the last 14 years. All those Bush tax cuts had little effect on the incomes of the wealthiest families. We hear about increasing CEO salaries but even that is not enough.

So while the bottom 20% actually saw their incomes drop over the last 14 years, the wealthy have been treading water.

Or to use the S&P metaphor. the wealthy are now treading water like the rest of us, with fewer people remaining in the lifeboats.

No wonder the S&P has finally started to care. Maybe something will be done to get more Americans in the lofeboats.

But I’m not counting on it coming from most of the politicians we currently have. They are mostly minions of the wealthiest to begin with.

The American Revolution was fought between authority and democracy, not tax rates

NewImageBen Franklin at the Lord’s Privy Council

The True Origins of the American Revolution
[Via Contrary Brin]

A few weeks ago, I was one of the headlined speakers at Freedom Fest, the big libertarian convention in Las Vegas. Do I seem an odd choice, given my past thorough and merciless dissections of Ayn Rand?

In fact I’ve done this before, showing up to suggest that a movement claiming to be all about freedom might want to veer away from its recent, mutant obsession — empowering and enabling the kind of owner-oligarchy that oppressed humanity all across the last 6000 years. Instead, I propose going back to a more healthy and well-grounded libertarian rootstock — encouraging the vast creative power of open-flat-fair competition

COMPETITION-1…a word that libertarians scarcely mention, anymore. Because it conflicts fundamentally with their current focus — promoting inherited oligarchy.

With that impudent, contrary attitude, would you believe I had a fine and interesting time? My son and I dined at the VIP table with publishing magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes. Along with humorist P. J. O’Rourke and John Mackey (Whole Foods and an avid SciFi reader.) Also at the table? Grover (I kid you not) Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform and a guiding force beyond the American right’s current-central obsession — that government of/by/for the people must perish from the Earth.

Would you be surprised that I was the most-liberal voice at this gathering? And yes, I managed to poke without being rude. (I’ve been known to poke in other directions, too!) I even learned a few things. See an addendum, below, offering more about the Freedom Fest event.

Foremost, though, I want to focus on one piece of polemic that Grover Norquist thrust upon us over dinner, concerning the origins of the American Revolution.

[More]

History does not repeat itself. But it does rhyme” – Mark Twain.

Brin encapsulates much of what I also feel is true. There were many reasons for the Revolution, but almost all derived from Age of Enlightenment/Reason thought – some of it economic in nature, but not focussed on tax rates per se.

  • Monopolies that cut out American merchants and put the yoke of colonialism on American industry while funneling cash to the richest of the British – a process denounced by Adam Smith.
  • Absolute control of money by the British, making a robust American economy almost impossible. At one point, the colonies wanted to be taxed so as to have some cash of their own.
  • Another thing denounced by Smith – rent-seeking by the British rather than opening up new markets.
  • If they were to be taxed, the colonies wanted an equal and representative say in how this was done. 
  • Control of the frontier, preventing anyone from leaving the rule of the British.
  • A primary and radical idea of the Enlightenment  era – all people were equal. So why should a hereditary lord have more power than a freeborn American?

All of these deal with the power of inherited and hierarchical authority as it combats a distributed democracy.

If one wants a quick synopsis of the effects these sorts of policies had on Americans, the utter failure of landed gentry and hereditary authority to understand the American spirit, read about Franklin’s hour in front of the Lord’s Privy Council in 1774

The attempt to utterly humiliate the smartest and most brilliant mind the world knew at the time is shameful. And all it really accomplished was to take that brilliant mind and turn it away from the hierarchical authority of Britain, to focus it fully on the distributed democracy of America.

Franklin was silent in the face of authority but he quickly made his new point of view clear, helping frame many of our most important political efforts. Then, in a truly distributed approach, Franklin would also make sure Britain paid for the insults he took silently when he negotiated the peace treaty.

He found a great way to route around the damage of inherited wealth and hierarchical authority. Destroy its wealth and  disavow its authority.

This is a solution we have done again and again when this battle has been engaged.

Today we find ourselves again fighting a battle between hierarchical authority and distributed democracy. Like then it cuts across parties. In the same way Adams and Jefferson could come together, so too will we see something similar happen.

Because this is at the heart of being an American, as Brin wrote: (his bold):

The colonies were already home to a new spirit and ethos – part cantankerous, part ebullient and hopeful, and part-scientific, with all those portions combining to demand one core question:

“Why should I have to bow down, or be bullied, by another mere human… just because of who his father was?”

The irony is rich. Those today citing the Founders most often are folks who are most vigorously helping propel us back into a world of inherited status, dominated by clans and cartels of aristocratic families.

I’d add “ or how rich he is?” We created the first modern democracy – of, by and for the people – not to just see the top 1% control our economic and political future.

As Brin states our ‘secret sauce” is an open and mutual accountability to and by others,. It is a social contract, something that every ruling class has attempted to destroy.

Make no mistake. The Charleston tories became Confederate plantation lords, who aimed to re-establish inherited-landed-ownership nobility, the classic human pattern that ruined competition and freedom and social mobility in every society other than ours.

And that torch is now carried by hirelings of a new oligarchy, diverting libertarian passion away from flat-open-fair competition over to worship of absolute property rights, no matter how inherited or how much this re-creates the Olde Order that sparked our Revolution.

One conflict Brin omits because it was not directly an American civil matter is World War II. Here, in many ways, the battle between authoritarian rule by a fascist elite and the distributed approaches of Western democracies was again won by those who have been winning these conflicts since at least 1776.

So, every 80 years or so we Americans have been involved in a tremendous battle over the same things, over hierarchical authority’s need to destroy the benefits of distributed democracy.

I expect they will lose once again. And lose big because we have new tools that support distributed democracy to an extent not seen in perhaps 10,000 years.

Surfers, not plodders

 Academia Surf&Rock 2013

When she finished her pitch, the investor said he didn’t invest in women
[Via Boing Boing]

“I don’t like the way women think. They haven’t mastered linear thinking.

[More]

Idiots. Cutting off half of society simply reduces the possible solutions to a wide variety of solutions.

But the quote about linear thinking is right on. These guys simply do not understand the genius of real innovators and simply follow a linear approach themselves.

We need more non-linear thinkers, those that can adapt to things even as the conditions are changing.

These male investors know how to plod to the top of a mountain. They do not know how to surf a wave of change. But a  mountain does not change as you are hiking to the top. Today’s economies do.

A wave cannot be predicted. It is constantly changing. So we need surfers. But these investors will continue to fund plodders.

Arthur C. Brooks is a conservative who really understands Adam Smith

Adam Smith

Web Extra: The Conscience of a Compassionate Conservative
[Via BillMoyers.com]

This week on the show, Bill spoke with the president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Arthur C. Brooks. Their conversation was so interesting that they kept talking, and we kept our cameras rolling after the broadcast interview ended. In this web extra, the two talk about the failures of capitalism, who is to blame for the 2008 financial crash, food stamps and a whole lot more.

 

BILL MOYERS: You once wrote, that you shouldn’t talk about the poor unless you’ve been out among them and listened to them before you listen to experts at Brookings or AEI. And I’ve done that as a journalist.

And capitalism is not getting down to them.

ARTHUR C. BROOKS: That’s true. It’s absolutely right–

BILL MOYERS: Capitalism is not getting down–

ARTHUR C. BROOKS: It’s absolutely right. And that’s why we all need to be hawks for the free enterprise system.

And until we’re warriors for opportunity, pushed all the way down to the bottom, until we understand that entrepreneurship exists as a moral force for poor people, for my grandparents and yours, unless we understand that then we’ve repudiated the promise of our founders.

BILL MOYERS: Did you read the book “Winner-Take-All Politics” by the political scientist Jacob Hacker and–

ARTHUR C. BROOKS: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Paul Pierson?

ARTHUR C. BROOKS: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: They describe how Washington made the rich richer and turned its back on the middle class. They showed clearly to me how our political system, which once served the interest of the middle class, has been hijacked by the very rich.

That the great explosion of wealth inequality which preceded Barack Obama, of course, was politically engineered in Washington by decisions taken under both parties, in both parties, by the people who make policy, in response to the powerful interests. Have you seen that playing out since you got to Washington?

ARTHUR C. BROOKS: Yes, sure. Absolutely. Look in the increasingly bureaucratized social democratic state that we’re building. You have greater levels of intricacy and complication. You have an explosion of statist ideas in Washington, D.C.

And what this is effectively is, metaphorically that’s a trough. And who comes to the trough? It’s people who feed there. And people who feed there are the sophisticated, they’re the wealthy, they’re the people who are well connected. We have an explosion of cronyism because it’s the illegitimate spouse of statism. If you want to get rid of cronyism that creates as winner-take-all politics, if you want a true democratic polity, you have to take away the pervasive statism that creates all of these incentives.

You know, the interesting thing is that the two populist movements that we saw over the past five years were the Tea Party and Occupy. They were both right. I mean the Tea Party talked about statism and Occupy talked about privilege and crony capitalism largely. I mean they– all of their solutions were wrong. You know, the problem with, you know, excesses of capitalism isn’t getting rid of capitalism. You need true free enterprise. That’s actually the solution to it, which is a highly populist thing to do.

So what’s happened effectively is– not for any ill intention. No. We have public policymakers, we have a president who loves his country. We have a Congress that’s gotten together and said, “What can we do to solve some of these terrible problems?” They’ve expanded the state. They’ve created greater complexity. And who has showed up to reap the rewards of that? It’s the most well connected citizens and corporations. And it’s left poor people, it’s left small entrepreneurs, it’s left ordinary citizens behind.

[More]

This was a real discussion, something that needs to be seen much more. They talk about where their views overlap and what underlies the problems/ I may not agree with everything but I can see where he is coming from and he is mostly correct.

That said, imagine if on the conservative side we have an examination of conscience where every night before we go to sleep we say, “Did all of my work go for the benefit of people with less power than me?” Then that could be a profoundly moral movement. I bet it’s one that even you could get behind.

I think that if you and I band together with all of our friends on the right and left, and we demand this collective examination of conscience, then we truly can have a better politics where we’re fighting in the competition of ideas specifically to help those who are the least advantaged.

If most of America could come together like these two, recognize the problems and come up with mutually useful solutions, much of our current problems would be fixed. Those in power recognize this and have worked so hard to keep the American people divided.

We have an explosion of cronyism because it’s the illegitimate spouse of statism. If you want to get rid of cronyism that creates as winner-take-all politics, if you want a true democratic polity, you have to take away the pervasive statism that creates all of these incentives.

You know, the interesting thing is that the two populist movements that we saw over the past five years were the Tea Party and Occupy. They were both right. I mean the Tea Party talked about statism and Occupy talked about privilege and crony capitalism largely. I mean they– all of their solutions were wrong. You know, the problem with, you know, excesses of capitalism isn’t getting rid of capitalism. You need true free enterprise. That’s actually the solution to it, which is a highly populist thing to do.

The statists, the reactionaries, are found in both parties, just as we find authoritarians. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street saw the right problems. But as he discusses, the solutions of both were wrong. The solution to the excesses of government isn’t getting rid of the government. You need a truly democratic one, truly beholden to the people, not to the connected, wealthy elite. Government is important and necessary. And capitalism is important and necessary.

He believes in government but recognizes it needs to be firmly controlled so that it does not become a feeding trough for the wealthy and connected, as we see today.

I will have to remember the name. He hits so many of the same points I feel.

The moral code of our free-enterprise system is neither profits nor efficiency. It is quote, “creating opportunity for individuals who need it most.” 

That could have come directly out of The Wealth of Nations. The creator of capitalism felt that empathy and sympathy would be driving the moral code of capitalism.

As Brooks notes, this is not happening today.

Opportunity does not mean food stamps. I believe in food stamps. I believe in them. I believe in the safety net. But it’s not the same thing. Why do we forget that entrepreneurship is not earning a billion dollars, it’s the dignity to live your life as an individual, to build your life up yourself. And why do we talk about dead-end jobs as opposed to making all jobs pay, and remembering that all work is dignified.

[…]

The problem that we have is that we’re actually not practicing capitalism. The problem is that the free-enterprise system is not allowed to flourish.

The main thing I disagree with him is that government was mostly at fault first. It’s a symbiotic one, a degraded collaboration between sociopaths. Running race to the bottom with little regard for the ability of people to have a living wage, much less any dignity.

He is absolutely right here – government is a problem but it comes down to people:

And I will not defend corporate governance. Because people– it does not matter how bad the incentives are and how corrupt the government is and how big and corpulent and immune to good ideas and morality the government is. We still as individuals, no matter what we do, we have a responsibility to not do dangerous things and to be stewards of both a good culture and the resources at hand.

Coning this Fall – the end of credit cards?

 Leather Wallet

 

Apple’s e-wallet could debut as soon as this fall, possibly with ‘iPhone 6′
[Via AppleInsider]

A report on Wednesday claims Apple is accelerating work on a mobile payments system, or digital wallet, that could be ready by this fall, allowing customers to pay for physical goods with their iPhone instead of a credit card or cash.

[More]

I’ve written before about how Apple will change the whole idea of a credit card transaction, through the use of an iPhone and iBeacons. And how Apple made some basic changes in its networking protocols to sent encrypted data.

Now it looks like it might come here this Fall. Never have to remove your credit card. Use your iPhone to transit all the necessary data and encrpted for protection. Now you don’t have to worry about a waiter running your card twice, or copying the number or using their own software to copy the card.

In fact, with an iWatch, you might not even need to remove your iPhone from your pocket.

So now think if Apple receives a small percentage of every Visa transaction? Thiunk that might enhance their bottom line?

If I had spare money, I;d be buying Apple stock.

Making a better world = Separating Sheep from Goats

Ellis Island

The parable of the sheep and goats – to me, one of the defining Biblical passages describing the underlying principles of Christ’s teachings. (with the Sermon on the Mount being the other major one).

As I have written before:

Whether it is the New Commandment to love one another, the Second Great Commandment to love our neighbors, turning the other cheek in response to evil, or how to love one’s enemies, His teachings show a path that breaks cycles of violence that often reverberate during times of change and strife.

This parable catalogs some of the actions that can be taken by those following his teachings – the sheep. It details how they separate themselves by how they treat others.

Seeing a person in difficulty, having compassion and acting to remedy that difficulty is one of the defining teachings that Christ provided.

They are about how to treat other humans, how compassion is required. Empathy and sympathy are what constantly drive successful societies and simply slow down cultures doomed to failure.

Time for us all to be separated – so many goats and so few sheep. From Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The “outsourcing” of Chinese jobs to robots begins in earnest

Tesla Autobots 

10,000 robots to help assemble Apple’s iPhone 6; robots expected to impact low-skilled workers worldwide
[Via MacDailyNews]

// <![CDATA[

google_ad_client = "ca-pub-9654279268749293";
/* Article Body, 336x280, Above the fold */
google_ad_slot = "0670981169";
google_ad_width = 336;
google_ad_height = 280;
//-->

// ]]>

“Foxconn parent company Hon Hai is set to deploy an army of 10,000 assembly-line robots to help meet the demands of producing the highly anticipated iPhone 6,” Reilly Dowd reports for The Fiscal Times. “Hon Hai CEO Terry Gou revealed in a recent shareholder meeting that Apple would be the very first customer of Foxconn’s latest robots.”

“‘Robots are going to enhance and speed up the manufacturing process,’ said Tim Bajarin, CEO of market research firm Creative Strategies. ‘The really big issue here is that the demand for the iPhone continues to grow. It’s grown every quarter since it came out,’” Dowd reports. “From a business standpoint, it makes sense. ‘When you are dealing with creating millions of smart phones per month, efficiency is critical,’ said Bajarin in an interview. ‘Robotics gives you that level of efficiency, which in the end, is very important for the bottom line.’”

[More]

This is only 10,000. But they work 27/7 with no need to eat or take breaks. As the use of these expands, expect to see many of Foxconn’s 1.3 million employees be put out of work. No more relatively high-paying jobs  for people with limited technological skills (ie not programmers).

Many manufacturing jobs in the US were moved to China because human labor was cheaper. What happens when robotic labor destroys those jobs?

The average person willnot have many options for living a middle class life.

Climate change might help some plants but it also helps some plant diseases

Soybean Sky

Climate change provides good growing conditions for charcoal rot in soybeans
[Via Eureka! Science News - Popular science news]

With over 100 diseases that can attack soybean crops, why would charcoal rot rise to the top of the most wanted list? University of Illinois scientists cite the earth’s changing climate as one reason that more research is needed on the fungus that causes charcoal rot.

[More]

One of the arguments from denialists is that climate change will not be so bad because plants like carbon dioxide. While this is debatable, what is not often discussed is how much better some plant diseases will do.

Here we have a fungus that likes warm, dry weather. And that also infects 500 other plants, including corn and sorghum, besides soybeans. And it loves salty conditions.

So a resistant plant must be one that is heat-, drought -, and salt-tolerant in order to beat the fungus.

Also, in contrast to other disease, charcoal rot not only kills the plant, it lives off the dead tissue. So, it can thrive living off the leftovers from other pathogens that can only use living plants.

At the moment, no soybean plant is completely immune to this fungus. So these researchers are trying to develop varieties that are able to fight off the fungus.

But those varieties also still need to be highly productive. Not an easy task.

It could happen: “Next on Fox – Start-up Battlefield”

Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument II

[Via Dave Winer's linkblog feed]

The whole idea of a battlefield for startups is ridiculous. Have a love-in for startups. A be-in.

[More]

Gack! It’s like making starting up a company into a reality show.

I agree with Dave Winer.

Make it a win-win proposition not a zero sum. That is the 21st century approach.

The company has to destroy itself, in order to save itself

Mac Keyboard 

Apple: Lessons in Self-Destruction. Richard Gutjahr’s blog
[Via asymco]

My thanks to Richard Gutjahr for taking time to talk about self-disruption. I met Richard as the Master of Ceremonies at the Censhare FutureDays event in Munich. He interviewed me for his blog and posted the results as a video and sound file. Richard is a journalist (Berliner Tagesspiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) and TV personality (news presenter for Rundschau night).

Horace and I have met at a conference in Germany a few weeks ago. During a break, we were talking about the future of Apple. Horace made a statement, which I found quite intriguing: In order to remain innovative, it is not enough to reinvent yourself again and again. Apple must be the one to destroy its own business.

Hour-long conversation including audio and video: Apple: Lessons in Self-Destruction.

[More]

“In order to remain innovative, it is not enough to reinvent yourself again and again. Apple must be the one to destroy its own business.”

That is what a 21st century company has to do. Google keeps re-inventing itself. Apple tries to destroy itself. The Mac destroyed the Apple II. The iPod destroyed the Mac. The iPhone destroyed the iPod.

What will destroy the iPhone?

(And by destroy, I don’t mean make vanish. Just toppled as the company’s lead money maker.)

Your iPhone will make a better, more secure wallet than your wallet

 iPhone 5S

Mobile money services on the rise worldwide as Apple eyes Touch ID payment system
[Via AppleInsider]

If Apple is able to drive adoption of its rumored iTunes-backed mobile payment system among wealthy consumers at the same pace as similar systems in the developing world, it could be one of the company’s most important — and profitable — strategic moves.

[More]

I’ve written about the effect the iPhone will have on credit cards before. I think this will be a key aspect of the new iPhone coming out (Apple will have had over a year to work out all the needed aspects of TouchId).

You iPhone will be more secure than the wallet you have. Only Apple will have the secure enclave that protects your data. Even losing your iPhone will not allow anyone access to the credit card numbers, like losing your wallet.

Combine this with iBeacons and Apple will control it all. I would not be surprised to see Google and the DOJ  go after Apple in a few years for their emerging monopoly in this area ;-)

Adam Smith knew that higher wages result in harder working employees

 Adam Smith

 

Adam Smith on How to Make the Working Class Happier and More Productive: Pay Them More
[Via Grasping Reality with Both Hands: Economist Brad DeLong's Fair, Balanced, and Reality-Based Semi-Daily Journal]

Adam Smith:Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 8: “The liberal reward of labour…

…as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people…. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days perhaps in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low; in England, for example, than in Scotland; in the neighbourhood of great towns, than in remote country places. Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four days what will maintain them through the week, will be idle the other three. This, however, is by no means the case with the greater part.

Workmen, on the contrary, when they are liberally paid by the piece, are very apt to over-work themselves, and to ruin their health and constitution in a few years. A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigour above eight years. Something of the same kind happens in many other trades, in which the workmen are paid by the piece; as they generally are in manufactures, and even in country labour, wherever wages are higher than ordinary. Almost every class of artificers is subject to some peculiar infirmity occasioned by excessive application to their peculiar species of work. Ramuzzini, an eminent Italian physician, has written a particular book concerning such diseases….

[More]

He then went on to say that capitalists should moderate the working conditions of their laborers, rather than working  them to death. Better to make a little less during the good years in order to make more during the lean.

The Wealth of Nations does not really say what so many say it does. But then Smith was sure things would be run my moral and ethical people.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 437 other followers

%d bloggers like this: