business

In an effort to enhance his personal brand, Mr Shin formed a holding company called IWC (www.iwwc.com) that became the world’s first global brand, with over 1,300 outlets around the world. IWC went on to become one of the top global brand names in the world. Despite the tremendous success of he company, Mr Shin suffered significant financial losses due to a sharp decline in his business activity in Europe after 1999. As a result, Mr Shin retired in 2001, after which he devoted most of his attention to charitable work. As a result, he devoted his remaining days to many charity work projects and charity foundations. His interests were also expanded for the rest of his life by the founding of the charity foundation “Anime no kaidan” that he set up. In 2002, Mr. Shin founded Anime Foundation (www.animenewsnetwork.net) in order to finance his other charitable activities. In September of 2015, he was declared an honorary doctor of arts at National University of Culture, Chiyoda Ward.

Shintaro Kataoka born: November 5th, 1947 (age 78)

Born in Gifu Prefecture - currently resides in Tokyo , Japan

Shintaro Kataoka is one of the most popular and prolific directors in anime history. After graduating from high school in 1974, he earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Hiroshima University in 1975. While there, he was involved with the Japan Science and Technology Institute (JSTI). He graduated from the Institute in 1977 and went on to do a Masters of Arts degree from Kanazawa University in 1980. He then went on to do research in the field of psychology, and later his master of arts degree was taken at Tokyo University. Because of his intense education, most of his films were done with a monochrome camera and he was known to do lots of shots of little kids. He was known to often have his assistant, Minami Yamamura, pull the shutter by hand and thus capturing the scene. However he soon became fascinated with the concept of digital technology and decided to pursue his passion from this point on. During his graduation program, he first began working for Uji TV, broadcasting commercials and some of his first works were in this department. As time went on, Kataoka gained a reputation for being very funny and making people laugh. In 1982 he started his third year on the staff and was in charge of taking the anime movies from the original productions of the studio. He also wrote his first original storyboard, a story “Fantasy - Love.” This novel is known to have been very critical of the Studio Ghibli’s decisions (including the decision to cut Miyazaki’s first trilogy into two films). Later that year, he decided to go to New York to start working on films for the Warner Brothers film company. By this point he was known as a successful director, and was able to land his first directing contract in the United States with New Line. He received a nomination for an Oscar for his work on Barry Lyndon and won an Emmy and National Award for The Fisher King. In 1986, he was hired by Warner Brothers to work on Jackie Chan’s legendary Kung Fu movie The King of Knights, and was hired by the studio to work on The Princess and the Pea . He worked on three more films, The Prodigy and P.K. 12 , by the time he retired later that year. In 1997, he was hired by Saban to write up a script for an animated adaptation of an English author’s novel. He was selected by Geneon , the anime distributor, to work on Angel Beats! and the studio soon announced its plans to make a live action series about the group’s music career. He was hired to work on the project as a writer, having been recommended by the anime production staff and the Japanese animation industry in general. His script, however, didn’t quite go according to plan. The first draft for the film was rejected on three counts by the animation studio, and in September of the same year Saban announced that they had canceled the project altogether. He left the anime biz in early 1999, and he decided to concentrate on his humanitarian work. He also retired from the producer job in 2001, following the passing of an older friend in 2001. He worked on a number of charities and charity groups, including the “Japanese Children’s Foundation.” He has a large family, with his wife, Hideto, and six children.

Shintaro Kataoka born: November 6th, 1957 (age 78)

Born in Gifu Prefecture - currently resides in Tokyo , Japan

Hiroshi Takurotani born: March 20th, 1936 (age 77)

The second Kataoka to have made an appearance in Star Wars , he was the lead

While the government provides them with a voucher to get a home loan and rent, it puts out the big fat zero on their home equity. In order to fund education at a community college, they must borrow a staggering $37,000. When the government has to pick up the tab for their housing, it turns down their mortgage application and tells them they are not yet eligible, leading to the massive student loan defaults, which are driving up mortgage borrowing expenses. For those trying to save in a low-income area to keep their homes affordable, there is no real solution. We were talking about this at the end of 2014, right before the housing crisis. Even now with housing prices continuing to rise, there is no real solution.

What could be done? Well, there are many things the government could focus on. One of them being to provide an extra income for the elderly that does not come from government largesse and would help alleviate some of the hardships they are experiencing today. But they have to get rid of the big government that is so often the culprit when it comes to any type of negative impact on individuals or communities. If they could figure out a way to raise a little money with an index fund or ETF and buy some new properties, that would be an excellent start to improving the situation. It could also work as an immediate plan to address a portion of the issues with seniors to put some money into the hands of those who need it the most, the elderly. That could be done on a long-term basis, though, and it starts with the elderly.

  1. Improve the infrastructure

When it comes to fixing the system in Washington, something goes a long way and a lot of it goes unreported. If that is the case, we must make the effort to find a way to show the people responsible in the Washington DC government, that not only can they be responsive to their constituent, but that they can become the catalyst for change. With all the infrastructure a majority of our citizens do not even have the slightest clue how they are ever going to get around their own transportation woes, it all goes out the window. What is truly sad, however, is that it would lead to a loss of life on our roads and highways, as well as the massive losses that we are experiencing at the current time.

The major problem that the country has is infrastructure.

The most obvious problem is the lack of good quality roads. You could not give yourself a traffic cheat sheet and tell drivers to follow the red lines. Instead, you had a system where everyone was on their phone. The “smart” cars, they didn’t have to read the speed limit signs and make sure all the traffic wasn’t going anywhere. Their safety was only a small priority on the driver side, with more concern on the consumer end. It is absolutely ridiculous that all the work that was necessary for getting people where they need to go in one lane was all done without that extra lane for extra passengers for a few seconds during rush hour when that lane simply had no purpose. Driving while in control seemed to be the exception to the rule, not the norm.

Then there is the lack of any “highway” or “rural” quality roads either. The roads are on the road, but they aren’t in good enough shape to be able to handle a large truck or a train in a timely fashion, if necessary. When the train came, it was a time-consuming, inefficient waste to haul, and it took hours to haul them, and the truck was just too slow.

This is unacceptable in not only our cities, but in every major city in America. In order for our infrastructure to be able to handle the next 10-40 years, as well as to stay competitive post-war, we need to fix it. There are many, various, options on how to do this, both short term and long term, and for most people one of them is just going to come to fruition: a complete overhaul of all existing infrastructure. With regards to a full overhaul, as much as I have enjoyed the series of video games where you get to pick up your car, change the tires and drive it to your destination as quickly as possible, this is just not possible. You cannot change the engine because all of the air and fuel is used to power the engine. The “tank” that is used for gas is the same one that you are currently pumping into your car, so there is no room for a tank. You cannot add fuel because the engine can never be refueled. You cannot remove from your vehicle a tire because the tire will not fit in the new place the car will be. The only time a car has been able to travel more than a block from any building

It’s been almost a solid six days since we saw massive moveings in the price of BTC, down more than 40% in one day the price dropped below the $30,000 for the very first time with some $6 billion worth being lost in just a 2-hour period (or in other words, very rapidly in the short term). The move of Bitcoin from over $600 to $300 is huge, not only in Bitcoin, but in money.

With recent price actions, it looks like some may have missed the big move of $300 in Bitcoin. It’s not just the $300 move there is now a move of $300 above (i.e. more than) the average price that Bitcoin traded below $350 for five days. It seems that the new $300 figure has been made up of a lot more than the $300. In other words: more that BTC has been trading below the average price for five days in a row… and there could still be more moves up to another $300.

We know the $300 figure is fake!

It is clear from an analysis of the prices that the price action looks nothing like what we’ve seen recently. But we are quite sure that that the $300 level does exist somewhere. So it was interesting when we did some research to find out what’s really going on. We are convinced that we are seeing the biggest rally in Bitcoin price that we’ve seen in years and we’ve never seen so many rallies before.

And the rest of this blog post has no particular interest for Bitcoin itself. Just Bitcoin rally is a new feature in the news, and it’s interesting for sure. A lot of people were surprised to see Bitcoin soaring past the $3,000 mark. But at least it was not a $10,000 move as was so commonly seen earlier this month. Still, most traders were shocked at the sudden and massive move of $3,000 in BTC. The fact that a group of traders or an individual investor would actually take such an extreme risk that they would sell their Bitcoin for more than 10% of its value to buy Bitcoins at $3,000/BTC really makes Bitcoin a rare-and-prized commodity. It’s especially interesting how the first rally was not even from the $1 to $2 levels but rather the $3 to $3,000. It appears that the rally was initiated by the long-held long-range traders who believed that a massive rally was brewing. It’s also interesting that the price moves within a very tight band can always be the result of major moves in the Bitcoin price and yet there is a single sudden spike. Is this one thing; or all?

At the time, a lot of people were speculating that one or more major players were planning a large crash. This was because there was no way that any currency could possibly be worth $3,000 if there wasn’t some major correction occurring within the future price action that would send Bitcoin from its current price and into the $1,000 range.

There was very little discussion in Bitcoin circles about what was really going on, even before the latest rally. What we did see in the news and in the mainstream media was a bunch of people saying “hey, hey, this just broke the previous price, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” It’s not true: there is something you can do. It’s time for you to start to learn to read the big picture of Bitcoin’s true trajectory. To be clear, there was always a massive rally in the summer, and it can be seen how this $300 price would keep moving up and up without ever reaching the $3,000 mark. Then it moved to $1,000 and then to $2,000, and finally to $4,000 and below. Yet if Bitcoin has risen for more than $1,000, we have had a rally that has been at least $1,000 and maybe more.

Because the price of corn, soybeans and other crops is so expensive to produce, U.S. farmers sell fewer crops than last yearwhich meant lower pricesand this has not translated into more farm sales. That means that even if the food-and-beverage import bill was passed, it wouldn’t raise overall U.S. agriculture exports. Even then, the trade impact might be modest. According to USDA numbers, food imports for 2012 totaled just $13.8 billion, or less than 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. In other words, the legislation would not have raised much new agricultural revenue and, by any measure, that’s not going to help farmersthe point of the bill.

The second possibility is that the tariffs are unlikely to make much of an economic difference, even if some of the corn-industry lobbying appears to be motivated by pure fear. If that proves the caseand if there are other reasons for the corn farmers to be alarmedit could complicate the case for the legislation. The industry has argued that tariffs would hurt American farmersfor instance, unfairly encourage Canadian potatoes to be exported to the U.S., thus increasing competition. (Canada has an identical levy designed to help ensure cheap U.S. products are offered to Canadian consumers.) That argument, too, has many critics.

Farmers say they are already selling far less corn and soybeans than they did just a few years ago. The corn-trade dispute may even drive up the prices, boosting the price of American farming to a point beyond where it is affordable.

The final question, of course, is what is the economic impact and, if it is large enough to cause the passage of the legislation, how likely is it to be realized? There would be real benefit in the first place for U.S. producersas many as 2550 percent, according to a report by the National Corn Growers Association. But agriculture lobbyists know that that kind of increase would be difficult to reverse. Even as it tries to push a high-cost grain into an expensive market, Mexico’s government faces stiff price competition from U.S. corn farmers. The agricultural minister there said he was likely to “dont want to do anything” that would hurt U.S. corn farmers. Indeed, the industry has made it clear that it could not move forward unilaterally by levying tariffs without U.S. support.

What of the farmer-turned-Washington-insider who wants to take American farmers into his home nation so he can sell him cheaper corn? He’d probably run afoul of the same “food sovereignty” laws that have blocked similar exports in the past. One federal judge held the Cornhusker Kickback case in the 1970s, concluding that a ban on trade in non-essential products from some countries was a violation of the U.S. Constitution and that Congress had a legitimate regulatory role in limiting food imports. A similar question recently got a response in the Canadian case. While the U.S. case ended badly for Canadian exporters, there are no reports of American farmers being denied access to the market.

Of course, an import ban on basic food imports does not come out of thin air. It would require congressional action, a level-headed view that imports shouldn’t be a “free ride,” and the kind of transparency that has been lacking with the entire trade negotiation. Even then, if an import quota could be created, the process would require strong pushback from the dairy and beef lobbies, which could make such a move unpalatable. And then there is the fact that American farmers would lose a lot of export market shareespecially food-related products like corn and soybeans. That hasn’t stopped the U.S. agricultural lobby from calling for the ban, and doing so, to increase “food sovereignty.” Of course, in its effort to boost trade, the U.S. agricultural lobby has a tendency to find ways to reduce its cost of productionespecially in the export market. ___

Farmers were given 30 days to file their written responses to the National Research Council report, but only three submitted them.

It didn’t quite hit that spot. New Yorkers were more interested in the “W” than the “Y” and a few years later they finally got it.

Now comes the R70. Like the R40, the R70 looks futuristic but it is also based off the 1930’s subway cars with a few features that make it stand out. For starters, it will be the second all steel subway car in recent history (the first was built in 1925) and it will now run on the tracks originally used for the L Train.

The R70 is also designed to look far more like a subway car in the style of the 1930’s, rather than the flat tiling and boxy design of the current subway cars. The R70 will sport a shiny metallic exterior painted with the traditional “R” and “71,” in a striking silver color. The car will also have a rather different interior design than what we are used to seeing on new cars. Unlike the usual steel subway cars, which use seats in a front row, the R70 is designed the way we use them today, with four rows. A new seat in the front row and up front is a unique feature that does offer more comfort, however. A seat behind the driver is standard but they are also available in a low and high set to cater to the passenger in each row.

The R70 will be built at the Baldwin Locomotive Works in Brooklyn and then assembled and delivered through Midtown Industries Limited, Inc., a subsidiary of Siemens that also built the Empire State Building for the city of New York. This partnership with Siemens can be seen as a way for Midtown to gain scale and reliability from the company, as well as an obvious attempt to gain influence with the MTA a direct result of their involvement with the Second Avenue Subway reconstruction. While the design of the car is not yet completed, it will feature a sleek and sleek interior, with a glass floor and a dashboard with a big round clockface on top. New York Times reporter Stephen Holden described the interior as having a “glitzy feel,” and if that is true then we will indeed get back to the glamour and elegance of the 1920’s subway cars.

The R70 will run along an entirely new route from the F to the C - no existing train line will pass through for quite some time, as the subway needs to be rebuilt when the B and the D meet at the old Penn Station in New Kensington. New tunnels will be built with new platforms in each direction to improve comfort and performance and there have also been discussions of expanding the PATH train service into some of those new tunnels something New York Transit could do by using the additional capacity now available.

The R70 is expected to enter regular service in 2019 and is expected to be fully operational in 2031. A price has not yet been specified for the car and it is unlikely that construction will begin until some time during a five year period of relative safety. It is also possible that the design will be adjusted prior to the car being launched, if the car was found to be too ugly. Whatever the case, it is quite exciting to see how the era of the R70 has already begun with the initial deliveries underway.

The family claims that RCL violated their legal rights through the improper and negligent treatment of ship’s services to the stricken ship.

Royal Caribbean is facing a $12 million settlement with the Wiegands’ estate.

Here’s a small recap of what happened…

On July 8, 2007, the Freedom of the Seas capsized, spilling more than 10,000 tons of cement onto the dock waiting for its scheduled departure from Port Canaveral, Florida. It was an epic maritime disaster, but not much more. The ship had been carrying approximately 2,766 people, but just over 300 of them died in the crash. The Freedom of the Seas was never repaired due to lack of sufficient insurance, but after the family of Rachel Wiegand, of Miami, filed her civil lawsuit against RCL and others aboard, the ship’s salvage process began. That same day, Royal Caribbean filed a motion with the courts in the Southern District of Florida to dismiss it, citing the cruise line’s obligation to keep a safe and sanitary ship.

This isn’t the first time Royal Caribbean has had its bad side called into question.

Royal Caribbean has been sued over its use of cruise ship engines as engines in its massive freighters, and the results have been disappointing.

Royal Caribbean’s recent history shows a series of missteps, and a trend of delayed repairs by the cruise ship industry. In this article, we’ll go more in depth analyzing the cruise ship industry’s problems with delayed repairs and over-priced repairs at ships they own.

In Colorado it is illegal to possess, cultivate or use marijuana while being a medical dispensary operator or a medical marijuana patient. In states that have legalized other drugs like cocaine and heroin, there has been a boom in the number of companies that have sprung up trying to develop marijuana-based products.

Marijuana’s medical applications are growing. Its still federally illegal to sell it but many states are now considering it as it is a medical alternative for millions of people who need aid.

If our laws didnt affect all the people at all, then marijuana would be legal for everyone to be using on a regular basis. At the moment, marijuana laws are only focused on black people. No matter how much marijuana there is on Earth, its not available to everyone.

But this is clearly going to change.

So, not only is it on your mind this week, but several prominent scientists, including University of Colorado scientist Steve DeAngelo, are also taking a quick trip across this very issue to see just how effective marijuana might be for patients using opioid drugs.

It’s an argument that seems to have some popular support in Techcrunch and Reddit.

Crazy but true…

In fact, this is a big part of why the government is trying to do such a good job. “In a recent hearing, Senator Markey asked a question about “the issue of online gambling”, which was directed to David Segal, a former Vice President (then General Counsel, now Chairman of the Interactive Gaming and Digital Media Committee). Segal was asked how he would handle “the issue of online gambling”. Segal responded (emphasis added): “Well, what I would do in a situation where I was not an attorney but had had some experience in the area, is, I would say, it would be an open line of communication with the regulators.” Segal went on to explain how, “The best way to deal with online gambling activities is actually to talk to the regulators. And if you can do that, there’s probably not too much bad that can come of it.” “I think when you do know what you’re talking about, you can also do it,” added Segal.

It certainly seems like they could probably avoid a lot of bad outcomes if they just talked to the regulators, right? The question is, “Is it worth the hassle?”

From our own conversations, we can see two big problems with this approach. First, if it’s worth the hassle and the risk to the companies doing the dealing as a result of these games being allowed to exist in the first place (or the regulations covering such activities being relaxed), then why not just accept that if there’s not a huge profit to be made by selling cards, they’ll go away eventually? Second, these rules aren’t just about making money for the companies that own and run the casinos and the poker rooms and poker sites; it’s about protecting consumers. What if you get caught playing something, and the company can have the money that the gambling card was bought from in a small settlement paid to them? In fact, that’s exactly what happened in this case where the online card room that operated some of the other sites got caught doing it (albeit with a very small fine from the judge, who made an interesting point about how these casinos are only being sanctioned now because of the negative publicity they’ve received in the past:

Here’s the transcript of that proceeding (from the hearing itself), and the key details are:

A representative for the judge expressed to the plaintiffs how she thought that the way in which such sites operate “would really undermine the ability of the court to manage them properly.”

A member of the plaintiff’s general counsel told the court how she thought that the companies operating online gaming sites aren’t really all that careful where they get their cards or other electronic product. According to the general counsel, all three sites that were the subject of the hearing “were operated by people who only sold electronic products. It’s not that there’s anything dishonest or illegal about that. But it’s how do you keep a track of who is going to be using a certain product in order to get the best price and the best services. And if you are going to have multiple sites, it’s much harder to come together in a single entity when it comes to that.” It is hard to see how all of the companies participating in the online gaming market could possibly function that way right now - not to mention how this decision could actually be an incentive to the players and websites to try to find other ways to keep a better track of who was using a particular card or product. (See the full transcript here .)

And while we’re on the subject of the law, Judge Posner, perhaps as a response to the argument from the General Counsel, noted this: This case has many similarities to another case that occurred a few years ago in Japan, “Tawaguchi v. Tawaga”, which was about the requirement of “fairness of competition” for the companies who operated various card networks. While at the trial, there was plenty of evidence in the record in support of the plaintiffs, the presiding judge rejected a claim of “fairness of competition”, and instead said the law that imposed such a duty “would be an illegal ban of monopoly as it would require more competition among the card players than there is to guarantee a free and fair marketplace for consumers, and indeed would be a net gain to the monopolist of power in this free and democratic society.” (This case was later found to be unconstitutional.) As a whole, the arguments made by the judge were very thorough and convincing, though admittedly, while you would certainly disagree with some of them, it would seem at the very least that the court does not think this is unconstitutional or in danger of being so.

In other words, from our understanding from the hearing, this issue is not nearly so simple and in fact, that’s part of the reason the judge is not going to rule in one breath, and then immediately make the decision the right way. She gave

!!!

. I was so mad at how badly I was doing at the beginning of my investing career. I realized that the worst long-term investor could lose almost everything. The worst investor in my opinion was me. I took about 30 million short positions over the same period. When those positions closed, they were worthless, having failed in their purpose.

I learned something else, but it was the opposite of the advice that Warren Buffett gave to “the best investors” in the Harvard Business Review in 2005buy the big winners instead of the winners. What I got from all my bearish trading would be the opposite of this: You can never be an absolute loser in a stock market. But at the same time, you should never put money down on a good winner, knowing that he’ll get crushed by the market. For all your efforts on “buying stock” at the wrong price, you should think twice every time you buy a stock that pays a higher price later.

When markets closed, I thought my bearish trading had been for naught (it wasn’t). The SPDR S&P 500 (NYSE: SPY) closed 6.42% higher on the closing bell. At a later point, I realized that it had all worked out perfectly and that I didn’t get anything out of my bearish stock strategies. At the time, I didn’t appreciate that I had missed out on a chance to take the profits of my money. That’s called a lottery ticket. To this day, I’ve never owned any of the losers in the S&P 500. The most I’ve ever spent on a stock trading position was around $75K. Since I started to work on my strategy, my losses, which totaled $20,000, never come close to $50K in the three years that I’ve had a trading account. Why? Because most of the losers I’ve traded on have in fact had incredible stocks to trade into and have gotten richer because of it.

The market has a way of turning around your trading mistakes quickly. And it turns around people’s stocks, too. The S&P 500 started off as a bearish investment back in the early 1980s. As the 1990s took hold, the market rallied as it had by the early 2000s. It turned upside-down at the end of 2008, but the market did make a comeback last October by turning around the entire Dow industrials. With every new market rally, people buy up their own stocks. I recently took my first short position of $3,000. During my bull run, I was up around 10%. Today I’m down 2% because of my poor “buy and hold” investing habits. The lesson from my experience is this: If your life revolves around stocks, be sure to get into them! And if you are a trader, don’t be afraid to stop short. All it takes is one small mistake to ruin your whole future trading career. It’s okay if your returns are bad, but stop short at the worst. What do you think? What’s the worst stock to invest in?

At the same time the economy will only expand by 1.8% this quarter. The good news is, despite the economy, the S&P 500 has gained 3.7% since May 2017. Not too shabby, eh? In fact, as the graph below by Nomura shows, it’s only been over the last six months that the S&P 500 gained 10%. Yes, the market is “bad” according to our usual “wisdom”. As a comparison, the S&P 500 is 10.6% higher since January 2002. How are the numbers compared to the S&P 500 over the past 20 years? For 20 years there were 7 major financial crises, 3 world wars, and 23 recessions. In other words, there are a whopping 7 times as many major financial crises (27) than stocks (just 8). In fact, there were only three times as many major stock market crashes (6) before 2017. Now consider, the S&P 500 now has over 23% of the all time high and 12% of all time low in its history. In fact, if current history is any guide these are the most intense bull markets that the world has witnessed in its history. The market is set to be another major bull market.

It’s not going to be pretty. I’m sure you’re asking yourself, “But isn’t growth a good measure of an economy’s health?” Well, I’ll tell you my answer right now, but first I need to explain the problem with “growth.” There’s nothing wrong with growth per se. When the economy grows an economy is generating more stuff , more revenue, more wages, more benefits. It has value. But there’s only one thing that really matter at this point. What people want is to have a reason to buy more stuff . At this point in time we have nothing that satisfies their needs. And if there’s a better option out there, guess what it’s not that cheap. Just two thirds of the world’s population remains under-emphasized by their economies . That means there are not as many people with enough money left over to buy a brand new car. It also means the less prosperous people are not as enthusiastic about the stuff they do have.

In short, growth doesn’t correlate with actual success. It’s just a bunch of numbers, which when combined with demographics tells us they don’t correlate well. So, where do you find evidence that growth is a good thing? Well, there are two things to look for if you wish to bolster your case. One, there must be more stuff being produced than ever before. In other words, we have to be able to show someone who says “growth equals success” things that show that they’re just making out way too big a fool. And the second factor is that we live a much longer life than our forebears. Why are we living longer? It’s because our environment is changing. No, the rest of you, including Millennials, have no clue, but we’re a long way from the world of yore that was “just right.” Now back to the point. There’s no question the human race has vastly more stuff than our ancestors. But what we need is something that’s worth having. This, more than anything else, is what is missing in the modern world. There are so many things, from food to entertainment to technology, that add value to peoples living for today’s average citizen. What is it that they do need? It’s obvious! The problem, which I’ve tried to point out, is that what I’ve called the “value theory of everything” runs counter to the “growth theory of everything.” If there’s value to whatever we have, then there’s a value to the entire planet we have in the form of resources. So, what have we brought you today? Well, I started this with an interview with Bill Gates that starts off like a textbook in Value Theory. Then things got crazy. Because if you take a look around the world today just how crazy. For example, even the highest income earners in Japan (GDP per capita: $24,890) have a minimum of just around 200 items of income. You’d be surprised at how little there really is. On the other side of the planet, the Philippines has an even, far higher income per capita of $5,300. That’s on top of a GDP per capita that’s only $2,000!

So, what do we need? I’ll give you the answer right now, right?

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now

×