Here's a reply from a FWer to my previous message and my reply to him: Hi,
At 06:13 28/09/01 -0600, you wrote: >HI Keith, > >I agree with everything you say apart from a return to the >(inflationary) 1970s. My comment was conditional on the US Government doing all the things that have been mentioned in the last day or two. In fact, I don't think they'll actually do much -- nor should they (except for some more tax cuts on corporations and individuals) -- so I don't think we'll have inflation. (Greenspan now seems very reluctant to drop interest rates much further -- if at all.) They'll soon realise that the consumer has a mind of his own and if he decides not to spend, then all the exhortations of politicians will not persuade him otherwise. Over here both Prime Minister Tony Blair and the boss of the Confederation of British Industry, Digby Something, have been trying emotional blackmail on the rest of us by saying "It's those who are frightened of losing their jobs and not spending [and paying their debts] who will, in fact, lose their jobs." The ordinary man may indeed have been foolish in recent years in building up too much debt but he has as shrewd idea as politicians about the future of his own employment when things get rough. >We are heading for something much more >like the late 1890s, early 1900s - recession followed by >growth based on the next flight of technologies in the current >(new) set - fuel cells and medical biotech I agree in principle except that I see the average consumer will not go much further in future years into spending on consumer products of the techno sort unless they're cheap. Yes, to biotech services, of course. In fact, because of the increasing needs of future health and old age services (of unknown financial cost, but likely to be large), I think a great many people will be increasingly hesitant to spending on big consumer items (other than houses and cars) in the future. >and the next build >out of the Internet. The latter may come sooner than most >expect because if business starts video conferencing more in >response to the terrorist threat, that will suck up a lot of >bandwidth. Video phones may be the next big ticket item >people buy after the PC :-) I've heard on the radio that the Japanese mobile phone company (the one with the peculiar acronymic-type name that's already made a killing over there -- DO-MO-something or other) have announced imminent sales of three sorts of new 3G mobiles. One of them will allow person-to-person video. I don't suppose this will be of high quality and'll be a bit jerky but if the price is OK it ought to sell very well -- considering the massive sales of text mobiles over there to young people. Strangely, this news is in contradiction to Videophone's boss who said the other day that 3G mobiles were still two years away. Though I applaud it in principle, I'm reluctant to agree the likelihood of early take-up of video conferencing by business executives despite the tedium (and now perceived dangers) of airflight because I've been personally forecasting this for years, and it's never taken off to the extent that it could have done already! (In fact, one of the reasons why I started Handlo Music was to demonstrate -- as a sort of FW project! -- that one could run a successful business by working with a team of people from all over the world who don't need to meet one another. Such distance-management takes longer than face-to-face meetings to establish trust, and to evolve good working arrangements, but I've proved [at least to my own satisfaction] that it's quite possible.) I think a lot of these transcontinental journeys of corporation executives are really ego trips -- a modern form of conspicuous consumption to show their (hitherto!) high status. However, now, I just wonder. Perhaps the glory days of executives has now ended as the rest of us realise that many of them have been guilty of the most stupid mistakes in the last few years. The most potent example over here is that of Lord Simpson, the now-sacked chief executive of Marconi. This was a high-reputation firm involved in a lot of solid products from aero engines to generators to telephone exchanges. Four years ago it had cash in the bank of about US$5 billion and the shares two years ago were worth US$15. Simpson took it into IT in a huge way and sold off most of its non-IT subsidiaries. It is now in debt to the tune of US$4 billion and its shares are worth about 30 US cents! When CEOs take decisions like this -- and hundreds of others have done similarly in the last couple of years -- then we realise that they're just as fallible as the rest of us, if not more so. Perhaps they'll be more humble in the future. Perhaps they'll save pennies by video-conferencing instead of glamour-flying. >Great way for civil society to >organize against government and corporate power - and to >hold choral concerts and festivals :-) Well, the mobile phone has already shown itself to be of use to the anti-globalisation protestors at Prague, Quebec, London, etc! Best wishes, Keith ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
