Goodbye blogger

Im leaving you for wordpress, dont take it personally

http://theragingconquistador.wordpress.com

Altruism and inequality

The trouble comes from applying standards to anything.

Causation is often out of sight but can have very damaging effects.

Take Coke or fast food, both have a large negative impact on health if they are abused. We trust people to deal responsibly with dangers.

Problems arise as most corporations have little interests other than making money. Good deeds may sometimes align, sometimes.

Both Coca Cola and McDonalds heavily lobby the govt not to impose restrictions on sugar and fatty food.

As long as companies main focus is to put money into shareholders hands, the mass populace will be at a disadvantage.

The rich and powerful will continue to exert dominance over us.

Thomas Piketty's book 'Capital' is well worth reading, it is certainly making a big impact. The premise is how capital has risen above growth for over 200 years leading to the vast inequality we see in the western world.

Corporations are the most common manifestation of this. They should be taxed to westchester and back.

Then, maybe, they will not pursue goals to the detriment of the public.

Smart watches - a move towards the seamless integration of technology?

Today Google announced Android Wear. A further move into the wearable tech world from the tech giants. Android has become the leading phone software and is now Google is going to apply it to a range of smart watches from numerous countries and presumably also under the google name.

Smart watches are an emerging area of technology but have not become ubiquitous in the same smartphones and tablets have. One possible reason is that they are supplementary devices, aimed at working together with a smartphone instead of having their own unique function. There is the added issue of watches being a fashion item, often more so that for their actual function of time keeping.

This year could see smart watches achieve mainstream success, with the Google announcement showing their intentions are serious. Apple has been widely reported to be developing its own device, presumably called iwatch or maybe an even more definitive itime? As with many other areas of technology where they have been the tipping point, Apple could take it and deliver it to the masses in a stylish and accessible manner. An ‘iwatch’ would certainly be a desirable device and with Jonny Ives’ grubby mitts all over will surely look great, countering the issue faced by many devices so far.

The emerging fitness wearables market could prove to be a major avenue.The Nike Fuelband has been very successful with its simple yet elegant design and social media integration. Samsung has demonstrated it is keen to move towards fitness with its announcement of the new Galaxy S5 which has a slew of health monitors and apps included.

The announcement from Google showed the software heavily relying on its Google Now service, which acts like a personal assistant - pulling information from emails, apps and net to offer helpful nudges and information. Moving forward mobile operating systems will move increasingly towards such intuitive methods, but currently require more data and development to be truly useful.

Adding yet another ‘smart’ device may be an area for concern for those who are worried bout kids being constantly plugged in and people who are wary of the amount of data being given to companies like Google. Whether or not the present day has developed into a the future as foreseen by George Orwell in 1984 certainly an issue, however smart watches and other wearables are unlikely to be the straw that broke the camels back. The camel has already been well and truly loaded up with straw and the vertebra are certainly creaking.

Google are also rumoured to be releasing their much vaunted, and criticised, Glass wearables. Futuristic tech goggles linking people to the Google ecosystem. Both Glass and smart watches may actually help to become less entranced in a  4’’ slab of plastic and glass that holds many keys but few answers. By utilising the supplementary Google Now devices will be able to simply alert users to info or issues when they arise, alleviating the constant checking and watching of the present day. Such a move could enable users to focus more on issues at hand and be prompted when needed.

The march of technology will not stop any time soon. There seems to be genuine worry throughout society of the impact it has had and will continue to have. I somehow doubt that Amish sects and a Federation for The Establishment of Nature Folk will emerge with regularity any time soon.

The integration of technology into our personal lives and its continued permeation throughout society are inevitable. Finding methods of enabling technology to guide and help should be welcomed as the best possible route forward.

I've started blogging for catch21.

I've recently started writing as a blogger for catch21 -  a charity that focuses on the problems facing young people and providing informative content.

Looking forward to writing articles for them.

http://www.catch21.co.uk/author/bburton

Communism and advertising, friends or foes?

Embarking on a career in advertising while being a keen believer in communism may seem an odd position to be in, yet it is where I find myself. Political beliefs rarely have a tangible impact on ones professional life for a variety of reasons. Mainly due to the lack of conviction in those beliefs and a the failure for them to relate to the workplace. The realities of having bills to pay and mouths to feed puts principles to one side when considering jobs, that is presuming there is anything wrong with taking a job of questionable societal merit which by and large I don't think there is. Even the much maligned bankers, who face a frenzy of hate, can logically argue their benefit to society.

Anyway back to advertising, often seen as the epitome of what is deemed to be wrong in the western world. Advertising is held as a  flagbearer for reckless consumerism that directs money and time away from more worthwhile causes, built on a foundation of credit card debt. Along with reality television, video games and payday loans companies advertising is portrayed as major cause of our societal ills. Advertising can be blamed at times, more should be done to prevent adverts prying on the vulnerable or directed at children. Should Coca-Cola be more restricted for example? The soft drink giants have a huge presence and their recent 'Happiness' campaigns have been very successful, but is this right given the damage regularly drinking sugary drinks has been proven? Further afield the effects of advertising are even more damaging, as seen through tobacco companies growing use of it in developing countries where laws limiting it have not yet been passed.  

In spite of this, advertising can be a source of good by enlightening peoples lives in a variety of mediums in numerous ways. The famous Nike 'Just Do It' line has defined their advertising and inspired people to start running, be more active and have a more positive outlook in life. It helped Nike sell a lot of trainers, but it had a much wider impact. [Insert scathing line about sweatshops here]. Nike has also moved into digital space extremely well through products such as the Kintect+ fitness system and the health monitoring Fuelband, both encourage people to be more active and healthy and have developed strong communities. Last year Heinz ran a campaign encouraging people to grow their tomatoes by giving them free seeds, a small  but positive step that was embraced by thousands of people around the country. The point is that advertising and benefits to society are not mutually exclusive entities. The increasingly community driven grassroots campaigns we are seeing show the positive effects of brands, and are likely to increase sales as a result.

So what place does advertising have in a communist society? Well not a noticeably different one. It is often considered that socialism would lead to us having one make of shoes, one make of tractors, one type of cat food and one form of form of toothbrush. The shadow of the USSR looms large in the national consciousness, where a brutish authoritarian regime that used state controlled policies to retain power is still seen as definition of what communism is. This is mainly the fault of it being poorly articulated by supporters but also no doubt influenced by scaremongering, just look at what is happening in Cuba right? There is no reason why advertising would be remarkably different, slightly more restricted but still playing a positive role in getting messages from companies to the population at large. This can even be seen today, on the US political spectrum countries such as Norway or France are near enough communists with high taxes, strict regulations and generally progressive policies. Yet they still have advertising across a variety of sectors. Their advertising campaigns may not be as celebrated as those from our friends across the atlantic, but America dominates so many sectors that it is wrong to consider they have great advertising due to having a strong capitalist economy.

Influential thinker Noam Chomsky offers the most practical explanation of how communism would work in a modern society and the implications for brands are not as scary as many would suspect. Chomsky adheres to Libertarian Socialism which in basic terms would abolish authoritarian institutions and return property and means of production to the people whilst giving them freedom to do as they please. Certain companies would be hit hard - especially those who maintain resources. But for most types of industry the relationship that would change is between workers and their companies and not companies and the consumer, which is an important distinction. Companies would still exist, products would still be invented and they would presumably still need to be advertised. In such a scenario of community owned companies, advertising would clearly change and would have to adapt to new scenarios. Grassroots initiatives that engage with consumers such as the Heinz 'Grow Your Own Tomatoes' would likely become more commonplace and that would make for more interesting advertising in my book. Advertising would be less driven towards making money, as companies would not exist to serve the needs of shareholders. Removing the hard sell would allow advertising to be more creative and imaginative, be better received and play a larger and more important role in the world.

Immigration and benefits, the great misnomers.

Immigration and benefits. These are the hot topics of current political debate. Fed by a frenzy of media activity on both sides of the spectrum, along with the economy, both are ubiquitous. But should these issues be so pervasive? The economy should for obvious reasons, it impacts on all aspects of our lives and has a larger influence than any other topic. The economy is also inextricably linked to other topics, as its state determines the amount of money that is sent to each department from the Treasury. The other two have a more dubious right to be so prominent.

A major reason for the diversion towards these great issues of our time, is that most people are simply ignorant of the facts and instead responding to the issues emotively. Influential psychologist Daniel Kahneman has written extensively on this matter, looking at how individuals respond to events. Kahneman has found that most people, including academics, have extremely poor statistical intuition. That is to say, in matters that can be analysed empirically most people will respond to them using preconcieved stereotypes that fit their own subset of pre-determined views. His work can help us to understand the current political landscape.

A survey conducted last year showed that the British public is poorly informed on every major issue. Those surveyed thought that 24% of the benefits budget is fraudulently claimed, the actual amount is a mere 0.7%. An amount that is fairly insignificant in the total public spending, and yet this is a major topic in the political debate. Even the Labour party has toughened up its approach on welfare policy in the mounting tide of public opposition to the 'scroungers'. I am not claiming that all of the welfare budget is well spent, but benefit fraud is a misnomer in the debate that derails serious discussion of societal failings. Is it not time that we addressed the burgeoning pensions pot which makes up over half of the welfare budget. State pensions are rising at 2.7% and yet wages have been rising at a mere 1.1% and yet this is not even up for discussion. The likely explanation is that people of pension age turn out to vote in droves.


Another topic addressed in the survey was immigration. Those asked considered 31% of the population to be recent immigrants when the actual figure is just 13%, opinions surely driven by the relentless focus of media and prominent politicians on the influx and damaging impact it has. Again the signal and the noise are far apart. An independent report commissioned late last year found that the economic impact of immigration is clearly in the positive, immigrants are more likely to contribute in taxes and less likely to take welfare payments. Many trees have been wasted on the incoming surge of immigrants from those dastardly places called Romania and Bulgaria. Droves were coming, and coming to take a job near you. Oh and your child's school place, and definitely do not get ill as all the doctors are booked up with immigrants. The gates opened on the 1st January and a total of 24 people are estimated to have entered so far. Don't worry though, they are coming - honest.

It is often forgotten that most native Brits are probably immigrants in one form or another, what right do we have to arbitrarily decide we are full? It is also forgotten that Britain remains a prosperous due to its development as a post industrial economy, which was built on the industrial revolution and the fruits of the British Empire, which set about raping and pillaging the world of resources and wealth that have ultimately left us in the privileged position we are in today.

The point I am trying to drive home is not that we are all idiots and we should return to an absolute Monarchy under the great Prince Charles, but that if the public has no real interest in the evidence behind important issues why should they be consulted. Thom Yorke doesn't poll all Radiohead fans asking them whether a certain song should have an Em7 or just a Em, that would be ridiculous. Although a trivial example, it is evidence of how consultancy can lead to a worse end product. If leading economists cannot agree of the correct course of action then why ask clueless punters to pick between parties.


Membership of the EU is a further example. For some reason the public are convinced that we deserve a referendum on our membership in the EU. The Tories are running scared from UKIP and are seemingly going to at last give in, after the next election of course. The main opposition to the EU is on a fiscal basis, promoted by UKIP and numerous Tories who portray us as being sucked dry by those damn grey men is Brussels. Academics and economists have a different view, with the vast majority acknowledging that Britain receives more money back than it puts it - regardless of any extra trade benefits, which are no doubt large. Why the public should be consulted on such an important issue that could have huge potential costs is beyond me. The arguments in favour of leaving are more emotive and passionately declared at the moment and public opinion is in the balance. We can hope that the case is made for staying a member in a clear and direct way.

Above all of these issues, public opinion likely actually harms the public good in a utilitarian sense - or what is best for most people. Whilst not as extreme as countries like America, our nation's policies largely ensure that wealth is distributed unevenly throughout society. Capitalism in Britain does not serve the majority, privatisation and favourable corporate and individual tax rates ensure that wealth is maintained by corporations and wealthy individuals. The richest 1% have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 60%. We like to think that they have earned this privileged position, but in reality these people are the beneficiaries of circumstance and favourable conditions not remarkable individual brilliance. Yet the public does not rally against this by seeking higher taxation and a fairer distribution of wealth. Clearly this would not immediately  solve societal problems but in the long term it likely would. Introducing a minimum basic income should alleviate many of these problems in a few generations, and tests in Canada showed there was a less than 1% drop in productivity in such a system. Public opinion is a long way from embracing such a policy, which is a shame as it would benefit the majority of people.

Colorado, the end of cannabis prohibition?

Stoners arise, this week saw the beginning of a remarkable social experiment. America has legalised cannabis. Not the whole USA mind, just liberal mountain state Colorado and vegan hippy paradise Washington whose voters both passed a referendum to legalise cannabis. Clandestine drug laws that have presiding over much of world are not facing a very real challenge, both in the face of falling public support and being based on questionable evidence justifying the prohibition.

America has a strange relationship with cannabis, its population is one of the keenest users of it and it definitely has the clearest 'stoner' culture. From Vietnam protests and Woodstock to Pineapple Express and Half Baked, for many people it is a defining aspect of both culture and life.  The US government however has a different view, and over time successive administrations have done more than any other nation to restrict use and distribution on the world stage. A series of binding treaties passed alongside important trade agreements have seen countries fall into line banning the drug, even in places where it has been used for thousands of year. North Korea is the only country to have resisted the treaties enforced by the USA and their proxy world police service the UN, it doesn't seem to have been used much by its leaders in recent times though.

All this arose from the racist hysteria in the first half of the 20th century, where attacks on blacks and Jews implied cannabis was responsible for crazed behavior emanating from Jazz clubs. Evidence for banning the drug is patchy at best. Numerous medical organisations in recent times have decried its legal status due to the minimal harms it causes. It is widely recognised as one of safest drugs, never being found to be responsible for any deaths or cause physical harm. It is known tolead to possible problems with people who have a predisposition to mental illness, but regulation would be a better way of dealing with this. For comparison, tobacco kills 100,000 people in the UK each year and alcohol kills 10,000. Both lead to a variety of deadly physical diseases and the public cost of this huge.

The US establishment has faced growing oppostion to prohibition. Cannabis is very popular, and support for legalization is at a record 54% according to a recent Gallup poll. Younger generations are generally tolerant towards it even if they do not partake. This reflects a growing liberalization of young Americans towards all aspects of social policy including abortion,drug law reform and gay marriage. Twenty two states have now legalised medical marijuana, which can be prescribed for a variety of conditions ranging from multiple sclerosis to migraines and in some states is given out for pretty much anything. Following cannabis being legalised, Colorado has set up a licensed control board that regulates the supply and sale of the drug. Washington is to follow suit soon enough. Surely this is a more reasonable approach to drug policy, especially in a country where numerous recent leaders have admitted using drugs in their youth. Take the money away from the gangs and petty criminals and tax companies, like we do with everything else. The cannabis industry is already a $1.43bn industry. Spread that across the nation and it becomes a huge figure, it is irresponsible not to reap the rewards especially in a time of economic difficulties.

Is this a reflection of a wider change in the world? Portugal has had great deal of success by treating drug use it as a public health issue and decriminalising it. Use has fallen and users are now offered treatment and advice if caught. Uruguayan president Jose Mujica recently passed legislation for cannabis to be legalised, a big step even if the wider ramifications are more limited. It is South America that bears the brunt of much of the worlds drug use, with cartels exerting huge influence and power. Legalising drugs cuts out a huge proportion of their income. The global drugs trade is estimated to amount to equal 20th in terms of countries GDP. That is money that could be kept from criminals, taxed and put towards bettering society.

In the United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker is leading the charge for drug reform but is unlikely to exert much influence in his new role at the Home Office. Despite having more liberal social policies generally, there is less clamour for legalisation in the UK, maybe due to less harsh sentencing but nethertheless it should be reviewed. Chief drug policy officer Dr David Nutt was fired for claiming that horse riding is more dangerous than ecstasy, which it is according to the facts.

Hopefully our friends across the Atlantic will respond to this experiment in a responsible way, making up for the damage they have unnecessarily inflicted on millions around their country and around the world. There have been no major issues so far, probably a few more utterances of 'dude', a few more sales of Grateful Dead records and a few more doughnuts eaten. The US, a country that takes great pride in individual liberty, has pushed the world in the right direction and for that I salute them.