Friday, July 6, 2018

The Economist: "Get Ready For A World Currency By 2018"


THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
-
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.


The new world economy

The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.


In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.


The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.
Just to be clear: This is NOT f?ke™ news.
It is an article from The Economist published 29 years and six months ago, today.
We are counting down the minutes.

Vegan vs. Vegetarian: Differences and Similarities


No doubt, you have heard about vegetarians all your life. And maybe more recently, you’ve heard more and more about vegans. For some, the term appeared without much explanation. Has the term “vegetarian” been shortened to “vegan?” Is “vegan” a new synonym for vegetarian, or is it something entirely different?

Differences Between Vegan and Vegetarian

A vegetarian excludes meat, poultry, and seafood from their diet. Some vegetarians also exclude dairy, some don’t, and some may consume eggs. Likewise, vegans avoid meat, poultry, and seafood, but they also take it a step further by eliminating all animal products from their diet. This includes any type of animal milk and eggs. Vegans avoid foods produced using animals or animal products in any way, including honey. Many vegans also avoid household products, clothing, or other items made from animal products or tested on animals.
If it walks, swims or flies, I'll eat it!!!!

Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)



Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)

Definition - What does Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)mean?

Asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) is a switching technique used by telecommunication networks that uses asynchronous time-division multiplexing to encode data into small, fixed-sized cells. This is different from Ethernet or internet, which use variable packet sizes for data or frames. ATM is the core protocol used over the synchronous optical network (SONET) backbone of the integrated digital services network (ISDN).

Techopedia explains Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)

Asynchronous transfer mode was designed with cells in mind. This is because voice data is converted to packets and is forced to share a network with burst data (large packet data) passing through the same medium. So, no matter how small the voice packets are, they always encounter full-sized data packets, and could experience maximum queuing delays. This is why all data packets should be of the same size. The fixed cell structure of ATM means it can be easily switched by hardware without the delays introduced by routed frames and software switching. This is why some people believe that ATM is the key to the internet bandwidth problem. ATM creates fixed routes between two points before data transfer begins, which differs from TCP/IP, where data is divided into packets, each of which takes a different route to get to its destination. This makes it easier to bill data usage. However, an ATM network is less adaptable to a sudden network traffic surge.
The ATM provides data link layer services that run on the OSI's Layer 1 physical links. It functions much like small-packet switched and circuit-switched networks, which makes it ideal for real-rime, low-latency data such as VoIP and video, as well as for high-throughput data traffic like file transfers. A virtual circuit or connection must be established before the two end points can actually exchange data.
ATM services generally have four different bit rate choices:
  • Available Bit Rate: Provides a guaranteed minimum capacity but data can be bursted to higher capacities when network traffic is minimal.
  • Constant Bit Rate: Specifies a fixed bit rate so that data is sent in a steady stream. This is analogous to a leased line.
  • Unspecified Bit Rate: Doesn’t guarantee any throughput level and is used for applications such as file transfers that can tolerate delays.
  • Variable Bit Rate (VBR): Provides a specified throughput, but data is not sent evenly. This makes it a popular choice for voice and videoconferencing.

A Nation Opposing Itself



These are tumultuous times in America. The winds of change are blowing. The passage of the hotly contested healthcare reform bill in March 2010 is just the latest in a series of events that have led the country into uncharted waters.
During the past three years, there has been intervention by the federal government at a level not previously seen in the nation’s history. From 2007 to 2009, government intervention in the form of bank bailouts was deemed necessary to correct the subprime mortgage crisis brought on by overinflated rates. This was followed by an auto industry bailout, and then a government overhaul of the healthcare system, which constitutes one-sixth of the United States economy.
These measures have caused discontent over the state of the country. After passing the healthcare bill, only 35 percent of U.S. voters believed that the country was headed in the right direction, according to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Supporters of the changes argue they are long overdue, believing that wealth must be redistributed throughout America for poverty to be adequately addressed.
“Inequalities [are] a problem and it has been exacerbated over the last say 20 or 30 years,” former democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said during a CNBCmorning show interview. He later stated, “I think when it gets out of whack as it did in the 20s and it has now, you need to do some redistribution.”
David Leonhardt, a columnist for the The New York Times further explained, “In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune—illness, death, fire, flood—across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.
“The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill—and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.”
But the opposition party is not convinced.
“We are about 24 hours from Armageddon,” Republican House minority leader, John Boehner of Ohio, said before the vote. “This health care bill will ruin our country.”
Politics aside, a question looms over the debate: With all of this division, where is America headed?

Healthcare Reform

Before addressing this question, it is crucial to understand the fierce debate over healthcare reform. In a nation of 300 million citizens, over 45 million—approximately one-in-six—do not have health insurance. Additionally, according to an American Journal of Medicine study published in 2009, 60 percent of all bankruptcies in the United States in 2007 resulted from medical problems.
“For 92 percent of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy. Many families with continuous coverage found themselves under-insured, responsible for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.” On average, medically bankrupt families owed $17,943 for uncovered medical costs.
Proponents of the system welcome government intervention, maintaining that millions of Americans cannot afford adequate healthcare.
“It is with great humility and with great pride that we tonight will make history for our country and progress for the American people,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said to members of the House of Representatives in support of healthcare reform. “Just think—we will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare, and now tonight health care for all Americans.
“In doing so, we will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people.”
Meanwhile, opponents of government-controlled healthcare believe the industry should remain largely in the hands of private corporations. They say doing so would enable it to operate more cost-efficiently and would prevent the government from potentially incurring trillions of dollars of costs it could not afford, especially given the already enormous national debt and budget deficits.
“Most Americans out there aren’t celebrating today,” U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said to the Senate after the healthcare bill passed 219 to 212, with no Republican support. “They’re dumfounded by the fact that Congress just passed this 2,685-page monstrosity against their wishes, on the backs of their children and grandchildren, who they know will have to pick up the tab.”
“The fact is, this bill spends $2.6 trillion at a time of near double digit inflation while putting the real problem off for another day. It kicks the can down the road.”
After the vote, Republicans vowed to repeal it if they win the Congressional majority in the 2010 elections.
In an editorial in the National Review following the healthcare vote, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney wrote that the “health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.” At least 39 states have prepared legislation to allow its citizens to “opt-out” of paying for healthcare. At the same time, the government and its supporters are pressing ahead with its implementation.
What will this division do to the nation?

Disappearance of Bipartisanship

America’s government has long valued a spirit of bipartisanship. Members of its two main parties, Democrats and Republicans, would regularly set aside their political differences and work together on projects deemed to be in the national interest.
But the spirit of bipartisanship is rapidly dying. On almost every matter, there is bitter division between Democrats and Republicans—with each holding their ground—quickly becoming implacable foes. In this poisoned atmosphere, long-time members of the House of the Representatives and the Senate as well as political analysts are concerned about the unprecedented lack of cooperation.
“In terms of partisan conflict, we’ve never really seen anything like this and it’s really shocking for a country that by and large has hung its hat on moderation—compromise between conservatives and liberals,” Marc Hetherington, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University said in an interview with Maclean’s. “If you take a look at data in terms of the divisions between Republicans and Democrats specifically, you’d have to go back to Reconstruction in the 20 or 30 years after the Civil War.”
This accusative spirit is infecting the country. During the healthcare debate, opponents of the measure repeatedly accused the government of possessing and executing an agenda that does not take into account the interests of the nation. This prompted the government to respond that it is actually the opposition that is forcing its own political ideology.
More and more, Congress seems to be firmly split down party lines on every issue.

Freedom-loving People

From the country’s formative years, when Americans fought for independence from Britain, they have treasured the values of initiative, innovation, self-reliance, risk-taking and hard work. Government was necessary largely to protect its citizens and ensure that law and order prevailed. Many believed, and still do, that its involvement in the economy—and in the lives of citizens—should be minimal.
“Two-thirds of Americans are ‘dissatisfied’ or downright ‘angry’ about the way the federal government is working, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. On average, the public estimates that 53 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington is ‘wasted’” (The Washington Post).
The article continued, “Overall, two-thirds of all those polled are dissatisfied with or angry about the way the government works, the highest number to say so in periodic polling since March 1996. Eight in 10 conservative Republicans hold negative views about the way government works, but by contrast, 59 percent of liberal Democrats said they were ‘enthusiastic’ or ‘satisfied’ about the role government was playing” (ibid.).
Americans cannot seem to agree on anything, whether it is morality, history, culture, politics or how to address national issues. Other contentious arguments are raging over immigration reform, “cap and trade,” energy policy, student loans, abortion and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whatever policy the government implements, the opposition fights—and whatever the opposition proposes, the government opposes.

A House Divided

In the current contentious environment, both sides often comment about God. National leaders regularly speak about their “faith” and frequently throw in a “God bless America” at the end of speeches. At the same time, the contents of their talks are usually laced with venomous comments about the opposition party.
Additionally, a large section of the voting population will demand that America must recapture its Judeo-Christian roots. But the citizenry is divided. The opposing camp wants nothing to do with religion, thinking that through human reasoning, we can survive our troubles and prosper.
Neither side, however, will honestly look to what God warns is always the end result of outright division: “And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3:24-25).
Similarly, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3).
The answer is a resounding NO. A nation of division, backbiting, infighting and vehement partisanship cannot stand!
Rarer still is the person who asks what side God would take in polarized America. However surprising, God is neither right-wing nor left-wing, nor is He interested in taking political sides. What God is interested in is obedience to His laws. In this, America is failing. Adultery, fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, murder, violence and strife are epidemic throughout the country—among conservatives and liberals alike.
“Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
Realize. Every problem in America stems directly from disobedience to divine Law!
Yet to the obedient nation God promises peace and abundance. “If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them; then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit…And I will give you peace” (Lev. 26:3-46).
A nation in harmony with God’s Law will be at peace. Without it, a country cannot stand.
For a clearer picture of where America is headed, read David C. Pack’s book America and Britain in Prophecy.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

The Guardian view on the North Korea summit: a crisis foretold

Donald Trump’s meeting was all about grabbing plaudits for his over-sized ego rather than a serious effort to achieve peace on the Korean peninsula.

The commemorative summit coin has just been minted, but the peace efforts are already spent. Donald Trump’s decision to call off a June meeting with Kim Jong-un appears as hastily made and ill-considered as his decision to hold it. Predictably, it seems to have come without warning to – never mind consultation with – US ally South Korea, which had brought the parties together. Seasoned North Korea-watchers had warned the meeting might never happen, since the chasm between the sides, particularly over what denuclearisation means, was too vast to cross quickly or easily. The US’s lack of preparation, coordination or clarity on goals and how to approach them made prospects of progress still poorer.
In contrast, Mr Trump seemed to believe the Nobel peace prize was one cosy chat away. Asked whether he deserved it, he modestly replied that “everyone thinks so, but I would never say it,” adding that he was focusing on getting talks “finished”. Well, they are finished now. The cancellation may have been partially pre-emptive, since the administration says North Korea had not responded to logistical queries in recent days. Mr Trump held the North responsible, thanks to the “tremendous anger and open hostility” in a statement that said it was down to the US whether the countries met in a meeting room or at a “nuclear-to-nuclear showdown” and attacked Mike Pence, the vice-president. There are already attempts to blame China, suggesting Xi Jinping has encouraged Mr Kim to take a harsher stance. But in truth responsibility lies with Mr Trump and those around him. North Korea is a loathsome regime, but it has been consistent. Not so the US.
Pyongyang’s toughened rhetoric was sparked by national security adviser John Bolton and Mr Pence, who repeatedly raised the spectre of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi and regime change following the abandonment of a nuclear programme. Incoherence is nothing new from this administration, but these remarks appeared calculated to provoke. Despite threatening fire and fury again (“You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used”), Mr Trump tried to leave the door open for future talks in bizarrely amiable tones: “I felt a wonderful dialogue was building up between us … please do not hesitate to write and call.”
But calling off the summit will make it harder than ever to bridge the gulf – as will doing so hours after the North blew up tunnels at a nuclear test site, albeit that that was a symbolic not substantial measure. What has been lost? Less than Mr Trump claims. The Singapore meeting was welcome because it was better than military action. But it handed North Koreans an easy victory, granting them status without any concessions on their part. It was likely neither to clear the way for a deal, nor to close one – and it could well have gone badly awry, with even worse results. The real problem is not that the summit is off, but that it was ever scheduled with so little thought and care.

THE CREEPING PRIVATIZATION OF AMERICA’S ARMED FORCES


Given the absence of any kind of American grand strategy, rising tensions on the Korean peninsula and all the intrigue and posturing with Russia, it is hard to imagine how international security could get any more complicated.
But as these stories make headlines, another phenomenon grows beneath the surface that is even more concerning.
An increasing number of super-wealthy private citizens own private militaries and are looking for “business” in the Middle East, Africa and around the world.
Since the end of the Cold War, two trends have fed this expansion: 1) the rise of private equity (PE) and 2) the increased dependence of the United States on private military companies/contractors (PMCs).
Since the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the number of global PE firms has increased from just a few hundred to more than 6,500, and the assets they manage have increased from under $500 million to more than $4.6 trillion.

However, it is not just the number of PE firms or the magnitude of assets under their management that is important, but the very nature of private equity is important to consider here.

Essentially, the owners of PE firms are private citizens, they often buy all of a company’s publicly traded stock (thus taking the company “private”), their only purpose is to make very high returns on risky investments by drastically cutting costs and boosting revenue because they want to move on to the next investment as quickly as possible, and all of this is done out of the public’s eye.
This is all fine when applied to ketchup and automotive companies. But what about when applied to private military contractors?
The second trend for concern here is the United States’ dependence on contractors to perform military, diplomatic and intelligence functions.

RELATED: Trump's Promise to Boost Defense Was Just Bragging

We have used military contractors in every major conflict since the American Revolution. In fact, some Hessians employed by the British defected to the American’s side in return for land and farm animals.
However, according to the Congressional Research Service, within the last few years the U.S.’ dependence on contractors has grown to the point where about half of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is employed by private military contractors.  
In other words, about half of our armed forces is outsourced to private military contractors. These contractors, to include the company formerly known as Blackwater, are now increasingly owned by private equity firms. Thus, American and international security is largely in the hands of private equity partners.
Just to provide a few examples of this overlap: in 1997, Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL, founded Blackwater. After the 2007 Nisour Square massacre  in Iraq in which four of Prince’s employees were convicted, he changed the company’s name to Xe Services. In 2010, he sold the company to two private equity firms for $200 million.  
These PE investors renamed the firm ACADEMI, bought two of Blackwater’s competitors, Triple Canopy and Olive Group, then sold all three PMCs in 2016 to the world’s largest private equity firm, Apollo, for an estimated $1 billion.
More recently, Prince has re-entered the industry recruiting a group of Chinese investors and starting his own private equity firm and another PMC. “This is not a patriotic endeavor of ours,” he made clear of his new PE firm’s goals. “We’re here to build a great business and make some money doing it.”  

RELATED: Will Trump Send a Troop Surge to Afghanistan ?

He also said his new firm’s focus was on securing Chinese businesses’ operations in Africa, especially in their efforts to acquire natural resources.
Another example of the private equity-PMC connection includes the 2004 sale of large military contractor DynCorp’s security-related businesses to Veritas, a private equity firm. In 2010, Veritas sold its DynCorp stake to another private equity firm, Cerberus Capital Management, for about $1.5 billion
The constant buying and selling of PMCs by sophisticated private equity partners suggests they are very attractive investments. A lot of money is made by providing security in an insecure world.  
One of the concerns, however, is that all of this money is made during periods of insecurity. What happens to these investments if peace breaks out? There is enormous financial incentive to maintain short-term insecurity in perpetuity because peace is bad for business.
The dependence of U.S. strategic objectives on a small group of super-wealthy investors, who are focused on short-term profit maximization has consequences. There is a misalignment of objectives between short-term focused PE-owned-PMCs and U.S. national security, which should include the long view.
What could possibly go wrong by PMCs scouring the Middle East and Africa for short-term profits? Plenty.
Bryan T. Stinchfield is an associate professor of organizational studies at Franklin & Marshall College.

Sunday, May 20, 2018

The Crab Theory

 Can you discern why quite a few people will never advance in life?

 Take a bushel of crabs and sit it in the middle of the kitchen floor. Remove the cover and go to bed, all your crabs will still be there in the morning "clawing" at each other providing no escape.


 Now place 2 crabs in the basket and they'll be gone before you can turn your back!


 So the question becomes, "Are your friends and family truely friends and family or are they crabs"? Do they suggest that you stay where you are or do they support you in seeking the unknown?



Thursday, May 17, 2018

Wall to Wall Discounts

 Times can be tough but we're here with affodable prices and payment plans. 10% discount if you simply say, "Niko".

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

I gave you the steak and potatoes to make $$$, do you want me to fucking cook it for you?


My question about religious fundamentals

 Wasn't there nothing before God created something? If there is a devil, wasn't he a fallen angel? If he was a fallen angel, wasn't he a creation of God Himself?
 With these questions rendered, doesn't this show that God had the "devil" within in him or is there no devil at all?

 Here's the kicker > I'm often told that God is "everything" which would also mean He's nothing at all. "Nothing" is a thing. It would also mean, "If there's a devil" He's also that embodiment as well, the devil is a thing.

*I didn't draw the line here yet your conclusions to these questions will. I have found too many conflicts in the answers that I discerned and will chalk it up as, "Full of shit".




The world belongs to thinkers – regardless of their spiritual status


By Lolu Elegbe
Steve Jobs – Apple. Jack Ma – Alibaba. Elon Musk – Tesla. Bill Gates – Microsoft. Brian Chesky & Joe Gebbia – Airbnb. Mark Zuckerberg – Facebook. Jeff Bezos – Amazon. Garrett Camp & Travis Kalanick – Uber.
What do these people have in common? Through their dedication to technological innovation and advancement – and sheer force of will, they’ve created products and services that have literally changed the world we live in.
I always ask certain questions whenever I get into debates about technological advancement. Why wasn’t the Iphone invented 3000 years ago? Most of the components needed to make it are as old as the earth itself – so why did it fall to Steve Jobs in 2007 to do that? Why weren’t cars, airplanes, computers, etc, invented sooner? Why weren’t they invented by say Adam & Eve or Solomon or Paul or even the great inventors of old like Leonardo da Vinci? If we believe that God is all knowing, then it stands to reason that He knew these inventions would come in the future even before He created Man. So why didn’t He just give them to the first man and woman or the ones that followed shortly after?
The answer I believe is a simple one – God expects us to seek knowledge and understanding. Imagine the technological advances that have taken place in the past fifty years and how primitive the world back then now seems. Now imagine the advances in the next fifty years and how primitive our generation will seem to the generation of that time. This I believe is God’s design for the world – the creative process. Each generation learns from the success and most importantly, the failures of the preceding one, thus having a more advanced starting point to create needed products and services. Now here’s where it gets interesting – contrary to what is taught today, the pre-requisite for all this isn’t salvation! Salvation is about reconciling man to God – that does not absolve a Christian of the creative process. Instead the prerequisite is the ability to think and do – think through an idea and execute it. Thinking and executing have nothing to do with your religious beliefs. If an atheist can think and do, he would have put himself in a position to follow God’s design and will thus be favoured. An example of an atheist who is also very successful? Richard Branson, billionaire founder of the Virgin Group.
Take the people I mentioned above. I’ve read books on all of them and their companies and I can say for a fact that the most important thing they have in common, is an unshakeable belief in the power of their ideas. This belief meant that when they started out, no matter how many hoops they had to jump through, how many setbacks they faced, how many times they had doors shut in their faces, they kept going. 
For example, Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia, the founders of Airbnb, went through so many setbacks that even seasoned start-up experts couldn’t understand why they kept going. Almost no one was interested in “their crazy idea to monetize your spare room when you’re out” (as one investor put it). They built the site but required serious funding to take it to the next level. They tried all sorts of gimmicks including selling cereal boxes with “O”s and “M”s representing Obama and McCain in 2008. Sounds ridiculous, but that particular ridiculous gimmick was what finally opened the doors for them after years of fruitless toiling! A friend set up a meeting for them with a venture capitalist, who was looking for tech start-ups to join a mentoring/training and potential investment programme (Y Combinator). The venture guy, unsurprisingly, didn’t like the idea – specifically, he thought it was too crazy to succeed – so he declined. But as they were leaving his office, he noticed one of the cereal boxes and asked for the story behind it. Once he heard the cereal box story, he suddenly became impressed – not by the idea (which he still thought was ridiculous), but by their cereal box story , which showed him their level of determination and refusal to give up.
He immediately recommended them to the program and also recommended them to a major investor who wasn’t looking for the best idea but the one(s) most likely to stick it out through the rough and tumble of life as a start-up. About a year later, they secured funding of $7.2 million – the rest as they say, is history. Today, Airbnb is worth $30 billion – making its dogged founders billionaires.
The entrepreneurs that have changed the world, started out with similar stories of ideas most people thought were too crazy to succeed. Jeff Bezos left a job with a six figure salary on Wall Street to start Amazon in 1994, a company founded on the idea of being a one-stop for online shopping – but he decided to start with books and then gradually move into other products. When he approached his parents to invest in the company, his dad said, “what do you mean you’re resigning to sell books on the internet?” Remember that this was 1994 – the internet wasn’t what it is today, so his parents didn’t see how his idea made any sense. But his dad relented and said, “We’ll invest – not because we believe in the idea, but because we believe in you”. Today Amazon is worth about $430 Billion, making Jeff Bezos the world’s richest man with a net worth of $110 Billion. By the way, his parents are also now billionaires through that seed investment they made in 1994!
There’s a saying that fortune favours the brave. What that really means is that God favours the thinkers and those who put in the work to execute ideas. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with spirituality (or lack of it). And it’s got nothing to do with giving or tithing or first fruits. I hear all the time that Bill Gates is a billionaire because of his giving – he’s given away a total of $28 Billion. Even a simple fact-check will show that Bill Gates (and almost all the other billionaires) became givers AFTER they became wealthy. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with giving – of course we should all give. But let’s stop spreading this idea that giving was what made these people the fortunes they did. Jeff Bezos isn’t exactly known for giving – he sent out a tweet sometime last year, asking for philanthropy suggestions. This wasn’t just after he became a billionaire, this was AFTER he became the world’s richest man! So I fail to see the logic when I hear that these guys became billionaires because of their giving.
They found favour with God, despite not being spiritual or religious. Why? Because they put themselves at the centre of God’s design for this world. Innovation, development and advancement, brought about by thinking and doing – that’s the design of this world and those that key into that are the ones who change the world, regardless of spiritual status.
PS: Could I recommend 2 books…both by Brad Stone.
1. The Everything Store – Jeff Bezos and the age of Amazon.
2. The Upstarts: How Uber, Airbnb and the killer companies of the new Silicon Valley are changing the world.

• Lolu is a management consultant, with over 10 years experience managing large IT and Business Change projects across multiple UK & European industries including financial services, telecoms, pharmaceuticals, etc. Following his training as a lawyer in Moscow, Russia where he received his LLB, he worked on a number of criminal and immigration cases in London, before switching to the consulting industry. Over the past year, he has worked as Country Director for a technology start-up, as part of an exclusive partnership with Microsoft. He is a prolific writer and has written several well received articles. He is also a published author of “Through My Eyes – A foreign view of the 2008 US Presidential Election”

Featured Posts

Beautiful American Bully Pups for Sale

 

Popular Posts