Global Daisy expert vebinars and Direct Democracy

What is Global DAISY expert system?

DAISY is an Internet platform for organization of activities and interaction with well-known international experts and persons with high social level, which possess exclusive knowledge and information; the platform has a paying system for participation in a webinar and further commercialization of video content for wider auditorium.

The study conducted by international experts Edward Mushinsky and Artur Arakelyan (Daisy founder) found that the source of all the world's major crisis, is the fall in aggregate demand. 

Arising from this social dynamics led to the amplification of global currency, financial and political crisis. But at the heart of the changes are social information processes, the presence of a growing number of unemployed people. 

This lots of people in need of retraining, additional knowledge. They has not yet had its global opinion leaders. Therefore, Daisy founders has create a platform for experts with actual knowledge. Daisy project was based around the idea of ​​a new form of interaction between people around the world.

 For this, Artur Arakelyan has create a site signmanifesto.org 

The project "Sign the Manifesto" is a non-profit and does not represent any political party. It aims at the development of the principles of direct democracy and creating conditions for every citizen to realize his or her constitutional right to participate directly in the State governance. 

This Online resource provides the possibilities to create a new social mechanism of popular referenda and votes on key issues of society life. Due to the Internet, there are created ideal conditions for the integration, communication and cooperation between people. This will allow us to express our will in a more organized, integrated and secure way. This mechanism will allow public institutions to interact directly and clearly see what issues and problems are the most severe in the society. 

 The people’s signatures and their participation in the development of Manifesto can create the necessary "critical" mass and then the document would be impossible to ignore. Then it will be easy to find legitimate, legal status for compulsory execution at international and local level.

About Daisy project http://futurerating.blogspot.com/2012/08/artur-arakelean-and-expert-video.html

Artur Arakelyan and expert video communication on globaldaisy.com

Project:

Expert community and video-communication platform globaldaisy.com

Project owners:

Trans Personal Association and Artur Arakelean

Business-model:

revenue sharing .

All expert  must  be recommended according to their veracity.

The business-concept represents a huge possibilities for the cooperation and interactions between expert networks, educational organizations and others whose interests are focused on the a personal services like educational, psychological therapy etc.

Global Daisy is  new way for synergetic cooperation of independent expert, forming pension fund Daisy.

The Daisy Fund is the center and the basic core of social network, which sustain, develop and co-ordinate the whole network.

Facebook future is global currency, Artur Arakelyan opinion

According to an opinion of Global Daisy CEO Artur Arakelyan 
Facebook must accelerate expansion on payment systems market. In order to to restore the confidence of investors, Zuckerberg have to focus on mobile payments.

The latest Forrester Research report released Tuesday pointed out that 46% of all U.S. bank account holders will be using mobile banking to keep track of their funds.

Mobile payment future

Since so many people are talking about mobile payments, many are also expecting banks to grow their signature apps to include mobile payment options as well, but since there are so many of these individual apps, it will take some API adoption on the part of the banking app developers.

Cash is going to be a thing of the past if mobile and Web payments continue to work their way up the ladder in commerce. 

Research out this summer from Gartner says that this year will see more than $171.5 billion in mobile payment transactions. That's a whopping 60% increase on 2011′s $105.9 billion.  This means that 212.2 million people (up 32% from 160.5 million in 2011) are using some form of mobile payment service. 

And while the technology is out there to offer near-field-communication between smartphones and POS systems, it is Web transactions and SMS services that are making up the bulk of these digital transactions. 

Banks obviously want to be cut in on this rather than out.

Gartner sees digital mobile transactions reaching $617 billion by 2016 — but these factors in a slight slowing-down in growth to 42%.

SMS, Gartner research director Sandy Shen notes, is still the primary method used in making payments in developing markets, while in more developed markets, most transactions are made via mobile Internet portals. 

One API provider, WePay, just announced today that it is working to gain more adoption but not only lowering the fee it charges per transaction but also boosting its API so that retailers can accept payments more easily without building the infrastructure from the ground up. It seems like banks may be the next investors in mobile banking tech. In fact, I predict some banks will start snapping up promising mobile payment companies any month now. Just you watch

Read more at http://vator.tv/news/2012-08-14-mobile-banking-will-impact-46-of-bank-account-holders?utm_content=futureeurope%40gmail.com&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Mobile%20banking%20will%20impact%2046%25%20of%20bank%20account%20holders%20%20&utm_campaign=VatorNews%20-%20Facebook%20director%20Peter%20Thiel%20ready%20to%20sell%20shares%3F%20Is%20Groupon%27s%20mainstay%20product%20fizzling%20out%3F%20Resetting%20Education%3A%20Tapping%20into%20the%20classroomcontent#HxPpmbei2gPx6zdF.99

An foresight manifest by Peter Thiel colleague

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FUTURE?

By Bruce Gibney

A.

INTRODUCTION

We invest in smart people solving difficult problems, often difficult scientific or engineering problems. Here’s why:

The Problem

We have two primary and related interests:

1. Finding ways to support technological development (technology is the fundamental driver of growth in the industrialized world).
2. Earning outstanding returns for our investors. ¹

From the 1960s through the 1990s, venture capital was an excellent way to pursue these twin interests. From 1999 through the present, the industry has posted negative mean and median returns, with only a handful of funds having done very well. What happened?

http://www.foundersfund.com/the-future

Thiel vs Schmidt

Thiel and Schmidt are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Thiel is a libertarian; Schmidt, a Democrat. Both men are brilliant and articulate with very different visions of the future and the part tech plays in it. Thiel did most of the smacking.
Thiel:
Thiel says VCs since 1999 have failed to create really innovative tech. He quoted a page from his Founders Fund website: "We wanted flying cars. Instead we got 140 characters."
"You do a fine job as Google's administrator of propaganda," Thiel said to Schmidt. Moderator Adam Lashinsky, a Fortune writer, chided Thiel. "You said you were going to be nice."  Thiel responded, "I said you do a fine job." The audience laughed.
"Google is not a tech company," Thiel said, arguing that Google does search and people think that no one else will come up with better search. "So investing in Google [is] betting against innovation."
India, China and other developing nations have "zero need for innovation. All they need to do is copy things."
Thiel on Google's "world-class monopoly" in search: "It's quite legal to have a monopoly as long as you don't abuse it."
"We've outlawed everything in the world of stuff and looks like Wall Street-style finance is in the process of getting outlawed. The only thing left is world of computers. If you are a computer, that's good," said Thiel. He added, that's also good for Google, where "they like computers more than people."
Thiel admitted that Google is doing more than lots of other tech companies like Microsoft on innovation, like self-driving cars. But says Google still has too much cash. "Google has $30 billion to spend and no idea how to spend it on tech."
As for the Arab Spring, "You can say Facebook and Twitter" caused it, Thiel said. Schmidt interrupted: "I didn't say that!" Thiel continued, "But it was the price of food. People were about to starve. Eric goes around and says .. let them eat iPhones."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-eric-schmidt-fortune-brainstorm-2012-7#ixzz210Rtq4qi

Deflation in 2012, inflation in 2014

The argument for deflation is rather straightforward. The boom in the US and much of the world from 1982 until 2008 was partially the result of financial innovations and massive leveraging. That process has come to its end, and the private sector is deleveraging and will do so even further as the economy softens and we slip into the next recession. Governments are coming to the end of their ability to borrow money at reasonable rates in Europe, and soon in Japan and eventually in the US (and that time is not as far off as we would like).

The next big deflationary force is the slowing of the velocity of money. I have written numerous e-letters and devoted a lot of space in the book to the velocity of money and won't go into it again here. It has been falling for five years, pretty much as I wrote it would, back in 2006. (I was writing about the velocity of money at least as far back as 2001, and probably earlier. It is a very important concept to grasp.) We are now close to the historical average velocity of money, but since velocity is mean-reverting it will go well below the historical average. This process takes years; it is not something that is going to end any time soon.

A slow-growth, Muddle-Through economy is deflationary. High and persistent unemployment is deflationary.

Absent some new piece of data that I can't see now, we are in for lower bond yields in the US. Rates are going lower and are going to stay low for longer than any of us can imagine.

I think the Fed will respond to the government acting in a fiscally responsible manner, which is inherently deflationary, by fighting that deflation with the only tool it has left; and that is outright monetization of debt. They will call it something else, of course, but that will be the actual outcome.

And they will be able to monetize more than you think they can without causing a repeat of the 1970s. Eventually it will catch up to us, as there is no free lunch, but they are betting they will be able to reduce some of the threat of actual inflation by cutting back on the money supply and raising rates. But we are years off from that. So, yes, at some point inflation will be back.

Anybody who says they know the timing is a lot more confident in his/her crystal ball than I am. Mine is rather cloudy on this topic. But I think I can see out a year or so, and it looks like continued low rates and deflation. By the way, just to appease the gold bugs among my readers, given my deflationary call, I will note in passing that solid gold stocks were up hugely during the deflationary Great Depression of the '30s. Even with the dollar on the gold standard. Just saying. John Mauldin

Global Top Marketing. TV is dead

Social media marketing company Global Top Marketing starts video digests http://www.facebook.com/pages/global-top-marketing/177232165736687

Why TV is dead?

• "Networks" are completely meaningless. We don't know or care which network owns the rights to a show or where it was broadcast. The only question that's relevant is whether it's available on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, or iTunes. This means that one of the key traditional "businesses" of TV--the network--is obsolete.
• The majority of what we pay our cable company is wasted. We get broadband Internet from our cable company, and we use that constantly. But we also get 500 channels that we almost never watch, along with a couple (HBO, Tennis Channel) that we pay extra for and do watch occasionally.
• We rarely watch TV ads, and when we do, we're usually doing something else at the same time--like typing. Also, the ads seem startlingly intrusive, because we're not used to them.

More directly, what this means is this:

• The vast majority of money TV advertisers spend to reach our household (~$750 a year, ~$60/month) is wasted, because we rarely watch TV content with ads, and, when we do, we rarely watch the ads.
• The vast majority of money we pay our cable company for live TV (~$1,200 a year / ~$100/month) is wasted, because we almost never watch live TV and we can get most of what we want to watch from iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.

This user behavior has been changing for a while, and, so far, it has had almost no impact on the TV business. On the contrary, the networks and cable companies are still fat and happy, and they're coining more and more money every year.

But remember what happened in the newspaper business.

When the Internet arrived, user behavior started to change. It took a decade for this change in behavior to hit the business. But when it hit the business, it hit it hard--and it destroyed it shockingly quickly.

And the same thing seems likely to happen to the TV business.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tv-business-collapse-2012-6#ixzz1wl4Glu3g