Trumpty Dumpty Had a Great Fall

I know. Where’s Watson been? To be honest with you my heart has not been in it for a while. I’ve been working on the new map but beyond that I’ve not been doing a lot. But I’m back now. Spent the day with lawyers and bankers worrying about Donald Trump. He’s even scarier than Putin and clearly a man without any kind of plan whatsoever. The prospect of the pair of them is enough to make me want to buy a single ticket to Tasmania.

So you want a prediction? I think Hilary is going to win by a long margin and they’ll be an inquest into why the polls were so wrong (sound familiar?). I’m not saying this is a good result, but it’s the lesser of twin evils. But I doubt that’s the end of Trumpty Dumpty and I hate to think of some of the nasty things that will be unleashed if he does indeed lose.

On a more upbeat note, I got home tonight to find that the friendly folks at Investec Bank (not the people I was with today by the way) had sent me a copy of Yuval Harari’s new book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Can’t wait to get stuck in to that.

The Future of Money (and everything else for that matter)

screen-shot-2016-10-13-at-10-31-16

I’ve been silent for a while. A month in fact, which is almost certainly a record. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’m drowning in information and ideas and the only solution seems to be disconnection, which is perhaps a kind of deliberate ignorance.

Anyway, I had a drink with Dave Birch yesterday (blog here) to talk about the future of money. It’s input into my new map of mega-trends. One of the most thought provoking 30 minutes in recent months. We covered everything from the weaponisation if finance (with historical examples) to the rise of disconnection technologies and synthetic staff. I also loved the idea that the money of the future will be much like the Neolithic (I’ll leave readers to figure that one out).

We talked quite a bit about community and the collaborative economy and this map (above) was something he showed me. Link to article about here.

Thought for Thursday

img_1115

“And what was the true object of this superstitious stuff? A final clue came from “Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention” (1996), in which Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi acknowledges that, far from being an act of individual inspiration, what we call creativity is simply an expression of professional consensus. Using Vincent van Gogh as an example, the author declares that the artist’s “creativity came into being when a sufficient number of art experts felt that his paintings had something important to contribute to the domain of art.” Innovation, that is, exists only when the correctly credentialed hivemind agrees that it does. And “without such a response,” the author continues, “van Gogh would have remained what he was, a disturbed man who painted strange canvases.” What determines “creativity,” in other words, is the very faction it’s supposedly rebelling against: established expertise.”

Taken from Salon, ‘TED talks are lying to you’ by Thomas Frank
(Article originally published in Harper’s)