<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Future Savvy: Quality in Foresight &#187; economy &amp; finance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://futuresavvy.net/tag/economy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://futuresavvy.net</link>
	<description>Making better decisions to manage uncertainty and profit from change</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:36:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The lessons from Bill Gates&#8217; shaky grasp on the future &#8211; 15 years on</title>
		<link>http://futuresavvy.net/2010/05/the-lessons-from-bill-gates-foresight-15-years-on/</link>
		<comments>http://futuresavvy.net/2010/05/the-lessons-from-bill-gates-foresight-15-years-on/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 14:08:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Gordon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[all]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emerging technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failed predictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future Savvy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Perils of Prediction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic foresight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[systems dynamics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[21st century]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy & finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long-term thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mental models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wishful-thinking bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zeitgeist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futuresavvy.net/?p=1327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Successful people are considered to be better future prognosticators than average. Why? Because it is assumed they must have known something about the future at some previous point in order to become as successful as they are. (Unfortunately Taleb&#8217;s various injunctions as to the workings of randomness fall on deaf ears, as do Gladwell&#8217;s many [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Successful people are considered to be better future prognosticators than average. Why? Because it is assumed they must have known something about the future at some previous point in order to become as successful as they are. (Unfortunately Taleb&#8217;s various injunctions as to the workings of randomness fall on deaf ears, as do Gladwell&#8217;s many observations as to the tricky relationship between cause and effect.)</p>
<p>In 1995, at the height of Microsoft&#8217;s power over the economy and the zeitgeist (before Google came into its own, before Apple renewed, etc.) Bill Gates wrote &#8220;The Road Ahead,&#8221; which was, as one would expect, a broadly techno-optimistic look at the future. Did it see 9/11? No. Iraq War 2? No. The Credit Crunch? No. For a start it only really thinks about digital technology, and that&#8217;s going to be a very partial guide to the road ahead, at best.</p>
<p>But, in a recent <em>The Atlantic</em> article, &#8220;<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/bill-gates-more-profit-than-prophet/56982/" target="_blank">Bill Gates: More Profit than Prophet</a>,&#8221; Tom McNichol evaluates Gates&#8217;s foresight on its own terms. As reproduced below, he finds it more &#8220;miss&#8221; than &#8220;hit.&#8221;</p>
<p>In general, Gates makes the mistakes outlined in <em>Future Savvy</em>, particularly in predicting the future based on its technological possibility rather than economic or social practicality. He&#8217;s short on systemic/feedback thinking and therefore misses side effects and unintended consequences. He also falls into the wishful-thinking bias: mixing up what he and (and Microsoft business) would like the future to be with what it really will be.</p>
<p>This last factor is less a mistake than a classic tool of future advocacy, and Gates would no doubt admit to a bit of this. It is illuminating (and sobering for future predictors) to see how much of the digital future Microsoft had within in its area of control in 1995, which it ceded to others. That lowered Microsoft&#8217;s ability to influence the road ahead and therefore weakened Gates&#8217; predictions.</p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The McNichol analysis (shortened in places):</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>E-Mail<br />
</strong>Prediction: Gates wrote, &#8220;Electronic mail and shared screens will eliminate the need for many meetings. &#8230; when face-to-face meetings do take place, they will be more efficient because participants will have already exchanged background information by e-mail. &#8230; information overload is not unique to the (information) highway, and it needn&#8217;t be a problem.&#8221;<br />
Verdict: Miss. Gates&#8217;s view of e-mail now seems naively Utopian, failing to account for unintended consequences. If anything, e-mail has made workplace meetings more frequent and less efficient. &#8220;Didn&#8217;t you get that e-mail?&#8221; is probably the single most common question posed at meetings, a query that often leads to &#8230; another meeting.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>The Wallet PC<br />
</strong>Prediction: &#8220;You&#8217;ll be able to carry the wallet PC in your pocket or purse. It will display messages and schedules and also let you read or send electronic mail and faxes, monitor weather and stock reports, play both simple and sophisticated games, browse information if you&#8217;re bored, or choose from among thousands of easy-to-call up photos of your kids.&#8221;<br />
Verdict: Hit. Gates&#8217;s wallet PC is more or less today&#8217;s mobile smartphone with voice capability added.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>Wireless Networks</strong><br />
Prediction: &#8220;The wireless networks of the future will be faster, but unless there is a major breakthrough, wired networks will have a far greater bandwidth. Mobile devices will be able to send and receive messages, but it will be expensive and unusual to use them to receive an individual video stream.&#8221;<br />
Verdict: Miss. Today, receiving a wireless video stream is neither expensive nor unusual; in fact, it&#8217;s so commonplace that most people don&#8217;t give it a second thought. Gates failed to anticipate that wireless would become cheaper and faster, but his chief mistake was a common but flawed assumption among techno-futurists: that new technology is adopted chiefly on the basis of technological superiority rather than social factors.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>Social Networking<br />
</strong>Prediction: &#8220;The (information) highway will not only make it easier to keep up with distant friends, it will also enable us to find new companions. Friendships formed across the network will lead naturally to getting together in person.&#8221;<br />
Verdict: Hit and Miss. One of the killer apps of the information highway has turned out to be social networking&#8230; But friendships formed online don&#8217;t regularly lead to face-to-face meetings. Far more common is the user with 250 Facebook friends, most of whom he rarely, if ever, sees in person.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>Online Shopping<br />
</strong>Prediction: &#8220;Because the information highway will carry video, you&#8217;ll often be able to see exactly what you&#8217;ve ordered. &#8230; you won&#8217;t have to wonder whether the flowers you ordered for your mother by telephone were really as stunning as you&#8217;d hoped. You&#8217;ll be able to watch the florist arrange the bouquet, change your mind if you want, and replace wilting roses with fresh anemones.&#8221;<br />
Verdict: Miss. Gates was right that the information highway would carry video, but he completely misread the social and economic factors that would shape its use in online commerce. How on earth would a harried florist find the time to hold a videoconference with every customer who orders flowers for Mother&#8217;s Day? What company would absorb the colossal expense of having orders changed at the last second according to customers&#8217; shifting whims? Gates&#8217;s vision of online shopping has turned out to be a lot like past predictions about personal jet packs and moving sidewalks: a future that&#8217;s technologically possible but socially and economically impractical.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>Videoconferencing<br />
</strong>Prediction: &#8220;Small video devices using cameras attached to personal computers or television sets will allow us to meet readily across the information highway with much higher quality pictures and sound for lower prices.&#8221;<br />
Verdict: Hit. What came to be called webcams are standard issue on PCs, or can be purchased from Bill Gates&#8217;s favorite company for under $30.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>The Internet and the Web<br />
</strong>Prediction: Gates&#8217;s 286-page book mentions the World Wide Web on only four of its pages, and portrays the Internet as a subset of a much a larger &#8220;Information Superhighway.&#8221; &#8230;</span><span style="color: #000080;"> Verdict: Miss. Gates&#8217;s notion that the Internet would play a supporting role in the information highway of the future, rather than being the highway itself, was out-of-date the day The Road Ahead was published&#8230; and he made major revisions to a second edition of The Road Ahead, adding material that highlighted the significance of the Internet. In many ways, Gates&#8217;s cloudy crystal ball regarding the Internet amounted to wishful thinking. Gates built Microsoft into a global powerhouse by selling proprietary software that users loaded onto their PCs. He wasn&#8217;t likely to warm to the idea that the same functions could be delivered cheaper and faster through a decentralized network that he couldn&#8217;t control.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000080;"><strong>Privacy<br />
</strong>Predication: &#8220;A decade from now, you may shake your head that there was ever a time when any stranger or wrong number could interrupt you at home with a phone call. &#8230; by explicitly indicating allowable interruptions, you will be able to establish your home &#8212; or anywhere you choose &#8212; as your sanctuary.&#8221;<br />
Verdict: Little Hit, Big Miss. It&#8217;s true that technology lets you explicitly indicate allowable interruptions &#8212; you can use caller ID to dodge unwanted calls or sign up at the National Do Not Call Registry to nix telemarketers. But the notion that technology would pave the way to greater privacy has turned out to be anything but true.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://futuresavvy.net/2010/05/the-lessons-from-bill-gates-foresight-15-years-on/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Could America default on its debt? And what the past tells us about the future</title>
		<link>http://futuresavvy.net/2009/11/could-america-default-on-its-debt/</link>
		<comments>http://futuresavvy.net/2009/11/could-america-default-on-its-debt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Gordon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[all]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy & finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[managing uncertainty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wildcards & black swans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit crunch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GDP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roadmap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futuresavvy.net/?p=998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Monday&#8217;s Washington Post, under an Op-Ed headed &#8216;Could America Go Broke?&#8217; columnist Robert Samuelson raises the prospect of the U.S. or another major economy defaulting on its national debt. Says Samuelson: &#8220;It&#8217;s still a very, very long shot, but it&#8217;s no longer entirely unimaginable. Governments of rich countries are borrowing so much that it&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Monday&#8217;s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110101704.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>, under an Op-Ed headed &#8216;Could America Go Broke?&#8217; columnist Robert Samuelson raises the prospect of the U.S. or another major economy defaulting on its national debt. Says Samuelson: &#8220;It&#8217;s still a very, very long shot, but it&#8217;s no longer entirely unimaginable. Governments of rich countries are borrowing so much that it&#8217;s conceivable that one day the twin assumptions underlying their burgeoning debt (that lenders will continue to lend and that governments will continue to pay) might collapse&#8230; The question is so unfamiliar that the past provides few clues to the future.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, this raises the question of whether the past tells us anything about the future, and if so what? There&#8217;s a common wisdom attributed to Mark Twain (why is it that aphorisms are always attributed to Twain or Winston Churchill?) that goes: &#8220;History doesn&#8217;t repeat itself, but it often rhymes,&#8221; and this is the position that most educated future-thinkers would hold.</p>
<p>So what would the &#8216;rhyme&#8217; be? From cases such as Argentina, Russia, South Africa, and many developing world countries over the past 50 years: lenders loose confidence in a country&#8217;s ability to repay on its national bonds and stop lending; the country is faced with a choice of drastic spending cuts (great social and humanitarian cost) or major tax increases (pointless, because it stifles business, therefore lowers tax revenue) or default. Going broke, into national &#8220;Chapter 11,&#8221; suing for time and &#8216;debt restructuring&#8217;  becomes the best among the bad options event though it pretty much ensures a deep and dark recession.<br />
<span style="color: #ffffff;">.</span><br />
<strong>Thinking the unthinkable<br />
</strong></p>
<p>Could this be the future of America? As I&#8217;ve written before here and other places, after the &#8216;unimaginable&#8217; Credit Crunch was ignored due to its &#8216;low probability,&#8217; it&#8217;s a relief to know that remote but plausible outcomes with serious consequences are getting attention, at least in the Washington Post.<strong> </strong></p>
<p>Clearly major economies are in a more precarious situation than they were 5 years ago. Too much debt is always precarious, for the smallest household or the biggest country alike. On the other hand, an economy&#8217;s size and enduring wealth counts too. As Samuelson observes, it created the unexpected effect in Japan&#8217;s case where debt at 200% of GDP (America&#8217;s is currently about 40%) should have raised the cost of its debt (lower confidence of repayment) but this hasn&#8217;t happened because domestic Japanese households and businesses rather than foreigners have easily (and confidently) bought the debt &#8212; and this may well hold true for the U.S. too. In other words, the rhyme may go this way.</p>
<p>The &#8216;more likely&#8217; future is incremental raising of taxes and lowering of public service provision as Western economies incrementally claw their way back to stability. But at least this default wild card on the margins of plausibility has the oxygen of some attention and this is no bad thing. As with all good foresight work, it predicts nothing, but it does allow us to think through the roadmap to the outcome, and press for the right decisions now, in plenty of time and in a measured way.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ffffff;">.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://futuresavvy.net/2009/11/could-america-default-on-its-debt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If the Footsie dropped on your toe, would that tell you anything about the future?</title>
		<link>http://futuresavvy.net/2009/03/if-the-footsie-dropped-on-your-toe-does-that-tell-you-anything-about-the-future/</link>
		<comments>http://futuresavvy.net/2009/03/if-the-footsie-dropped-on-your-toe-does-that-tell-you-anything-about-the-future/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:06:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Gordon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[all]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision-making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy & finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foresight tools & methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[managing uncertainty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prediction markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trend tracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forecasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foresight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long-term thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[short-term future]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futuresavvy.net/?p=446</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prediction markets have been in the news a lot for their forecasting potential. These markets – where participants buy and sell bets as to whether future events happen or not – mimic “real” securities markets, so it stands to reason that real markets are predictive too, and they are. My question, as the Dow Jones [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prediction markets have been in the news a lot for their forecasting potential. These markets – where participants buy and sell bets as to whether future events happen or not – mimic “real” securities markets, so it stands to reason that real markets are predictive too, and they are.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.futuresavvy.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/dow-djia.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-448 alignleft" style="margin: 9px;" title="dow-djia" src="http://www.futuresavvy.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/dow-djia.jpg" alt="dow djia If the Footsie dropped on your toe, would that tell you anything about the future?" width="428" height="232" /></a> My question, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), and the FTSE100, the DAX, the Hang Seng and so on have hit a decade lows is, what is this predicting, if anything? What is the long-term value of this prediction, and could it be used to make better decisions in the real world?<br />
We know that the value of a common stock – a share in a company – is based ultimately on the returns (dividends) it will bring. Buyers and sellers therefore derive a daily market price based on their views of the share&#8217;s expected, that is, predicted future payback. The greater the expectation, the greater the price. A high price vis a vis earnings (P/E ratio) suggests confidence in future earnings, and vice versa.<br />
Therefore the current steep fall in share prices is an expectation of (crowd prediction of) lower future payouts. Of course the complexity in human-prediction situations is that this basic level is also overlayed with a meta-level: people are not only trying to figure out what will happen, they are trying to figure out what others think will happen. So falling PE ratios are an expectation of what others will do (predicting they will continue to sell.)</p>
<p><strong>Madness or not?</strong><br />
One of the perplexing things about the markets is they very often seem to react opposite to what is expected; to what would be common sense. They often fall on good news, rise on bad news, close unchanged on big news, and so on. Although there is – famously much irrational behavior and herd instinct in the market – you don’t get hundreds of thousands of decision-makers wagering significant money not using common sense.<br />
What is going on, of course, is that the market has often already risen or fallen in prediction of the news. When a new condition – an interest rate move, for example – is imminent, the market will move to “price in” the expectation. If market participants as a whole have called the future correctly the market will not move much on announcement.</p>
<p><strong>Pricing-in the future<br />
</strong>Because of this predictive component to group decision-making in market situations, the stock market as a whole is a classic leading indicator of the real economy. When prices move they may be taken as the crowd “pricing-in” a future prediction. So markets will fall ahead of real economic problems (they may continue to fall, as now, during steep economic declines.) But they will also turn up well before any real, measurable upturn.</p>
<p>By the way, there is little doubt it will overshoot in this time, as it always does. This is because, as in prediction markets, the wisdom of crowds can predict the trend but not the turn. Trend extrapolation will never show you the key shifts, and this is why predicting the bottom or top of a market is so hard.</p>
<p>The point, for market speculators, is that long before the real gloom is over the markets will be zooming upwards. The point for the rest of us is that recession times will be with us even after the markets move up. In the long term the market will go up. Like death and taxes, it&#8217;s the surest thing there is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://futuresavvy.net/2009/03/if-the-footsie-dropped-on-your-toe-does-that-tell-you-anything-about-the-future/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

