• Home
  • About
    • About Competitive Futures
    • About Eric Garland
    • News
  • Case studies
    • Competitive strategy
    • Economic development
    • Opportunity assessment
  • Services
    • Research
      • Technology foresight
      • Future customer profiles
      • Competitor positioning
      • Investment due diligence
    • Training
      • Future Intelligence course
      • Real Forecasting
  • Media
    • Best practice reports
    • Books by Eric Garland
    • Articles by Eric Garland
    • Podcast episodes
    • STEEP Reports
    • Presentations
  • Blog
  • Contact

Category: markets

Homo economicus mortus est? (Who needs economists?)

Tuesday, 06 July 2010 20:47 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

Does anybody need economists?

This is the subject of a fascinating polemic raised by our colleague Gregor MacDonald. He notes, in an incredible understatement, “economists don’t ‘do’ energy.” They are content to set Keynes and Hayek in a never-ending cage match over monetarism versus free markets, while petroleum dwindles, Boomers retire, technology flattens work hierarchies – while real things are actually happening.

Some of the debate is set off by the paper embedded below by a Federal Reserve Bank economist. As the title indicates, he doesn’t think much of the input of non-specialists. We then have a similar question for his profession – how is it that we all participate in economic activity, and only you feel qualified to comment on it? And while we’re on the subject, why didn’t you predict an absurdly obvious bubble and subsequent crash?

Some things are too difficult for the laity to understand. Most of the hard sciences are really impossible to comprehend to outsiders, and news reports on their breakthroughs are often comically misunderstood. But is economics a hard science? Isn’t it a social science based around people trading things? Can we discuss our economy without the need for technocrats of this sort?

Economics is Hard

Gregor Macdonald on the future of energy, economics, and society

Tuesday, 02 February 2010 12:46 Written by Eric Garland 1 Comment

For those of you who know Gregor MacDonald, you know you’re in for a treat with this podcast- a full hour of some of Gregor’s latest forecasts on energy, economics and society, insights you simply won’t get anywhere else.

For those of you who haven’t discovered Gregor yet, he is one of the top energy analysts in the world, and in our minds, one of the top analysts of anything, period.

This podcast covers sweeping ground:

  • Why we’re at peak automobiles
  • The end of cheap oil
  • Coal’s role in the development of the world economy
  • The return to human capital and small towns
  • Why waterways are the future
  • Our current period of “late phase economic decadence
  • Why PAKISTAN holds the key to the Copenhagen Protocol

Crazier still, we could have spend ANOTHER hour talking to him and still not exhausted him of insight.

Enjoy.

Competitive Futures Podcast with Gregor Macdonald Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Interview with Arik Johnson on the future of competitive intelligence

Monday, 07 September 2009 02:23 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

It is more than enough work thinking about how the world is changing. Exceedingly few people think about how people think arikjohnsonabout the changing world. I’m proud to say I know some great folks who are on the cutting edge of understanding intelligence and decision making. Here, we’ve got a copy of the latest Competitive Intelligence Podcast, the brainchild of August Jackson. This time, he’s interviewing our friend and colleague Arik Johnson of the intelligence consulting firm Aurora WDC, on his view of the present and future of intelligence and its effect on leadership. The interview is broad ranging

  • A new paradigm of intelligence: scarcity of analysis instead of scarcity of information
  • The “perpetual beta” mindset, one of rapidly-changing technology and reduced barriers to entry
  • The next decade of competitive intelligence: CI 2020
  • CI’s evolving role as a mechanism and process to correct for cognitive bias
  • The importance of a customer-centric model in delivering intelligence

It’s a great year to revisit our assumptions on how decisions are made. This is a great discussion to get you kicked off.

CI Podcast 26 with Arik Johnson Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition – Strategic Scenarios in a Time of Political Intervention

Wednesday, 10 June 2009 09:14 Written by Eric Garland 1 Comment

If you have a certain nostalgia for 1980s Soviet advertising, or if you’re interested in the current state of the semi-nationalized automobile industry, you’ll get a chuckle out of this “scenario,” an ad for the 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport.

It’s funny, and yes, it contains some fairly partisan political jabs. That kind of material is something I would studiously avoid in a professional context – especially this blog. That said, we’re not in ordinary times. I would say that the current level of government involvement now means that political analysis of industry developments is more important than ever.

As I have said previously, the government is no longer simply regulating industry or financing it through monetary policy – it is now managing companies with the taxpayers as stockholders who have a right to see their investments protected. This will necessarily require an analysis of politicians and their goals. This may mean our competitive analyses will lay bare political feelings in our own organizations. That was the risk of the U.S. Government’s bailout policies, a dramatically-increased politicization of the American – and global – business environment. And here we are.

Competitive intelligence, government acquisitions, and a hallucinogenic future

Friday, 05 June 2009 11:10 Written by Eric Garland 7 Comments

With the bankruptcy of General Motors, our economy has finally hopped over the plane’s wing into the Twilight Zone. Not that this event was surprising to anybody with a cursory interest in money or cars – GM bet its future on the world’s endless thirst for bloated Hummers and Yukons and left quality and disruptive innovation to Asian rivals, all while locked into being America’s largest private provider of healthcare and pensions. You can get six Jack Welches, ten Peter Druckers and those guys who started Google on board and even they aren’t going to figure a way out of that hole. Like any death of a long-sick relative it is still a shock without truly being a surprise. You’ll feel the same way when American healthcare self-destructs and when Social Security cracks in half.

The reason to stockpile peyote and brown acid is not the demise of a for-profit company, which should be a prosaic activity in a capitalist system. You’ll need some strong hallucinogens to deal with how this bankruptcy was done, and what it means. The failure of GM I was expecting; a failure accompanied by an additional thirty to fifty billion of my tax dollars was the pimp slap. Not only is the original “Fortune One” company declaring the death of its business model, now my children and I get to be 60% owners of the company for the foreseeable future. It almost makes me long for the good old days of 2008 when we simply handed bankers hundreds of billions to pay off their bad investments without the need to get seats on the board to protect collective shareholder investments.

The walls began vibrating songs and the chairs began dancing a frentic rumba when a psyche-shaking question occurred to me – How many freaking companies do I own as a taxpayer now? I am a proud owner of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a lovely deal for the 50/50 partnership in which government covers the “loss” part of the equation and private investors cover the “profits.” I get 80% of AIG, those masters of risk management who set the planet on fire by insuring every transaction on Earth from credit default swaps to Mexican cock fights. I have shored up most of the gargantuan banks on the planet through easy loans so big that our inevitable inflation will soon give Argentina, Brazil and Ukraine a hearty, nostalgic laugh. Now, my government has made me a majority shareholder in a automotive company that will need to atomize the oldest and most-established industrial infrastructure in the world before it could ever hope to compete with the supply chains of Korea, China, Japan and India – though not a word has been written to describe the difficulty of this transition.

As a taxpayer, behold the fantastic portfolio of my future prosperity! I will take this group of investments over any crap that Warren Buffet might cobble together! And that guy Soros will soon be proven to be no match for the investment genius of Obama, Geithner and Bernanke!

The drug trip has barely begun, my friends, and the buzz of bailout is now set to become a thrumming, pulsating multisensory experience as this new market moves ahead into the new physics of crony socialism.  There’s no longer any need to believe in gravity, density, or inertia since this new universe is created by executive fiat and is subject to change at any moment. Just consider one question about the moral hazard created in this hallucinatory plane of existence: who is responsible for competitive intelligence for all of these companies that I own?

In order to compete effectively, every company must have a system of intelligence to understand market developments and competitors behavior. This practice varies in sophistication from sending guys to trade shows once in a while to learn stuff, on up to formal intelligence bureaus working in the service of products managers, strategists, and the CEO him/herself. In a modern economy evolving as quickly – and if recent events are any indication, chaotically – making decisions without the benefit of up-to-the-minute data and analysis about the business environment is a sure way to catastrophe. In the world we used to call reality, organizations had a discrete, impermeable layer that separates “us” from “them” and “internal” from “external,” allowing us to look critically at the external world. Intelligence thus permits leaders to understand the future marketplace and take action to insure profitability.

The U.S. Government not only is providing capital to a variety of American industries, it has invested me as an American taxpayer with a majority position in several cases. Moreover, the layer between “us” and “them” is now more permeable than wet Kleenex – since corporations are taxpayers too, Ford’s taxes will make them part owner in GM. Consumers too have multiple interests at stake – buy a new Ford Fusion, and you may watch your investment in GM decline. Buy insurance from a smaller carrier and you may deny AIG, of which you own 80%, of one of the only sources of profit they have to offset their days at the craps table of global finance.

Let’s not forget the government agencies themselves – they are now shaping the market through legislation and regulation, financing the industry through the Treasury’s policy of monitarization, AND acting in the market – ostensibly – to assure the return on the billions of dollars of taxpayer capital they just promised for the coming decades. This is where some peyote may help you squeegee your third eye clean and see into the kaleidoscopic mask of the Bizarro Future. Some major questions loom:

  • For America’s neo-mercantile companies, who collects the data in their search for competitive intelligence?
  • Who does the analysis? The company that led itself off the cliff, or the federal government bureaucrats who have zero understanding of individual market dynamics?
  • To whom do they report first? Cabinet secretaries or CEOs?
  • What kind of information is the most important? Rational, measurable data about the objective business environment, or subjective data about political personalities and their connections to top companies? After all, the new shape of the market seems to have more to do with who had Hank Paulson’s cell number in October of 2008 and who had dinner with Geithner while he was at the New York Fed than it does any macroeconomic trends or intellectual property analysis.

I take it back, leave the hard drugs alone. The coming reality will rival anything that distorted neuronal activity might bring. Remember, this is about the moral hazard of the future. It is with the addition of an automotive company to the national portfolio that we finally complicate American capitalism to an unimaginable degree, like trying solve calculus regressions with ten variables. In a business world created through executive order and maintained through fake federal money, all other players in the market – if they are paying attention – should view future market dynamics with the confusion reserved for a fever dream. It makes competitive intelligence extraordinarily necessary, and partially impossible.

« Older Entries

About the blog

This is the official trend blog of Competitive Futures, a management consultancy that provides trend research and analysis for business and government around the world. Here, we update you on interesting trends we see as part of our work for our clients.


For managing partner Eric Garland's new author and speaker blog, please consult and bookmark http://www.ericgarland.co

Get trend updates sent to your mailbox

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Sign up for the CompFutures Trend Report

Trends we’re tracking

Tags

agriculture analysis bailout bailouts banking banks business development business models California China competitive intelligence debt disruption Economic Development Economics economy education Energy Entrepreneurialism Facebook finance financial crisis forecasting forecasts foresight future Futurism Greece healthcare intelligence leadership Media mergers mindsets music oil petroleum psychology publishing Retail scenarios social media social networks strategy urbanization
Podcast powered by podPress v8.8.10.12