I signed up for Empire Avenue today. It's an online social media stock market I was told about by a colleague. Based on what I can tell to this point, the more presence I have on various social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare, LinkedIn, Flickr, Instagram, etc.) the higher my stock value is. With this website you can actually invest your eaves, the monetary system the website gives you based on specific achievements, into other users on the website. When they use the social media sites their value goes up, and your eave total goes up.
This actually reminds me of a business idea one of my classmates had last semester. The idea was to invest in people rather than invest in companies. Say for example you feel competent enough to "sell yourself" on the market. You would then mark yourself at a particular price. People could then give you money based upon your knowledge, intelligence, work ethic, or really anything they want to. With that money they invest in you, you are to turn around and make that money increase. Therefore you are making your investors money on their initial investment, and you also have money to spend. It's a complicated idea, but isn't everything that is involved in market sharing?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Earth Acts Naturally
I was talking with my family the other night about the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and my Mom said said something some to me I'll never forget.
She said with tears welling up in her eyes "More than anything the tsunami makes me realize that we as humans are nothing more than guests on this planet. We have no control over the natural disasters that occur."
She couldn't be more right.
Earth is one of the planets in our solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. We know based on scientific research that each of the planets is made up of chemicals that, as far as we know, make them inhabitable. Some we can't breathe on, some are too hot, and others are simply too cold. The point is, they are what they are. We can't change them - we can only discover and learn as much about them as we can. We could only survive on those planets if we chose to. In other words, we can only survive on them if we create and evolve ways to survive based on what happens on those planets.
What makes Earth any different from other planets? The only thing I can think of is that we HAVE created ways to survive - foraging for food, cleaning and filtering water, and providing shelter (you know, Oregon Trail shit). Those three things are the absolute necessities to survive as humans. And what are they all based on? Surviving natural occurrences: rain, snow, sunlight, and other [what we call] natural disasters: volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
An earthquake is a shaking or trembling of the earth that is either volcanic or tectonic in origin. Obviously there is something that triggers them, but we are yet to discover exactly what it is. The point, however, is that it's completely natural - it can't be predicted (yet) and more importantly can't be controlled. Therefore we are inhabiting a world - a planet - that we have no control over. Our time here is not necessarily never-ending. We've simply built structures to function in: homes, offices, stadiums, etc.
As we've seen from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the planet does not care what we've built and where we've built it. The world is, like Buck Owens would say, acting naturally.
My underlying question is: based upon this analysis why can't we as humans understand that we are not invincible? Why can't we take advantage of the time we DO have here, whether it is coming to an end in 2012 or not? In my mind, the most important aspect of life is to do whatever it takes to be happy with myself and the things I do.
She said with tears welling up in her eyes "More than anything the tsunami makes me realize that we as humans are nothing more than guests on this planet. We have no control over the natural disasters that occur."
She couldn't be more right.
Earth is one of the planets in our solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. We know based on scientific research that each of the planets is made up of chemicals that, as far as we know, make them inhabitable. Some we can't breathe on, some are too hot, and others are simply too cold. The point is, they are what they are. We can't change them - we can only discover and learn as much about them as we can. We could only survive on those planets if we chose to. In other words, we can only survive on them if we create and evolve ways to survive based on what happens on those planets.
What makes Earth any different from other planets? The only thing I can think of is that we HAVE created ways to survive - foraging for food, cleaning and filtering water, and providing shelter (you know, Oregon Trail shit). Those three things are the absolute necessities to survive as humans. And what are they all based on? Surviving natural occurrences: rain, snow, sunlight, and other [what we call] natural disasters: volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
An earthquake is a shaking or trembling of the earth that is either volcanic or tectonic in origin. Obviously there is something that triggers them, but we are yet to discover exactly what it is. The point, however, is that it's completely natural - it can't be predicted (yet) and more importantly can't be controlled. Therefore we are inhabiting a world - a planet - that we have no control over. Our time here is not necessarily never-ending. We've simply built structures to function in: homes, offices, stadiums, etc.
As we've seen from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the planet does not care what we've built and where we've built it. The world is, like Buck Owens would say, acting naturally.
My underlying question is: based upon this analysis why can't we as humans understand that we are not invincible? Why can't we take advantage of the time we DO have here, whether it is coming to an end in 2012 or not? In my mind, the most important aspect of life is to do whatever it takes to be happy with myself and the things I do.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
If the NHL wanted to make money
If NHL wanted to make money, they would find a way for the St. Louis Blues and Tampa Bay Lightning to make it to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup. St. Louis vs. St. Louis.
Think about it. The Blues have yet to win a Stanley Cup, not to mention they have been struggling this year because of a malicious hit to Perron by none other than Twinkle Toes Joe Thornton, who received only a 2-game suspension while Perron is STILL dealing with post-concussion symptoms.
Regardless of how terribly way NHL dealt with the situation, the Blues have had a rough year because of several injuries (Oshie, McDonald, Halak, Steen, Jackman to name a few) and calling the Peoria Rivermen to send us the best players they've got. Now granted the kids they have sent to St. Louis aren't bad, they are simply young and inexperienced at the NHL level.
Turning our focus to the Tampa Bay Lightning, they, too, have had an underwhelming year considering Stamkos and St. Louis were two of the top five in points for the first half of the season. It doesn't help when their front office acquires Goaltender Dwayne Roloson after fracturing his collarbone in a fight with Penguins Goaltender Brent Johnson, not to mention Roloson has been around for years and consistently puts up mediocre numbers at best.
Realistically the Lightning and Blues will not face each other in the Stanley Cup finals because Tampa Bay and St. Louis are not where the money for the NHL is. Sure they're great teams, but we all know that the NHL would easily make more money with teams like the Red Wings, Penguins, Rangers, Canadiens, etc. in the playoffs.
Think about it. The Blues have yet to win a Stanley Cup, not to mention they have been struggling this year because of a malicious hit to Perron by none other than Twinkle Toes Joe Thornton, who received only a 2-game suspension while Perron is STILL dealing with post-concussion symptoms.
Regardless of how terribly way NHL dealt with the situation, the Blues have had a rough year because of several injuries (Oshie, McDonald, Halak, Steen, Jackman to name a few) and calling the Peoria Rivermen to send us the best players they've got. Now granted the kids they have sent to St. Louis aren't bad, they are simply young and inexperienced at the NHL level.
Turning our focus to the Tampa Bay Lightning, they, too, have had an underwhelming year considering Stamkos and St. Louis were two of the top five in points for the first half of the season. It doesn't help when their front office acquires Goaltender Dwayne Roloson after fracturing his collarbone in a fight with Penguins Goaltender Brent Johnson, not to mention Roloson has been around for years and consistently puts up mediocre numbers at best.
Realistically the Lightning and Blues will not face each other in the Stanley Cup finals because Tampa Bay and St. Louis are not where the money for the NHL is. Sure they're great teams, but we all know that the NHL would easily make more money with teams like the Red Wings, Penguins, Rangers, Canadiens, etc. in the playoffs.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
2011: A Socialized Society
So I've been thinking over the past several weeks about the relationship between the modern socialized media trend (a expeditiously expanding trend at that) and the state of our economy.
If the economy is guided by the decisions of consumers (which it is), then isn't it safe to say that we are now living in a socialized society?
What I mean is that every one of us is a consumer. I wouldn't be able to write this on my computer if I wasn't a consumer of the Apple Macbook and the Blogger website. And you wouldn't be able to read it if you weren't a consumer of whatever brand of computer you are using and whatever form of media helped you to stumble upon this particular blog post.
Now, it is widely known that Facebook has several billion users around the world. It's used by individuals, small startup companies and even global corporations. Facebook is a form of social media, and it is a trend (some would even argue that it is a new "way of life"). To take it one step further, the website gives you an opportunity to share any thoughts of yours via the "status."
Now think about our every day conversation. Do you ever say to someone or hear someone say to you "Did you see my Facebook status the other day?" or "Did you see the new link I posted on my wall this afternoon?" If you are like me, you've both said and heard someone say something along these lines. Does this not make our society socialized? We are holding conversations based on our thoughts - based on society
Now, before I continue I want to share with you my idea of the term "economy." When I use the word "economy," I'm not referring to Wall Street or the economists that are featured on channels such as MSNBC.
The economy is simply directed by consumers - it just so happens that every one of us is a consumer. That is a rough summary of "The Invisible Hand" that Adam Smith refers to in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments."
So, if the economy is guided based on the decisions of consumers (which it is), then isn't it safe to say that we are now living in a socialized economy?
If the economy is guided by the decisions of consumers (which it is), then isn't it safe to say that we are now living in a socialized society?
What I mean is that every one of us is a consumer. I wouldn't be able to write this on my computer if I wasn't a consumer of the Apple Macbook and the Blogger website. And you wouldn't be able to read it if you weren't a consumer of whatever brand of computer you are using and whatever form of media helped you to stumble upon this particular blog post.
Now, it is widely known that Facebook has several billion users around the world. It's used by individuals, small startup companies and even global corporations. Facebook is a form of social media, and it is a trend (some would even argue that it is a new "way of life"). To take it one step further, the website gives you an opportunity to share any thoughts of yours via the "status."
Now think about our every day conversation. Do you ever say to someone or hear someone say to you "Did you see my Facebook status the other day?" or "Did you see the new link I posted on my wall this afternoon?" If you are like me, you've both said and heard someone say something along these lines. Does this not make our society socialized? We are holding conversations based on our thoughts - based on society
Now, before I continue I want to share with you my idea of the term "economy." When I use the word "economy," I'm not referring to Wall Street or the economists that are featured on channels such as MSNBC.
The economy is simply directed by consumers - it just so happens that every one of us is a consumer. That is a rough summary of "The Invisible Hand" that Adam Smith refers to in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments."
So, if the economy is guided based on the decisions of consumers (which it is), then isn't it safe to say that we are now living in a socialized economy?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)