Money - 4. An Introduction to the Power of Money

No-one really knows what money is. That may seem odd. We know about some very strange things like quarks and quasars. But not money.

It's wise to bear our lack of understanding about money in mind. Many people claim to have a better idea about it than you.

Economists and Bankers, Entrepreneurs, Businessmen, Politicians and Academics; each claim wisdom. Money is 'nothing but numbers', a 'true measure', a 'means', a 'liberator', 'money is, what money does'.

In fact, money can be anything we believe it to be. This can make it difficult to know what money is.

Theories about money are plentiful and can fit any circumstance. They are comforting to us, but fundamentally unreliable. Experience suggests that having confidence and trust in our understanding of money is important for our well being. But our current 'wisdom' engenders faith at the expense of the truth. That misplaced faith leads to events that appear anomalous and worrisome. It also mitigates against a deeper understanding of Money.

Say to people, "money is power" and few will disagree. It's our everyday experience of it. It transforms our needs and wants into comfort and satisfaction. That's akin to magic.

At least, you could forgive a child for thinking so. As a child, I was entranced by money. I treasured my collection of coins. I'd hold one in my palm, feel it's weight, and imagine it's journey from mint, through pockets, via tills, in and out of banks, until it's final rest with me.

Coins provide our children with their first introduction to the power of money. Their innocence grants them an insight denied to us.

Parents unconsciously hint at the greater distance of our economic relationships as they accompany the first purchase of sweets or toys with the customary 'Give the man the money'. Later, we teach children to count their change; a lesson in the different trust levels in economic exchange. Children know that money is something extra-ordinary.

There is a sense of the sacred about money. It has 'other-worldly' qualities.

Money is metaphysical. Cash and bank balances are our tokens and our measures. Money is metapsychical. It exists outside of our consciousness. Like time. Or, if you believe in such things, a God-concept.

Science just doesn't have the grasp for it. Money is so involved with what we are as beings, and who we are as people, that it remains a 'fuzzy' idea.

Money exerts an influence on all human life. It appears to us, through the lens of a market, as Price. A unique, momentary conglomeration of information.

Money determines the price of everything because it knows the value of nothing.

Our experience of Money is that it's a force against which we sometimes cannot stand. The cost of things always has to be reckoned with. Sometimes the things that are dearest to us die because of a lack of money. We struggle to live with the Power of Money and yet we neither love it not hate it. We just accept it as the way of things, and build our lives around it.

Price is to Money as weight is to gravity. They are both mundane measures of profound powers.

Money influences social systems and produces changes in behaviour. Price is the measure through which know money. Gravitation acts upon things with mass, causing them to attract one another. Weight is the measure through which we know gravity.

Its difficult to comprehend that our weight is not ours. We have mass, gravity gives us weight. Its even more difficult to comprehend that money is not ours. Money is the name we give to a force that we don't understand.

That's my take on it.

Here's someone else's:
By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as omnipotent. . . . Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me it is the other person.

Karl Marx - The Power of Money, 1844
Here's a like to the entire article.

The Manifesto of Independence

Manifesto

A spectre is haunting Music -- the spectre of Digital. All the powers of old Music have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: RIAA and Universal, BPI and EMI, MCPS-PRS alliance and MediaDefender.

Where is the Artist in opposition who has not been decried as encouraging thievery by its opponents in power? Where is the musician that has not hurled back the branding reproach of pirate, against the more advanced streaming media sites, as well as against P2P networks?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Digital is already acknowledged by all Music powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Free Thinkers should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Digital with a Declaration for the Artists themselves.

To this end, Free Thinkers of various nationalities have assembled in CyperSpace and sketched the following Declaration, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

The Declaration of Independence of Music

When in the Course of human creativity, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the economic bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of Music, the separate and equal rights to which Justice and Moral Authority entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Music is created equal, that it is endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Reproduction, Distribution and the right to Perform. --That to secure these rights, Copyright is instituted among People, deriving its just powers from the consent of the Creator, --That whenever any Form of Commerce becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Copyright, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Prosperity and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Copyright long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Laws, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Artists and their audience; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Copyright. The history of the present King of Music [RIAA] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over Music. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have persecuted through the courts people guilty of no other crime than the enjoyment of music.

They have treated the Internet with contempt.

They have misused and abused the power of authority by representing their own interests as if they were those of the Creators.

They have attempted to impose their will by nefarious means across national borders so as to bring into submission all people of the Internet.

They have made people afraid to listen to music on the greatest medium of modern times by denying their right to privacy.

They have prevented the free association of music, technology and people by the use of DRM.

They have misrepresented their interests by claiming that they invest in the development of new music whereas in truth their interests are best served by protecting and exploiting those rights which they already own.

They have colluded with broadcasters to feed the audience bland and unhealthy fare whilst themselves getting fat and lazy on the proceeds of their misdeeds.

They have knowingly confused and conflated in the minds of both Artists and the public the seperate and distinct notions of price and value, such that as music's money price grows its true value declines.

They have, and continue to, put stars in the eyes of our young, fostered their belief in a perverted cause which fetishises money and fame, and then cast them aside empty and desolate whilst continuing to profit from their demise even after death.

They have taken Music, which should be freely shared amongst people to grant them understanding, beauty and truth, and chained it to their own financial destinies constraining the evolution of Music and denying to the people what was freely given.

They make profane, what is sacred.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. An Institution whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of Music.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to the music business. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legal teams to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement in cyberland. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united independent music artists, in General Cyberspace, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of Music, solemnly publish and declare, That we are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Artists; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the RIAA, and that all political connection between them and the Old Music Industry, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Artists, they have full Power to write Songs, play Music, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Artists may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Please express your support for the Declaration by releasing your music so it can be freely shared.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Karl Marx and Frederik Engels in 1848.

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.

Digital Evolution: Microblogging (Part One)

Some things can be difficult to understand without having experience of them. Microblogging is very much like that.

This sounds like a convient argument for evangelists of microblogging, which it is. But it's also true. If you believe me, you can go here to set up your Twitter account, now.

Postcard, telegram, teleprinter, sms, tweet; short-form messaging combines meaning and rhythm. It can project a powerful pulse of data.

For me, running a microblog is like sending a series of text messages on my phone; just responding to a text from a friend saying 'what you doing?'. To give microblogging a proper go, my feeling was that I should tweet at least once a day. Initially, I thought it would be a chore. But it hasn't turned out like that.

The evolution of short-form message technology means I can send as many messages, as I like; and each message could be read by millions of people.

Every time I look at my Twitter home page I can see 20 messages. I tweet several times a day to my hundred or so followers. Many of them I acquired by spending a day or two choosing people to follow; after I followed them, they followed me back. People say the maximum number of social relations one person can maintain is 150 - the 'Dunbar' number. President Barack Obama is the number one twitterer. He has 165 414 followers, and he follows 168 067. Kevin Rose, the number two twitterer, has 88 202 followers but he only follows 140.

Technology increases the volume of information available to us. This creates problems. But it also creates solutions.

It's a little early in the day for me to say how many social relations I can maintain through microblogging. I reckon 150 is low, though. Some people, internet marketers in particular, follow thousands. To help them exceed the Dunbar number (so named after anthropologist Robin Dunbar who proposed the limit), many software tools are offered to assist in managing a large following. But even so, a thousand twitterers could very easily produce in excess of 5K tweets on an average day; that's a lot of messages.

Time is a limited resource for all. Some messages are read, some are not. But every message we see is assimilated by our 'ambient awareness'.

I don't read my Twitter home page, I scan it. I read only those tweets of interest to me at that moment. But I do feel like I get a sense of those people I follow. By choosing tweets to read, I'm still noticing the ones I've chosen not to read. Plus, its not just the content that tells me about you, the rhythm of delivery is important too. Most of us do similar things regularly through the day. If you don't, then we notice. Of course my *ambient awareness* isn't infallible. But if I miss something important about you, or about something that's happening, I rely on other's awarness. Important news gets re-tweeted and commented upon.

Its difficult to imagine what it would be like to *know* a thousand people. *Know*, so that what happens to them, and how they feel, affects us.

Have you had the debate about whether an 'online' friend is a 'real' friend? It seems to bug people. Of course, on Twitter you follow people, rather than 'friend' them. Generally, you don't know them, before you follow them. Say you liked flying kites. You could search Twitter for all the people who mention 'kites' in their tweets, and then work your way through the list, following anyone you like. You get to *know* them from there, through their microblog and online presence. You can easily, and without much social awkwardness, send them a public @username message. Its more akin to a smile, nod, or 'Good Morning' in normal social discourse, than it is to one to one conversation.

The biggest barrier to the uptake of microblogging is our own fear of public self-disclosure.

People worry about privacy. They worry about giving away too much of themselves, and making themselves vulnerable. I worried. Not about online scammers or any other of the internet bogeymen, though. But about the uncomfortable feeling of putting myself out there; where I could be judged. It felt odd. Anyone can read my tweets, anyone can send me a tweet @jonone100. Anyone, from anywhere, could tweet any words, to me. But most frightening of all. Taking the first steps to running a public microblog I was making myself vulnerable to the thing guaranteed to upset me most - silence.

Mutual self-disclosure is the way we get to know people. It has never been seen on this scale, before. It might change things.

We take the risk of rejection each time we connect with one another. But if neither of 'us' takes the risk, there will be no 'us'. Following rather than friending, and the public nature of the @messages, help to minimise the fear of rejection. That enables people to take more risks, and combined with the technology's huge capacity, to make more connections with more people. Microblogging increases the potential for empathy and understanding between us.

As the microblogging ritual embeds into our daily lives, it's mundane nature belies its power for self revelation.

Framing my thoughts, feelings and emotions into 140 characters, isn't just about dumping my angst into the public sphere. Although, giving a voice to frustration can sometimes be a good thing. The act of microblogging forces me to express myself. This is a revelation to my followers - and to me. A Muslim work colleague once explained to me how giving thanks to Allah five times a day, gave meaning to his life. I liked him and I was a little envious of the meaning that this ritual act gave to him, each day. I'm not saying Twitter is like religion (Tweligion) - I wouldn't be here if it was. But it does take you outside yourself. Each day, in small steps, microblogging creates my own history. It gives me context.

Perhaps I get a little carried away with possibilities. I haven't actually got out and met any of my Twitter people, yet. That, I guess, will be the next step. But I've been around long enough (on the internet) to know that behind every message, behind each and every word, there is a person. I always try to remember that.

This technology takes power from the distances that divide us, and uses it to amplify the resonance between us.

It offers us emancipation from isolation.

That's what I think about it right now. Here's what someone else says:

Laura Fitton, the social-media consultant, argues that her constant status updating has made her “a happier person, a calmer person” because the process of, say, describing a horrid morning at work forces her to look at it objectively. “It drags you out of your own head,” she added. In an age of awareness, perhaps the person you see most clearly is yourself.

The Brave new World of Digital Intimacy - Clive Thompson
(New York Times - 7th September 2008)
You can follow Clive on Twitter @pomeranian99
Here's a link to the entire article.

An idiot's Guide to Money - 3. Burning Money

When was the last time you made a sacrifice? When was the last time you chose to destroy something that had value to you? When was the last time you did something sacred?

The last time I did all of those things on the same day was on 23rd October 2007. At the time I was a bankrupt. For a week before, I kept a tenner in my back pocket. On the 23rd I burnt that £10 with my wife and son as witness. As I write this I've slipped £20 into my back pocket. In three days time on the 23rd, I'll burn that £20.

And I'll be doing a good thing.

On the 23rd August 1994 the K-Foundation burnt £1 million, cash. This single act has become the greatest artistic statement of the C20th. Pure genius.

Of course it sparked a lot of controversy. Many people were upset that they burnt the cash rather than gave it away and claim it was a waste of the money. But it wasn't wasted. The power in the money, released from the paper symbols made to inform us of its existence, has been nurtured and nourished by the telling, writing, and showing of its story. It is now a myth with power and value that far exceeds the K-Foundations original sacrifice.

When we burn money, its power is not destroyed. Its not money we sacrifice. We sacrifice our custodianship of money's power.

The promise made by the Bank of England to pay a debt due to the note's bearer still exists in the books of the Bank of England. The person who burns the notes says that the Bank of England will never be called upon to meet that debt.

By burning notes we increase the value of money without reducing the quantity.

Its true that the quantity of cash in circulation has been reduced, but the reported quantity of money (recorded in the Bank of England's books) has not been altered. The £10 debt remains on their books as real as all their other debts. It may seem counter-intuitive to say that the value of money increases with burning. But think about it. Imagine if tomorrow half of all cash disappeared. Prices in the shops would fall to chase harder for the available cash. Deflation increases the value of money. Its human nature to find greater value in diminishing resources.

Far from being wasteful, burning cash to release ourselves momentarily from the power of money is a very good thing to do for money and for ourselves. Environmental concerns excepted, burning money is good for all.

Once in a while you should show money that you are the boss. You can't show it you're the boss by buying something - that only proves how much you need money. You can't show it you're the boss by giving it away - that just makes your money the boss of someone else. The best way to show money you're the boss is to deny it; to refuse its power and to exert your own. Burn it.

Money will love you for it. Burnt cash is free money.

Respect money, it is an immense power. Remember, people who work with it every day have to wear suits. But don't worship it. You know what they say - 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. They are wrong about many things, but they maybe right about this.

Hedge your bets. Burn some of your money just to make sure. You'll feel good, after.

That's my take on it.

Here's what someone else thinks about the K-Foundation burning £1million:

I thought it was awesome in some ways, very funny in others; quite liberating. It burned well - very clean flames. I'd like to know if it was Newton on the fifties, but he's represented anyway - he organised the Royal Mint, and that's interesting because Newton was kind of the bridge between Magic and The Age of Reason. On the one hand he was an alchemist and yet, on the other, he was the father of all contemporary science. He had the last remaining stone maypole in London made into the base of his telescope.

William Blake called the Age of Reason 'Newton's sleep', the falling asleep to anything beyond rationality and reason ... spiritual values. This film was Newton's bed clothes on fire. It's what money represents which is the important thing magically. Anyone's probable immediate reaction is 'Why didn't you give it to charity?' they mean 'Why didn't you give it to me?'

Alan Moore, Writer & Occultist

This is a link to the entire article.

An idiot's Guide to Money - 2. Financial Crisis

As we all know, money can solve any problem. Ask a Doctor how she can save more lives, and she'll say with more resources. Ask a Policemen how he can cut crime, and he'll say with more funding. Ask bankers how to save the economy in the face of financial crisis, and they'll say with more money.

And don't forget those poor Africans. Sir Bob and Bono have both told us that they need more money too. Make poverty history is what they say.

So how do we get all the money we need?

Easy.

1. We increase the value of the money. To do this, we make and do stuff cheaper.

2. We increase the quantity of money. To do this we make promises, and keep them.

So when prices are falling and promises are being kept, money is created. But when prices are rising and promises are being broken, money is destroyed.

Generally, things have been going well for us since WW2. Technology has helped us to do most things cheaper than before. And promises - 'I promise to pay the bearer of this note etc' - have (for the most part) been kept.

So what's the trouble?

Its yer 'flations mix, mate !

1. Deflation increases the value in money, inflation decreases the value in money.

- Falling prices mean that £1 buys more, rising prices means £1 buys less.

2. Inflation increases the quantity of money, deflation decreases the quantity of money.

- Rising prices mean that more £1s are needed to buy the same stuff, falling prices mean that less £1s are needed to buy the same stuff.

The bad news is that we don't really understand inflation and deflation. We can never even be sure which one's the goodie and which one's the baddie, because it entirely depends on your position.

Governments will keep trying to sort it out. Its all they can do. But there are no guarantees that anything will work. No 'one' really knows what the value of money should be, nor the quantity of money needed. That's the point of money, really. I don't decide. You don't decide. Our conflicts of interest are played out through the market, and magically a value/quantity is set.

When money isn't there to help us do that, history shows us that the same conflicts of interest are played out through famine, social unrest, and war.

That's my take on it anyway.

Here's someone else's:

'..there is an unceasing conflict between the interests of debtors, who seek to enlarge the quantity of money and who seek busily to find acceptable substitutes, and the interests of creditors, who seek to maintain or increase the value of money by limiting its supply, by refusing substitutes or accepting them with great reluctance, and generally trying in all sorts of ways to safeguard the quality of money.'

Glyn Davies - A History of Money (1994) p30

________________________________


PS. I've left out a ton of important stuff particularly on interest rates, and supply and demand for money (inflation increases the quantity of money is a contentious thing to say - monetarist's think that having too much money in the economy causes inflation). I also was tempted to go into the power dynamics of moneyied relations (which Glyn Davies touches on) [tip - substitute the word debtors with 'the poor' and creditors with 'the rich]. Best to save that for another time though, I think.

An Idiot's Guide to Money - 1. Secrets and Lies

Image via WikipediaThere's part of me that gets very excited about the financial crisis. I was a young teenager when the cold war was at its hottest, and the prospect of nuclear war was in people's minds. I remember feeling both fear and excitement - it would be terrible because people would die, but also exciting because the world would change forever. I guess my excitement over the financial crisis comes from the same place in my head. Of course, I would never tell anyone this - I'm only saying it here because I trust you not to tell anyone. As a grown-up you have to keep secrets. There's certain things you don't discuss in front of the kids.

Banking is all about secrets. As crunch turns into crisis, these secrets are being exposed. The shock we feel is akin to a child witnessing a primal scene - 'you have to do that, to make me?'. The modern banking system has been pretty good a keeping its secrets covered up. Our governments have no real choice but to collude with the banks. Human beings always seem to need someone to lie to them. Whether its preachers, politicians, or bankers we need someone to take on the responsibility of allaying our fears. Post WWII its worked well; long periods of feeling safe, punctuated by occasional bouts of fear (but with the sweet pill of someone to blame).

The soundbite of the moment seems to be the 'real economy'. Poe-faced pundits have hauled out this old chesnut to attempt to put some distance between the firms who deal in money and the firms who deal in stuff. It's bit like saying 'make love' rather than 'have sex'. And its a rather pernicious lie. If the making and doing part of the economy did really separate from the financial part, we'd have real problems. I'd find myself trying to swap 10 minutes driving for a loaf of bread. Money acts as medium of exchange. Its the oil for the economic engine. Try running your car without oil if you want to test the analogy ;o)

Image via Wikipedia

It might seem odd to you but I have a lot of sympathy for bankers and politicians. We need secrets. To protect secrets we need lies. And to tell lies we need liars. The people I don't have too much sympathy for are the 'morally outraged'. This might sound harsh, but if you've spent your working life taking a wage from a government agency or institution and the value of your pension has just dropped by 30% - tough. If your home is losing more value each day than you earn - tough. If you're worried about the future - join the club, Sherlock. The greater your faith in the words of the false prophets - of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, and Mervyn King - the harder events will hit you.

And even if you lose all your money and your house - and I do know how that feels - you'll still be better off than most people in the world. Do you remember the debt relief campaign? The combined US and UK bailout is about $1.5 trillion ($700m plus £500m). The combined debt of world's poorest 49 countries - over which Sir Bob and Bono made such a fuss - is a mere $375 billion. (Thanks to Some French Guy for bringing this to my attention). I'm sure most people would find this outrageous. Personally, I don't think its that simple. The US itself has a national debt of $10 trillion (some people reckon its nearer $60 trillion when you account for social spending). You could look at that and say that the level of debt of a country is directly related to the wealth and well-being of its population. In other words, the higher your debt, the better off you'll be. The logical conclusion is that to improve the lot of it's people the world's poorest nations should take on more debt, not less.

I studied Economic History at the London School of Economics - the same place many of the bankers and politicians would have learnt about economics. At the end of three very enjoyable years I was more aware than ever that no-one really knows what money is. Seriously. Myself, I think it's a magical, wonderful, beautiful phenomenon that brings us both pleasure and pain. Its not just figures on a bank's books, nor the pieces of paper and metal we hand over the bar. Its much more than that. We each have a deep relationship with this unique power. And we're a long way from understanding it. In the end, maybe that's why we need all those secrets and lies.

A word on Microblogging and Twitter

Image via CrunchBaseImage via CrunchBaseWho Microblogs?
When I first came across twitter (the original internet micro blogging facility) I didn't really think it was important. I was wrong. Twitter allows you post 140 characters - a micro blog. Some people, like me, use it as a daily update to let people know what I'm up to. Mostly it looks like a reply to a moblie phone text asking 'what you doin?' - personal, friendly, but essentially factual and functional. jonone100's twitter feed

Other people use twitter to 'life stream'. In other words they update many times a day and will tell you what they're doing, what they are thinking, what they are listening too, how they are feeling, etc, etc. Personally, I find these life stream tweets (a tweet is the name given to a single post on twitter) dull in the extreme. I think less can be more.

A further group of people use microblogging to market goods and services to you. While this can be annoying, it can also be useful and entertaining. I follow one guy (follow means read the posts of) who is into the Internet and goes to seminars on web 2.0 and other such things. Its not like he trys to sell you stuff; he'll post relevent links, some music, the odd book recommendation. He also lets you know about his own projects through his posts. All of this I find very useful - he strikes the right balance with the frequency of posts. He keeps it personal without boring me with mundane detail. nick levine's twitter feed

Why is it called a Feed?
Because a microblog is a small and simple bit of information its easy for the wizards of technology to do all sorts of things with it - they can feed your information into other services. You can put twitter feeds into your newsreader (if you don't know what this is don't worry), or you can have it appear in a widget on your igoogle page (or pageflakes or any other personalisation service). So for example when I boot up my computer something like this appears on my home page.

So from this widget I can read all the posts (tweets) of the people I'm following, and I can also post myself without visiting twitter at all. You can get this widget for free from 32hours.com/betwitteredinfo/ (but you'll need to know about igoogle and I haven't posted about that yet !). If you have an iphone you can get a widget for that too.

My favourite thing to do with my twitter feed though is to create a picture from it. You'll see this picture on my blog. Its this:

This simple facility is really cool. It updates from my twitter feed automatically. So although it appears to your computer as a static image, it actually updates everytime you do. The advantage is that you can stick a static image nearly anywhere - in the footer of your emails (I'll tell you how to do this is your gmail footer at a later date) or in your online profiles. No need to get complicated with burning rss feeds - just cut and paste the image URL. Once you have a twitter account, you get your own from twitsig.com. Its free, so say thank you to the nice man.

Another thing you can do with your twitter feed is use it to update your status on facebook, myspace or any similar social network. This is really handy as it provides an 'information pulse' for your friends. To integrate twitter into facebook use the twitter application. I haven't got the myspace twitter sync working yet (but my twitter feed is already displayed through my twitsig picture).


Why do I want to know what you're doing?
I use my twitter feed to primarily to keep people informed about my availability for driving work. People still call me up and ask if I'm available (you're not going to beat talking to someone directly) but the twitter feed acts as a reminder to them, and it stops them calling when I'm working. If my tweet says 'on my way to Glasgow' no-ones going to call to see if I can do a job in Brighton.

Work availability is just one thing, you can use your feed for whatever you like. Events you're attending, music you're listening to, your bowel movements - the possibilities are endless. Just don't expect me to follow you if you're going to tweet everytime you use the toilet.

I tend to follow people I know personally. Although I'm quite into following people with whom I have some shared interest. And this is the most amzing thing about microblogging - by following people's tweets you begin to feel like you get a sense of who they are. I know it might seem odd, but try it. The world is a funny place full of syncronisities and serendipities. Microblogging helps you to see more of them.


13/10/08 - I found this which might be of interest (its from a blog I follow)

What’s Twitter? 5 Things Your Business Needs to Know

Bad News on Touring

No. Not Bad News on Tour. (That'd be cool). Bad news on touring. According to Billboard (the american Musicweek) the people involved in staging tours in the USA are gloomy about the prospects for ticket sales this coming Autumn. They reckon the fuel price rises and the credit crunch mean that less people will be going to gigs. And of course, cost rises will impact on tour profits, and the credit crunch upon promoters ability raise capital. This creates a bit of a problem for the music business. Since we've stopped buying CDs, they've been pushing the idea that live music is where the real money is hiding. That may well be true for the handful of mega-artists that earn big from their stadium tours (The Stones, Madonna etc), but for many artists, touring costs money - in particular for new artists. Record companies have always provided 'tour support' - effectively, they've paid for you to listen to and see their artists play live.

So the last thing the record companies need now is for the live sector to start having a hard time. The buzz words in the last few years has been 'the 360 degree' deal. Basically, it means taking a share of all the artists rights - recording rights, publishing rights, live rights, and merchandise rights. Record company execs will have to find a new story to tell the banks - that might be quite tricky, because there's more bad news.

The billboard article reckons that agencies like William Morris are starting their own record companies. Well, I say record companies - they already perform the most important record company functions (promoting the artist, for example) and I guess it'd be easy enough to contract their artists for recording rights. Manufacturing has been outsourced for years. If starbucks can do it then William Morris surely can. Plus - cue a plug for an earlier post - record companies are actually record agencies, anyway.

In other news.... according to Musicweek the live scene in the UK has a different problem - a skills shortage. Thankfully, a government agency has come to the rescue and is going to run some sort of apprenticeship scheme at some point in the future. Phew. I bet every international arena-filling artists has heaved a huge sigh of relief. The show can go on. Except that it might not be earning as much money as before. Live Nation have put a very positive spin on quite a drastic fall in profits. And my own impression is that things for smaller promoters aren't looking too good either. I took this picture from the main stage of a 'boutique' festival I was working this summer - it wasn't at dawn. It was mid-evening on the Friday. Even the great Glastonbury seemed a just tad less than impregnable this year with tickets still on sale right up to the festival.

Things are generally looking a bit gloomy, then. The live sector is down due to the wider economic downturn. Merchandise will fall because of this. The record industry is completely knackered anyway. That leaves the artists just waiting for their publishing cheques. Still every cloud has a silver lining. The gossip is that GUT records are going bust - so no more the crazy frog! On discussing this news with a colleague I was told that GUT's boss, was also responsible for Tom Jones's comeback - obviously a good thing which does go some way to make up for unleashing that fucking frog. My commiserations to GUT employees and owners alike.

Hamfatter, Peter Jones, and the business of music.

Description: This is about a band that appeared on the BBC2 program Dragon's Den (you can watch it until Sun 3rd Aug if you've not seen it) who were seeking investment to enable them to record a new album. Their single came out last week. Peter Robinson at the Guardian has offered his opinion of the band - awful - and what adopting this sort of entrepreneurial model (of bands finding 'angel' investors) would mean for the future of music - Peter is unenthusiastic.

I watched Hamfatter do their thing on Dragon's Den. I then switched off. I should like this show. Somtimes I've enjoyed the drama to which the format lends itself, but equally I've found it cringe-making in the extreme. And my biggest problem is that I can't stand the Dragons. Peter Jones in particular.

I think the Hamfatter manager dude did a good pitch. But what a mug punter Peter Jones turned out to be ! £75K to own a piece of the Hams (at least that's what Peter thinks he's bought). In closing the deal he used the classic 'I know people at Sony' - that line must have been used so many times! And I loved the way he tried to catch the band out by trying to get them to play a snippet of their new material. Like hearing it would have made a difference ! What a way to make an investment decision.

In recent years Venture Capitalists have been trying so hard to make us believe that there is rhyme and reason behind what they do, and that they are a serious profession. And there goes Mr 'I'm a big boy' Jones sticking his size 14s right in. Er, Peter, you've just become the Ham's agent - still he's already got the pimp suit.

I don't know why Peter Jones aggravates me so much. Maybe I'm jealous of his money, or his height, or his ability for self-delusion. But I'm sure that there's something very wrong about the Beeb taking money from me on pain of prison, giving airtime to Peter for him to self-promote, and then him taking a financial interest in a project that gets reported on the Beeb's own news! Now, to be fair to Peter that might not be such a bad punt after all. Take a financial interest in a band that are guaranteed a huge audience just by virtue of you taking a financial interest in them. Nice. And what better people to have on side than those whose fortunes are linked to yours. The Beeb's actions have made far more difference to the Hams than Peter's £75K ever could. What a Dragon's Den success story a Ham's No1 would be.

cheer up lads ! you just got 75 grand ! - The Hams

Record companies have been doing this stuff for years - they get the right relationships with the right people in the largest media companies. When there's brown envelopes involved its called Payola. When the media's involved its called cross promotion. Perhaps its fitting that the recording industry should have Peter Jones replace it. They both exhibit the same level of cool, authenticity, and clear-headed decision making skills. The gossip was that Guy Hands at EMI told his people to sign the band at any cost. I can believe it.

The band have become the plaything of the Beeb and some blokes with money - I wouldn't say unwittingly though. If they had any creative integrity prior to their Dragon's Den appearance it's x-factored it out of them. I don't think that'll bother their new agent though. I reckon Jones wants to become the C21st Branson and he'll figure that this will help him. It probably will in terms of publicity, but financially an ISA would be a better bet.

'The girl I love' - the well timed single release from the Hams - entered the singles charts yesterday at number 71 (6 places above Sam Sparro's latest). So the Ham's fans have made the purchase, and now we'll wait and see if anyone else does. No doubt Peter Jones' friends and relatives employees are receiving emails from him right now - 'Buy Ham, Buy Ham!'

Starting my blog

The official start date for this Blog is the 23rd August 2008.

This is quite delayed. I originally intended to get something up on the internet in October 2006. That deadline passed with a few ideas mooted, but nothing practical done. I then ended up working for a year, and it wasn't until August 2007 that I really felt I needed to get on and get something up on the internet. My first attempt at a blog didn't really go anywhere. I couldn't really clarify an idea in my mind about what it was that I wanted the blog to do.

I came across Twitter - short form blogging - and thought it was an interesting development. And it would be useful for me to let people know whether I was available for work. If my blog could attract an online audience, then I should be able to get more driving work. But I also wanted to earn money from the blog if at all possible. I'd not been that impressed with the story of the million dollar homepage (the original pixel ad) - but it had stuck in my mind. After seeing the struggles other bloggers have had to monetize their blogs, I thought pixelads would be nice and simple. It'll either work, or it won't. I don't have to worry about it.

My intention is to run this blog for a minimum of 1 year (from 23rd August 2008). I reckon the worst that can happen is that my pixelad space stays empty, and I pick up a bit more driving work. can Hopefully, I earn a few quid from the pixelad, and can afford to spend a bit more time writing and a bit less driving. The only subject I won't cover on this blog will be gossip about the artists I'm driving - apart from the fact I've no real interest in it, it'd be an abuse of my position if I did so. Oh, and I really don't want to be posting about blogging too much either - just because that feels like it would become an ever decreasing circle.

There is a reason why there's a picture of a single malt from Jura attached to this post, but you need to find it out for yourself.