The key value that Real Vision adds stems from its “long-form documentaries, in-depth interviews and actionable analysis.” These contrast starkly with CNBC’s 60-second sound bites.
For example, Williams’ recent interview with David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s former budget director, ran nearly 90 minutes.
Real Viewers who invested the time got an in-depth overview of how America’s 1971 default on its gold debts (which few CNBC viewers have even heard about) may be setting the stage for a colossal reset.
“Major media are perpetual bulls because this draws advertisers,” jokes Williams. “Imagine running a mutual fund ad right after an analyst says the market is overvalued. That wouldn’t work well. But we don’t run ads. So we can offer a wider range of opinions.”
Fed employees not allowed to speak to the press
With Real Vision broadening its content, Williams has increasingly focused on digging deeper into the Federal Reserve and the shady world of central banking. The process has heightened his conviction about the role that physical gold needs to play in investor portfolios.
That said, it hasn’t been easy. As John Maynard Keynes noted, central banks go to huge lengths to hide their primary roles as government tax collectors.
Federal Reserve employees, for example, are forbidden from speaking to the press. To make sure that they don’t, the Fed only hires the most obsequious candidates, from universities whose graduates have a reputation for towing the line.
The process works.
With the exception of Danielle DiMartino Booth, whose book Fed Up! appeared after the last financial crisis, the Fed—which some argue is running a colossal Ponzi scheme—has not had a major whistle blower in its 100+ year history.
The same applies to the big banks, which according to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods have paid nearly $250 billion in fines for fraudulent activities, without one of their key executives having “blown the whistle” to warn the public.
Williams, though not a journalist by training, has picked up a decent bag of tricks over the years.
For example, this week Real Vision ran a 90-minute interview with William White, an obscure former Bank of Canada, BIS and now an OECD official, who has been out of central banking for more than ten years.
CNBC journalists, who are only interested in sound bites, wouldn’t have given White two minutes of their time. Yet his importance cannot be overstated.
Williams knew that because White was no longer affiliated with the central banks (but remains connected with the key players), he was thus able to speak relatively candidly.
Central banks’ steady incompetence
White’s warnings—that central banks’ steady incompetence has dug them into a huge hole, that they are likely all working for themselves (as opposed to colluding, as some suspect) and that global debts will not be paid back—thus need to be taken with utmost seriousness.
White also reminded Real Vision viewers that he had worked closely with Claudio Borio, the current head of the economics department at the BIS, and suggested that the two thought alike.
This provides a strong hint that Borio’s commentaries during the coming months will be “must-reads” for all who are monitoring the international financial system.
A broad range of sources
Critics argue that viewers of CNBC and other mainstream media have more than made up their losses since the dot.com and housing bubble crashes.
However, that only applies to investors who were wealthy enough to hold on throughout and after the crises. Ordinary and poorer investors weren’t able to risk their remaining assets. Many left the market, never to return.
A market crash today would be particularly catastrophic to baby boomers, many of whom are simply too old to be able to wait out another boom-bust cycle. Hence the importance of Williams’ reasoning.
With consumer, business and public sector debts and most major markets all near record levels, investors do need to consult a broad range of sources.
But those who only have time to follow just one financial network should probably ditch CNBC and get Real Vision.
Amazon Seller Central Pricing Strategies
Did you know that some prices look better than others to customers?
Here is how some prices are perceived by customers:
- Prices ending in $.00 – premium ($15.00)
- Prices ending in $.95-99 – good deal ($14.95)
- Prices ending in $.85 (made popular by Wal-Mart) – even better deal
When making a price look like a deal, it’s not about changing the right number. It’s about changing the left. For example, $14.99 is better than $15 because of the 14, not the .99.
Numbers with less syllables tend to perform better (79.76 vs 82.10)
- $79.76 – 8 syllables
- $82.10 – 4 syllables
TommyTwoLegs from Reddit.com/r/fulfillmentbyamazon speaks of a friend who a/b tested every single cent combination possible on Amazon. Here are his results (take with a grain of salt or more):
.45, .50, .89, .90, .95, .99, .00
Here is one last pricing strategy:
If you have a RATIONAL product (like cleaner/hardware), add cents to the price.
If you have an EMOTIONAL product (like shoes/clothing), take cents away.
Have Amazon Remove the Review
Sometimes a product review is fake or not accurate about the product. In these cases Amazon may remove the review if you report it. To do so, go to your product page, find the review, and click “Report Abuse”.
Then enter the reason why you are reporting the review, for example:
- Review is fake (exact review on many product pages)
- One customer writing multiple reviews on your product
- Competitor purposefully leaving a bad review that you can prove
- Spiteful or vulgar reviews
- One word reviews
- Personal contact information
- Reviews relating to price
A while back we compared the issue tracking features of four major SCM tools. Since people were quite interested in the comparison, we decided to continue the series with a similar post about Git-powered wiki features. After all, an effective and reliable documentation is a must-have for any software development team.
If you do not want to read the detailed breakdown of the wiki features and their characteristics, you can jump straight to the summary table.
.. Mr. Wolff is known in New York and Hollywood for his withering takedowns of popular public figures; he was only ever going to write one kind of book... “Fire and Fury” is a typical piece of “access journalism,”.. Mr. Wolff takes the genre to another level, and perhaps a lower level. If he has employed objective criteria for deciding what to include or exclude, it’s not clear what those criteria are. By the looks of it, he included any story, so long as it was juicy.
.. “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House,” Mr. Wolff writes, “are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”.. what to do when two sources make contradictory claims. A responsible reporter, or one more scrupulous than Mr. Wolff, would seek out corroborating evidence or do more research. Mr. Wolff simply “settles” on his preferred version... Mr. Wolff often writes as if he were the omniscient narrator of a novel... “Sessions was certainly not going to risk his job over the silly Russia business, with its growing collection of slapstick Trump figures. God knows what those characters were up to—nothing good, everybody assumed. Best to have nothing to do with it.”.. It seems unlikely that Mr. Wolff interviewed Mr. Sessions, and unlikelier still that the attorney general told him any such thing about his own thoughts on recusal. How does Mr. Wolff know then?.. Reporters, especially though not exclusively political reporters, are more interested in the meaning of facts than in the facts themselves. They’re concerned with interpretation rather than accuracy, with “narrative” rather than detail, with explaining rather than disclosing, with who’s happy or angry about a story rather than whether it’s true, with what’s likely to happen next week or next year rather than with what happened yesterday.