Illiteracy rates in america

The global agriculture sensors market is projected to experience a substantial Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of over 13% from 2024 to 2030. This growth is primarily driven by the increasing adoption of modern farming practices worldwide and advancements in technology. Additionally, the rising demand for food, coupled with population growth and the need to enhance crop production, is expected to further stimulate market expansion. Moreover, the growing adoption of smart farming techniques, drone technology, and telematics solutions, along with the increasing utilization of sensors in various applications such as disease control and detection, yield monitoring and mapping, irrigation and water management, and soil monitoring, is anticipated to fuel market growth.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=147330
Market Trends:
Increasing Adoption of Precision Farming: Precision farming is gaining traction as farmers seek to optimize field-level management concerning crop farming. The use of sensors allows for accurate data collection on soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health, enabling farmers to make informed decisions and improve yield efficiency.
Advancements in Sensor Technology: Technological advancements are leading to the development of more sophisticated and reliable sensors. Innovations such as wireless sensors, IoT-enabled devices, and advanced imaging technologies are enhancing the accuracy and functionality of agricultural sensors, making them more accessible and user-friendly.
Integration of IoT and Big Data Analytics: The integration of Internet of Things (IoT) and big data analytics in agriculture is revolutionizing farm management. Sensors collect vast amounts of data that, when analyzed, provide insights into crop health, soil moisture, and other critical factors. This integration helps farmers optimize resources, reduce costs, and increase productivity.
Growth of Smart Farming Practices: Smart farming practices, including the use of drones, robots, and automated systems, are becoming increasingly prevalent. Sensors play a crucial role in these technologies, providing real-time data for tasks such as crop monitoring, pest control, and precise irrigation, thereby improving overall farm management.
Rising Demand for Sustainable Agriculture: There is a growing emphasis on sustainable agriculture practices aimed at reducing environmental impact and conserving resources. Sensors help in implementing precision agriculture techniques that minimize water usage, reduce chemical inputs, and lower carbon footprints, aligning with the global push for sustainability.
Market Opportunities:
The agriculture sensors market offers extensive opportunities driven by the increasing adoption of precision farming and smart agriculture practices. Technological advancements in IoT, big data analytics, and wireless sensor networks are enabling more efficient and precise farm management, leading to higher crop yields and resource optimization. As global food demand rises alongside population growth, the need for innovative solutions to enhance agricultural productivity becomes critical. Additionally, the push for sustainable farming practices and environmental conservation presents significant market potential for sensors that support efficient water management, soil health monitoring, and reduced chemical usage. Government support through subsidies and favorable policies further bolsters the adoption of advanced agricultural technologies, creating a fertile ground for market expansion and innovation.
According to the recent report published by RC Market Analytics, the Global Agriculture Sensors Market is expected to provide sustainable growth opportunities during the forecast period from 2024 to 2030. This latest industry research study analyzes the agriculture sensors market by various product segments, applications, regions and countries while assessing regional performances of numerous leading market participants. The report offers a holistic view of the agriculture sensors industry encompassing numerous stakeholders including raw material suppliers, providers, distributors, consumers and government agencies, among others. Furthermore, the report includes detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the global market considering market history, product development, regional dynamics, competitive landscape, and key success factors (KSFs) in the industry.
Browse the Full Report Discretion @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/agriculture-sensors-market/
Geographically, the agriculture sensors market report comprises dedicated sections centering on the regional market revenue and trends. The agriculture sensors market has been segmented on the basis of geographic regions into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. Agriculture sensors market estimates have also been provided for the historical years 2020 to 2023 along with forecast for the period from 2024 - 2030.The report includes a deep-dive analysis of key countries including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, China, Japan, India, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, among others. Thereby, the report identifies unique growth opportunities across the world based on trends occurring in various developed and developing economies.
The Agriculture Sensors Market Segmentation:
By Type:

• Location Sensor
• Humidity Sensor
• Electrochemical Sensor
• Mechanical Sensor
• Airflow Sensor
• Optical Sensor
• Pressure Sensor
• Water Sensor
• Soil Sensor
• Livestock Sensor

By Application:

• Dairy Management
• Soil Management
• Climate Management
• Water Management
• Precision Farming
• Smart Green House

By Region:

• North America
• Europe
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East & Africa

Key players in the global agriculture sensors market include Auroras Srl Cso Piera Cillario, Caipos GmbH, CropX Inc., CropIn Technology Solutions Private Limited, and Glana Sensors AB. These companies are focusing on market expansion, new investments, innovative service offerings, and strategic collaborations. By entering new geographical regions and acquiring other businesses, they aim to leverage joint synergies and gain a competitive advantage.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=147330
Key Questions Answered by Agriculture Sensors Market Report:

• Product popularity and adoption based on various country-level dynamics
• Regional presence and product development for leading market participants
• Market forecasts and trend analysis based on ongoing investments and economic growth in key countries
• Competitive landscape based on revenue, product offerings, years of presence, number of employees and market concentration, among others
• Various industry models such as SWOT analysis, Pestle Analysis, Porter’s Five Force model, Value Chain Analysis pertaining to Agriculture Sensors market
• Analysis of the key factors driving and restraining the growth of the global, regional and country-level markets from 2020-2030

About Us:RC Market Analytics is a global market research firm. Our insightful analysis is focused on developed and emerging markets. We identify trends and forecast markets with a view to aid businesses identify market opportunities to optimize strategies. Our expert’s team of analysts’ provides enterprises with strategic insights. RC Market Analytics works to help enterprises grow through strategic insights and actionable solutions. Feel free to contact us for any report customization at sales@researchcorridor.com.
Media Contact:
Company Name: RC Market Analytics Pvt. Ltd. Contact Person: Vijendra Singh Email: sales@researchcorridor.com Visit us: https://www.researchcorridor.com/

This might be a slightly philosophical post. But the aim is to get to the bottom of what you should be truly doing. To truly get the most results.
There seems to be a MASSIVE amount of conflicting information online about how to do this.
“Do stuff that moves the needle forward”
“Do stuff that brings in revenue”
What does this truly mean though. And is it even the right thing. That’s the purpose of this post, to uncover.
When I’ve spent my time on actual needle-moving forward things, like taking business from 0 to revenue, doing all offer development, operations, sales process, marketing myself, it generally has taken me about 6 months to fully ‘try out’ a business idea I’ve had.
Most times it hasn’t worked.
Either it wasn’t profitable. Or there was a big problem somewhere.
I believe fundamentally it’s because I’m moving too slow.
Because it usually takes me around 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential.
When you haven’t sold it or developed expertise in it yourself yet.
And I would say about 5% of the time it does work.
So if it takes 6 months and only 5% of the time it works (where you bring in revenue, no major issues), and each time it doesn’t work you try a new variation of it or something new based on what you learned, then it might take 10 years of trying different things to get the business to work.
Which sounds like it takes way too long.
So I thought about how the top companies move much quicker.
What separates them and my strategy.
And realized they simply had much more people on their team.
If you think about any successful organization who has achieved great things, and is world-leading, usually there is not 1 person on the team.
There seems to be a correlation between number of people on the team and speed of progress they can make in business.
Which goes against what most conventional startup wisdom tells you, most small business content creators etc all tell you to do it all yourself.
Which I’ve done for quite a few years and it’s gone so slowly in terms of overall progress.
If you should ‘do everything yourself’ then most Fortune 500 companies would’ve had single founders, and 1 person on their team. But the vast majority of successful Fortune 500 companies had co-founders.
And most successful businesses I know of, had co-founders.
And as they succeeded, they got more people on the team, and these people helped bring more success, then they brought more people.
Obviously there can be bad staff and not everyone contributes to the success of the company.
But I do believe, based on this, and observing top companies, that generally the more successful they are, the more people were involved with bringing about the success.
Which completely contradicts most information given to startups about ‘lone wolf’, ‘go it alone’. If that were true, Google would have 1 employee. Apple would have 1 employee.
And they would have never gotten off the ground.
Anyway, I may not have explained this perfectly but I do strongly believe the more & higher quality people are working together on something, the stats show these companies tend to do better, and successful companies you see often have more people than less working on them.
From the very beginning and now.
Regardless of the stage they were at.
So going based off this information, that the more people, the better, I have hired 30+ different people for different roles. Over the past few years. Across different businesses. To help speed up the progress in different areas.
From marketing roles, sales process roles, web development, app development, customer service, delivery of services.
And I would say there have been maybe 1 or 2 of them where I was actually happy with the result.
Most times, I would hire someone to do a job, and they didn’t do the job well, despite saying they were experienced.
And showing past examples of their work. And telling me everything I wanted to hear about how good they were.
It would often be that they would end up performing badly in the KPIs I set for them, giving many excuses, asking for help/questions/not solving anything on their own.
And just so many other problems. Like when there were multiple people at the same time on a team, working on the same project, they would blame each other and no one took responsibility despite clear responsibilities.
All telling me how other staff were bad and they were good, but getting conflicting info from all staff where they blame each other for everything so it’s difficult to know who to trust and who is being truthful.
Oftentimes not being reliable or doing what they were clearly asked to do.
Oftentimes trying to outsource the work I game them, to other people and not caring about the quality.
At my expense.
So I lost lots of clients, had low performing areas in the areas I hired for a lot of the time.
To be fair, things happened faster the more people there were.
But they often needed much more from me than they were contributing.
Like they always wanted to get paid more, for doing less work, weren’t reliable, did low quality work, didn’t hit KPIs, missed clear deadlines, always gave excuses, blamed others/external things, always asking how “I” wanted their job to be done, to the point where I was having to literally tell them every single thing to do and become an expert at their job myself, and show them how to do what they were put there to do, or do it myself, and still get a low quality result from them.
Anyway, the list goes on in all the problems I have experienced hiring people.
It really seems like a minefield.
But there were 1-2 people who did actually do well, who were responsive, who did what they committed to do, who hit deadlines, who did what they were asked, who didn’t give excuses. Who were actually honest hard workers who figured out how to solve problems and actually do the job that was asked from them.
Because of the amount of people I hired and the very low % of people who seemed to do their job well, it made me think that I am probably the problem here. If so many people are doing a bad job and not doing what they were actually hired to do. When most other companies seem to succeed at hiring people.
Then it must be a problem with myself and how I am hiring and managing them.
So it makes me think I need to level up in how I hire and manage people.
I’ve tried lots of different businesses and variations of them and some have done okay, some have not.
Mainly the most success I’ve had is in my own freelancing, where I don’t have other people on my team.
Because it’s kind of turned into a headache working with others. Who just seem to have mostly never been able to deliver what they promised without it becoming pointless to hire them in the first place with all the work I’m doing on their behalf and trying to pick up after all the problems and failures they’ve done.
So I’m not sure exactly what to spend my time and resources on.
I have money saved up from freelancing.
Where I can continue to hire people.
But I do feel I’ve had many many bad experiences.
And I believe it’s mostly my fault. Maybe my training, my hiring, my management, at places along the line I’ve not done it well enough.
I’ve tried to make improvements each time but it has kind of seemed like luck to get people who do actually do their job well.
I genuinely want to hire people and succeed in this.
Because if I can successfully work with people to achieve outcomes, rather than relying only on myself, I can build a real business and not just do freelancing.
In freelancing, I was able to make $3k-5k/month but it was very stressful and I hated speaking with clients, and was constantly stressed.
I generally really don’t like socialising with people. Including clients and staff.
And staff often try to get me to socialise unnecessarily so they can avoid doing their job, and pull me away from mine.
So trying to make it work.
I want to make it work with hiring people because if I can do this, I can make 10x-100x-1000x faster progress with other people on the same team.
But I do have a very bad track record so far. So it’s kind of painful returning to it and continuing to have bad experiences.
But at the same time I know it’s me who’s probably at fault because there can’t be this many bad people I’ve hired and it surely can’t be this bad for everyone.
I think the reason is that I’ve been better at managing myself and doing things successfully solo throughout my life.
Like I’ve achieved very good things in solo sports, in academia, and in many areas that don’t require a team, but often become frustrated working in a team.
But I don’t want my business success to be limited to 1 person.
So I truly want to make it work in improving my ability to manage (ideally a large amount of) people in a way where they can actually deliver and it work well.
Because I was capped in freelancing to making $3k-5k/month because I couldn’t take on more clients because I was undercharging and overdelivering and couldn’t handle more due to being massively stressed out and hating it. I was able to work with less clients at times and charge higher, but they never wanted me to ‘outsource’ my work to others or bring on a team, and I felt bad about it because had bad experiences where I had felt like I let clients down, and oftentimes they told me they had hired me because of me, and not wanted me to ‘outsource’ the work.
But I want to make it work.
Building a real business with a team. Not just doing freelancing and relying just on myself.
So I have time and money and resources to put into this.
I have 1 staff member currently who is unproductive. But we have an equity deal so it doesn’t cost me money for them to perform. But costs me lots of time and their performance is extremely weak. Don’t even want to go into detail, but it’s a nightmare. Their performance is about 1/10 but I believe I can raise their performance if I improve my ability to raise their performance.
Anyway. I want to build a team, but not sure exactly what activities are best ways to spend my time.
If I am physically making improvements, I feel I am slowing down the business progress.
Whereas I want to hire and manage people.
I’ve built training so that this co-founder is able to hire people. And these people can use the same training to hire people.
But I don’t currently have training to enable them to manage people.
My fear is that without training, people just ask unlimited questions on how to do something in their role and it becomes pointless to have hired them because I have to do everything they should have done to do it, so they basically just become a robot following very specific instructions. Rather than a human being who can achieve things independently.
So for example, if I made this training, it would take up all my time, whereas I have savings I’ve accumulated from freelancing which I can put into either having the co-founder manage staff, or have the co-founder make management training at the same time to enable more and more staff to hire and manage new staff. To achieve overall objectives and KPIs.
Or I could have the co-founder hire someone to make the training.
Then that frees up my time, my co-founders, time and only takes financial resources to accomplish.
What I want to achieve, is a scenario where I can give staff KPIs and objectives, and they are enabled to hire and manage people who can meet these objectives. Independently without my help required.
They give feedback, and I have a system for feedback to internal improvements can be made based on staff feedback.
Without it being unfiltered, it’s structured and organised so people can’t just get unlimited help/training/whatever from me.
Where they should be able to take actions, iterate, learn, improve, and act as independent thinking people who can achieve objectives themselves. Or within a system where it’s not all tied directly to me.
E.g. I have direct reports going to me.
But they have direct reports who go to them.
Previously I had a system where I did this, but then staff at the bottom of the hierarchy would ask their managers questions, and the managers wouldn’t know the answer so would then ask me the questions, and so jumping over the managers and making me deal with everything.
Whereas I want to build a system where people can make business progress in their specific area, independently without everything going to the CEO. Only important/urgent things are feedbacked to the CEO.
This way I believe much faster progress can happen.
Because I won’t be bogged down by exponentially growing problems.
Like with how it works in any successful organisation.
Tim Cook has only a handful of direct reports. Who each only have a handful of direct reports. And so on.
He’s making the most important decisions, dealing with what’s most important and strategic, with top authority, dealing with everything as a birds eye view, but not doing every employee’s job for them, teaching every employee how to do their job. Picking up the pieces after every employee misses their deadlines, doesn’t do their work, gives excuses, does poor work that doesn’t help the company.
Even in any successful organisation. Each unit/person is making their own decisions, taking their own action, learning from it, practicing themself at improving, gaining their own experience, not all relying on 1 person, every single person in the organisation, just for them to do their job.
In successful organisations, people at every level experience new problems all the time, and don’t need to contact the #1 person at the top just to deal with it.
They come up with a solution and go for it. And iterate. Learn, try to do something better next time. And there’s a constant learning/feedback process going on across the organisation which everyone takes part in, not just 1 person doing every part for everyone.
I believe this structure of modelling what actually successful organisations do is the correct way. Because they’re successful for a reason.
Not this ‘hustle grindset’ BS in the startup/business world where lots of information seems to be saying the wrong thing. It just makes no sense to make every single person 100% reliant on you for them to do their job.
Anyway so I’m thinking about what I should do with my time.
What I want to do, is tell my co-founder what to do, which involves hiring and managing people who do things that move the needle forward in the business, as defined by me, and some of those people also hire and manage people. To have an exponentially growing system of people growing the organisation. And a communication and feedback and learning system and autonomy within the system itself so it can take action, learn, grow, thrive. As a system within itself.
I believe if hypothetically, I did everything myself, then it takes about 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential, and 5% of the time it does. So if I do everything myself, I believe it will take me 10 years to get a business off the ground.
But if I utilise my money and time more efficiently, I can have as many people working on each part involved in validating these businesses as possible.
I don’t know if that is lazy or smart.
I believe it’s both. But mostly smart. Because I believe I can convince, hire, organise, manage people to either work on equity deals or pay in a way where businesses can realistically bring in profit.
My co-founder does very little of what I ask him to do.
And he wants me to be doing individual things.
He objectively is financially and intelligently very poor and has very minimal skills or experience.
Not to be offensive. Just to paint a picture. So since there is conflicting information everywhere in the business world and you need to choose who to trust, I don’t trust what he believes.
Objectively I am much richer in all these areas than him.
So I used to operate on a democratic system with them. But it’s kind of like, in a vote for president, if you have 80% of the population being easily controlled by the media and being very dumb and easy to sway and manipulate into believing anything, and they vote for things which are objectively dumb and go against what the smartest and objectively most valuable people vote for, I don’t want to be held back by a dumb population having authority or being listened to, if they have a clear, long track record of making very bad decisions.
If you were to take business advice from a homeless person with no experience, money or intellect, or a Fortune 500 CEO, who let’s say objectively has massive experience, money, intellect and success. Then I would probably take what the CEO has to say.
If you had to listen to what a scientist vs 12 year old had to say about a scientific topic, you’d probably want to listen to the scientist who studied the topic and is well respected in their field.
So I believe it would be dumb for both of us, if he made decisions, objectively.
But at the same time it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
The Fortune 500 CEO could be telling you what you want to hear, and could have an incentive to lie to you to send you in the wrong direction with bad business advice so you don’t become competition to them, and the homeless person could be honest.
The scientist could be trying to gain fame and get attention to themself to build their career on a lie and fake experiments whereas the 12 year old could be a science savant.
So it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
If I should listen to him or myself.
Objectively.

1. I believe if I spend time building the business via this logic I’ve described above, it can grow much faster, with unlimited people working on it and performing well, if the necessary improvements are made.
   
2. And I believe if I were to do the individual things necessary to do it, it would take 6 months to ‘validate’ each’s potential. I.e. try everything in that timeframe to make it work, build a good service/product, build good sales process, build good marketing, deal with customers, etc, all on your own.
   

Whereas in the first option, other people could do all these things.
Human development over history has happened due to the input of millions, if not billions of people.
There wasn’t 1 person who did all the work to get Carnegie or Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to gain the success they’ve achieved.
They all build an empire off the backs of others.
Did the slave owners do the slave work themselves when they brought slaves to America? No.
Does Elon do all the individual parts necessary to grow the company? No. He leads and controls the people in order to do that.
Does Mark Zuckerberg single handedly get Facebook off the ground? No. There were 10+ people involved. He stole code from others. Who sued him.
All of these people had exponentially growing staff as the company grew, as fuel to grow the company.
So if you have the money and strategy to lead them to success, I believe it surely is possible.
So long story short this is a long rambling piece of writing but I believe there’s very little impact 1 individual person has on the success of a company. Controlling and amassing an army of people who build the company up and contribute to the company sounds more true.
Does 1 person do everything involved in every sports team? No. Each player plays their respective part. Directed by the coach/manager.
Does 1 person do everything involved in musical orchestras? No each musician plays their part. Directed by the conductor.
And so on.
If you can build an exponentially growing team of staff who effectively work together, bring others on, take action to grow the business, learn from mistakes, make improvements, are highly motivated, are led successfully, it can achieve great things. I feel like it’s a delusion that individual people single-handedly grow companies without others.
So what should that person spend their time doing?
Doing all the millions of things necessary to grow the company? Or bring and manage others who some make progress themselves, some bring and manage others, to gain more and more resources to make progress at faster and faster rate.
Do successful people really have only 1 person responsible? No. They have teams of people behind them.
So trying to do the work of 1,000 people as 1 person sounds 1,000x as hard as getting 1,000 people to each do the work of 1 person.
So if you can finance the growth of the company via hiring others.
Let’s assume I can finance this exponential staff growth. Then surely I should do it right?
Like if I were to compete with 1 person trying to grow their business, and I had 1,000+ people, all doing their jobs effectively, being organised, working as a system not all relying on me, the competition where it’s 1 staff member on average would get beaten.
And surely any excuse you could give, I could just hire someone to solve that excuse.
Like “oh but what roles do you hire these people to do?” well I could hire someone whose role is to figure out what roles they should do. “But what if x?” well I could hire someone whose role is to solve that too. And so on. “Oh but do you have enough money to pay these staff?” Yes. And I can hire people whose job is to bring in money. Whether it’s fundraising, raising from
Did Hitler fight WW2 with 1 person? No. He fought it with millions, if not hundreds of millions of people.
Did Amazon/[insert any Fortune 500 company] get to their size today from having 1 staff member who did everything? No. They had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of staff.
Did any successful mom and pop shop/small business get to their size today from 1 staff member? No. They are one of the largest employers in the USA. Which means they hire a lot of people. Successful mom & pop shops generally have more staff the more successful they are.
Armies generally have more success the bigger and more effective they are.
Companies generally have more success the more staff and more effective the staff are.
So surely we shouldn’t hold ourselves back, to use the example of war, it’s like trying to go to war with others who have hundreds of thousands of people in their army, with just 1 person, yourself. Who is going to win? Them.
How are you going to compete with companies with way more staff, and way more effective staff than you? You would have to become exponentially more effective as 1 person which I just don’t know if it’s realistic.
I think it’s more delusional to believe that 1 person can do as well as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 or more people who are each as effective as that 1 person.
So if you were to win, you would probably want to expand your army/staff and make them more effective, rather than try to make yourself somehow perform on the same level as armies/companies with thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. It’s just delusional to believe you can beat them in my opinion.
In business, you’d have to be extremely skilled at hundreds of different skills, spend 10+ hours on 100+ individual areas of the business each week to compete with 1,000+ staff who, if performing effectively, would crush you.
This is just my thoughts.
Am I being delusional? Come on…
I just feel like this is the way. Just look at the most successful organisations in history. Was it 1 person?
No, 1 person cannot realistically win a war against 100,000+ people. No matter how good they are. They would need to be top 0.00000000001% in skill in the world at what they’re beating the other side at.
Could 1 footballer beat a football team of 100 people of equal ability than them? No.
Could a company of 1 person outperform a company of 1,000 people? No.
So I believe if I can solve the ability to do this, I can grow a team of unlimited size to conquer and beat any problem thrown at us.
It’s just down to control of people.
Money doesn’t exist.
Even biggest most successful companies in the world mostly didn’t get there on their own.
I believe less than 1% of Fortune 500 Companies were bootstrapped. Or something similar.
And this is what I’m saying.
People in the small business/entrepreneur world tell you you need to have everything yourself.
How are you going to outfinance, outcompete companies on complete other levels without acquiring these resources from others? Just relying on yourself.
How could 1 person get more financing/investment in a company from investors compared to 1,000 of equal ability.
It’s never 1 person ‘beating the world’. Or beating the industry on their own.
Maybe if your aspiration is to be an average business.
“Oh but you should do what is best at each level, and it’s different for each level. Start just by yourself until you get X revenue. THEN hire people”
…..Well if you struggle to get X revenue on your own, how are you ever going to hire others?
The others help you grow the revenue in the first place.
I feel like the small business world is too overreliant on the founder and delusional about the capabilities of 1 person when competing against units 100-1,000x + bigger than them.
Come on.
Anything you want to compete in. In business.
Generally you already have competition.
And if you manage to somehow “spot” something they’ve “missed”, they could just copy you and wipe you out with their massive resources anyway.
In my opinion you need to expand your resources as FAST as possible.
Not this BS “oh wait until you get X profit on your own to hire other people”
Well if you’ve only made good profit on your own as a freelancer, and you’ve spent a lot of years trying to get a business off the ground solo, what are you meant to do?
“Oh just make it work” Great advice.
I just feel like there’s too much delusion into what it actually takes.
In a job or as a freelancer. It’s easier to make $3k-5k/month revenue because you’re only competing against individuals.
But when you try to compete against other businesses to make $3k-5k/month profit, you’re competing against businesses with 10x-100x the people, the money, the resources, the everything, to beat you.
So how are you meant to realistically beat them on your own? Without expanding your resources as quick as possible.
So because of this I believe if 1 person on their own is somehow meant to take a business from $0 to $10k/mo profit, then surely it will happen quicker if more people, of equal ability, are trying to make the business $0 to 10k/mo profit.
To be honest I don’t know what the truth is. This is just what I believe the truth is.
Because I’ve consumed so much wrong information from people acting like they have the correct advice in business.
All Youtube videos, articles, courses, claiming to make you successful in business, when in reality it’s just advice that sounds either easy to say or easy to hear.
Like it’s easy to say as a comment to this post, a response that takes 5 seconds to write, like the first thing that comes to your mind, like “just figure it out on your own”. But that’s not necessarily the truth, it’s just easy for you to say as a commenter. Comments aren’t necessarily the truth.
And on the other side business advice is easy to hear. Like “work on your own, make $1m/month, move to X country, live the life, working 2hours/day” which is just pure delusion. And most of the time the content/advice’s purpose is to benefit the business who made it, not the receiver of the advice. Because it’s selling a course or they have ad sense so they just want maximum engagement and views.
And anyone who is successful in business doesn’t need to give any advice. Because they’re applying the advice. Not giving it. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos etc have no strong incentive trying to help others get to their level because they could just make an extra $10M-100M from spending the same time/energy/resources giving advice into growing their business.
They’re never gonna have advice that would help you beat them because otherwise they would’ve applied it themself.
And they are actually incentivized to not want others to truly succeed. Because it means more competition for them and less success for them.
So 99%+ of info online just seems like it’s not true.
I’m trying to figure out what is true and what isn’t.
Honestly though it’s difficult to even trust what anyone says in business. Any advice or feedback. For the reasons given.
Because 99% of feedback is either from people who haven’t truly grown a successful business, or it’s not related to you, or it involved luck, or it’s just like a motivational quote they tell you, or it’s a snarky comment they tell you.
It’s only helpful to them. And you are actually their customer or viewer or their entertainment. Not a successful business yourself. Because it’s just all misinformation that all contradicts with the truth.
So not even sure if it’s worth trying to get advice or if it’s all just pointless, just to figure it out myself from experience, trial and error and learning from my own thinking than relying on any other thinking.
Anyway do you think this is just crazy and I’m going crazy or is there any truth to what I’m saying?
Let me know your brutal honest feedback

This might be a slightly philosophical post. But the aim is to get to the bottom of what you should be truly doing. To truly get the most results.
There seems to be a MASSIVE amount of conflicting information online about how to do this.
“Do stuff that moves the needle forward”
“Do stuff that brings in revenue”
What does this truly mean though. And is it even the right thing. That’s the purpose of this post, to uncover.
When I’ve spent my time on actual needle-moving forward things, like taking business from 0 to revenue, doing all offer development, operations, sales process, marketing myself, it generally has taken me about 6 months to fully ‘try out’ a business idea I’ve had.
Most times it hasn’t worked.
Either it wasn’t profitable. Or there was a big problem somewhere.
I believe fundamentally it’s because I’m moving too slow.
Because it usually takes me around 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential.
When you haven’t sold it or developed expertise in it yourself yet.
And I would say about 5% of the time it does work.
So if it takes 6 months and only 5% of the time it works (where you bring in revenue, no major issues), and each time it doesn’t work you try a new variation of it or something new based on what you learned, then it might take 10 years of trying different things to get the business to work.
Which sounds like it takes way too long.
So I thought about how the top companies move much quicker.
What separates them and my strategy.
And realized they simply had much more people on their team.
If you think about any successful organization who has achieved great things, and is world-leading, usually there is not 1 person on the team.
There seems to be a correlation between number of people on the team and speed of progress they can make in business.
Which goes against what most conventional startup wisdom tells you, most small business content creators etc all tell you to do it all yourself.
Which I’ve done for quite a few years and it’s gone so slowly in terms of overall progress.
If you should ‘do everything yourself’ then most Fortune 500 companies would’ve had single founders, and 1 person on their team. But the vast majority of successful Fortune 500 companies had co-founders.
And most successful businesses I know of, had co-founders.
And as they succeeded, they got more people on the team, and these people helped bring more success, then they brought more people.
Obviously there can be bad staff and not everyone contributes to the success of the company.
But I do believe, based on this, and observing top companies, that generally the more successful they are, the more people were involved with bringing about the success.
Which completely contradicts most information given to startups about ‘lone wolf’, ‘go it alone’. If that were true, Google would have 1 employee. Apple would have 1 employee.
And they would have never gotten off the ground.
Anyway, I may not have explained this perfectly but I do strongly believe the more & higher quality people are working together on something, the stats show these companies tend to do better, and successful companies you see often have more people than less working on them.
From the very beginning and now.
Regardless of the stage they were at.
So going based off this information, that the more people, the better, I have hired 30+ different people for different roles. Over the past few years. Across different businesses. To help speed up the progress in different areas.
From marketing roles, sales process roles, web development, app development, customer service, delivery of services.
And I would say there have been maybe 1 or 2 of them where I was actually happy with the result.
Most times, I would hire someone to do a job, and they didn’t do the job well, despite saying they were experienced.
And showing past examples of their work. And telling me everything I wanted to hear about how good they were.
It would often be that they would end up performing badly in the KPIs I set for them, giving many excuses, asking for help/questions/not solving anything on their own.
And just so many other problems. Like when there were multiple people at the same time on a team, working on the same project, they would blame each other and no one took responsibility despite clear responsibilities.
All telling me how other staff were bad and they were good, but getting conflicting info from all staff where they blame each other for everything so it’s difficult to know who to trust and who is being truthful.
Oftentimes not being reliable or doing what they were clearly asked to do.
Oftentimes trying to outsource the work I game them, to other people and not caring about the quality.
At my expense.
So I lost lots of clients, had low performing areas in the areas I hired for a lot of the time.
To be fair, things happened faster the more people there were.
But they often needed much more from me than they were contributing.
Like they always wanted to get paid more, for doing less work, weren’t reliable, did low quality work, didn’t hit KPIs, missed clear deadlines, always gave excuses, blamed others/external things, always asking how “I” wanted their job to be done, to the point where I was having to literally tell them every single thing to do and become an expert at their job myself, and show them how to do what they were put there to do, or do it myself, and still get a low quality result from them.
Anyway, the list goes on in all the problems I have experienced hiring people.
It really seems like a minefield.
But there were 1-2 people who did actually do well, who were responsive, who did what they committed to do, who hit deadlines, who did what they were asked, who didn’t give excuses. Who were actually honest hard workers who figured out how to solve problems and actually do the job that was asked from them.
Because of the amount of people I hired and the very low % of people who seemed to do their job well, it made me think that I am probably the problem here. If so many people are doing a bad job and not doing what they were actually hired to do. When most other companies seem to succeed at hiring people.
Then it must be a problem with myself and how I am hiring and managing them.
So it makes me think I need to level up in how I hire and manage people.
I’ve tried lots of different businesses and variations of them and some have done okay, some have not.
Mainly the most success I’ve had is in my own freelancing, where I don’t have other people on my team.
Because it’s kind of turned into a headache working with others. Who just seem to have mostly never been able to deliver what they promised without it becoming pointless to hire them in the first place with all the work I’m doing on their behalf and trying to pick up after all the problems and failures they’ve done.
So I’m not sure exactly what to spend my time and resources on.
I have money saved up from freelancing.
Where I can continue to hire people.
But I do feel I’ve had many many bad experiences.
And I believe it’s mostly my fault. Maybe my training, my hiring, my management, at places along the line I’ve not done it well enough.
I’ve tried to make improvements each time but it has kind of seemed like luck to get people who do actually do their job well.
I genuinely want to hire people and succeed in this.
Because if I can successfully work with people to achieve outcomes, rather than relying only on myself, I can build a real business and not just do freelancing.
In freelancing, I was able to make $3k-5k/month but it was very stressful and I hated speaking with clients, and was constantly stressed.
I generally really don’t like socialising with people. Including clients and staff.
And staff often try to get me to socialise unnecessarily so they can avoid doing their job, and pull me away from mine.
So trying to make it work.
I want to make it work with hiring people because if I can do this, I can make 10x-100x-1000x faster progress with other people on the same team.
But I do have a very bad track record so far. So it’s kind of painful returning to it and continuing to have bad experiences.
But at the same time I know it’s me who’s probably at fault because there can’t be this many bad people I’ve hired and it surely can’t be this bad for everyone.
I think the reason is that I’ve been better at managing myself and doing things successfully solo throughout my life.
Like I’ve achieved very good things in solo sports, in academia, and in many areas that don’t require a team, but often become frustrated working in a team.
But I don’t want my business success to be limited to 1 person.
So I truly want to make it work in improving my ability to manage (ideally a large amount of) people in a way where they can actually deliver and it work well.
Because I was capped in freelancing to making $3k-5k/month because I couldn’t take on more clients because I was undercharging and overdelivering and couldn’t handle more due to being massively stressed out and hating it. I was able to work with less clients at times and charge higher, but they never wanted me to ‘outsource’ my work to others or bring on a team, and I felt bad about it because had bad experiences where I had felt like I let clients down, and oftentimes they told me they had hired me because of me, and not wanted me to ‘outsource’ the work.
But I want to make it work.
Building a real business with a team. Not just doing freelancing and relying just on myself.
So I have time and money and resources to put into this.
I have 1 staff member currently who is unproductive. But we have an equity deal so it doesn’t cost me money for them to perform. But costs me lots of time and their performance is extremely weak. Don’t even want to go into detail, but it’s a nightmare. Their performance is about 1/10 but I believe I can raise their performance if I improve my ability to raise their performance.
Anyway. I want to build a team, but not sure exactly what activities are best ways to spend my time.
If I am physically making improvements, I feel I am slowing down the business progress.
Whereas I want to hire and manage people.
I’ve built training so that this co-founder is able to hire people. And these people can use the same training to hire people.
But I don’t currently have training to enable them to manage people.
My fear is that without training, people just ask unlimited questions on how to do something in their role and it becomes pointless to have hired them because I have to do everything they should have done to do it, so they basically just become a robot following very specific instructions. Rather than a human being who can achieve things independently.
So for example, if I made this training, it would take up all my time, whereas I have savings I’ve accumulated from freelancing which I can put into either having the co-founder manage staff, or have the co-founder make management training at the same time to enable more and more staff to hire and manage new staff. To achieve overall objectives and KPIs.
Or I could have the co-founder hire someone to make the training.
Then that frees up my time, my co-founders, time and only takes financial resources to accomplish.
What I want to achieve, is a scenario where I can give staff KPIs and objectives, and they are enabled to hire and manage people who can meet these objectives. Independently without my help required.
They give feedback, and I have a system for feedback to internal improvements can be made based on staff feedback.
Without it being unfiltered, it’s structured and organised so people can’t just get unlimited help/training/whatever from me.
Where they should be able to take actions, iterate, learn, improve, and act as independent thinking people who can achieve objectives themselves. Or within a system where it’s not all tied directly to me.
E.g. I have direct reports going to me.
But they have direct reports who go to them.
Previously I had a system where I did this, but then staff at the bottom of the hierarchy would ask their managers questions, and the managers wouldn’t know the answer so would then ask me the questions, and so jumping over the managers and making me deal with everything.
Whereas I want to build a system where people can make business progress in their specific area, independently without everything going to the CEO. Only important/urgent things are feedbacked to the CEO.
This way I believe much faster progress can happen.
Because I won’t be bogged down by exponentially growing problems.
Like with how it works in any successful organisation.
Tim Cook has only a handful of direct reports. Who each only have a handful of direct reports. And so on.
He’s making the most important decisions, dealing with what’s most important and strategic, with top authority, dealing with everything as a birds eye view, but not doing every employee’s job for them, teaching every employee how to do their job. Picking up the pieces after every employee misses their deadlines, doesn’t do their work, gives excuses, does poor work that doesn’t help the company.
Even in any successful organisation. Each unit/person is making their own decisions, taking their own action, learning from it, practicing themself at improving, gaining their own experience, not all relying on 1 person, every single person in the organisation, just for them to do their job.
In successful organisations, people at every level experience new problems all the time, and don’t need to contact the #1 person at the top just to deal with it.
They come up with a solution and go for it. And iterate. Learn, try to do something better next time. And there’s a constant learning/feedback process going on across the organisation which everyone takes part in, not just 1 person doing every part for everyone.
I believe this structure of modelling what actually successful organisations do is the correct way. Because they’re successful for a reason.
Not this ‘hustle grindset’ BS in the startup/business world where lots of information seems to be saying the wrong thing. It just makes no sense to make every single person 100% reliant on you for them to do their job.
Anyway so I’m thinking about what I should do with my time.
What I want to do, is tell my co-founder what to do, which involves hiring and managing people who do things that move the needle forward in the business, as defined by me, and some of those people also hire and manage people. To have an exponentially growing system of people growing the organisation. And a communication and feedback and learning system and autonomy within the system itself so it can take action, learn, grow, thrive. As a system within itself.
I believe if hypothetically, I did everything myself, then it takes about 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential, and 5% of the time it does. So if I do everything myself, I believe it will take me 10 years to get a business off the ground.
But if I utilise my money and time more efficiently, I can have as many people working on each part involved in validating these businesses as possible.
I don’t know if that is lazy or smart.
I believe it’s both. But mostly smart. Because I believe I can convince, hire, organise, manage people to either work on equity deals or pay in a way where businesses can realistically bring in profit.
My co-founder does very little of what I ask him to do.
And he wants me to be doing individual things.
He objectively is financially and intelligently very poor and has very minimal skills or experience.
Not to be offensive. Just to paint a picture. So since there is conflicting information everywhere in the business world and you need to choose who to trust, I don’t trust what he believes.
Objectively I am much richer in all these areas than him.
So I used to operate on a democratic system with them. But it’s kind of like, in a vote for president, if you have 80% of the population being easily controlled by the media and being very dumb and easy to sway and manipulate into believing anything, and they vote for things which are objectively dumb and go against what the smartest and objectively most valuable people vote for, I don’t want to be held back by a dumb population having authority or being listened to, if they have a clear, long track record of making very bad decisions.
If you were to take business advice from a homeless person with no experience, money or intellect, or a Fortune 500 CEO, who let’s say objectively has massive experience, money, intellect and success. Then I would probably take what the CEO has to say.
If you had to listen to what a scientist vs 12 year old had to say about a scientific topic, you’d probably want to listen to the scientist who studied the topic and is well respected in their field.
So I believe it would be dumb for both of us, if he made decisions, objectively.
But at the same time it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
The Fortune 500 CEO could be telling you what you want to hear, and could have an incentive to lie to you to send you in the wrong direction with bad business advice so you don’t become competition to them, and the homeless person could be honest.
The scientist could be trying to gain fame and get attention to themself to build their career on a lie and fake experiments whereas the 12 year old could be a science savant.
So it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
If I should listen to him or myself.
Objectively.

1. I believe if I spend time building the business via this logic I’ve described above, it can grow much faster, with unlimited people working on it and performing well, if the necessary improvements are made.
   
2. And I believe if I were to do the individual things necessary to do it, it would take 6 months to ‘validate’ each’s potential. I.e. try everything in that timeframe to make it work, build a good service/product, build good sales process, build good marketing, deal with customers, etc, all on your own.
   

Whereas in the first option, other people could do all these things.
Human development over history has happened due to the input of millions, if not billions of people.
There wasn’t 1 person who did all the work to get Carnegie or Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to gain the success they’ve achieved.
They all build an empire off the backs of others.
Did the slave owners do the slave work themselves when they brought slaves to America? No.
Does Elon do all the individual parts necessary to grow the company? No. He leads and controls the people in order to do that.
Does Mark Zuckerberg single handedly get Facebook off the ground? No. There were 10+ people involved. He stole code from others. Who sued him.
All of these people had exponentially growing staff as the company grew, as fuel to grow the company.
So if you have the money and strategy to lead them to success, I believe it surely is possible.
So long story short this is a long rambling piece of writing but I believe there’s very little impact 1 individual person has on the success of a company. Controlling and amassing an army of people who build the company up and contribute to the company sounds more true.
Does 1 person do everything involved in every sports team? No. Each player plays their respective part. Directed by the coach/manager.
Does 1 person do everything involved in musical orchestras? No each musician plays their part. Directed by the conductor.
And so on.
If you can build an exponentially growing team of staff who effectively work together, bring others on, take action to grow the business, learn from mistakes, make improvements, are highly motivated, are led successfully, it can achieve great things. I feel like it’s a delusion that individual people single-handedly grow companies without others.
So what should that person spend their time doing?
Doing all the millions of things necessary to grow the company? Or bring and manage others who some make progress themselves, some bring and manage others, to gain more and more resources to make progress at faster and faster rate.
Do successful people really have only 1 person responsible? No. They have teams of people behind them.
So trying to do the work of 1,000 people as 1 person sounds 1,000x as hard as getting 1,000 people to each do the work of 1 person.
So if you can finance the growth of the company via hiring others.
Let’s assume I can finance this exponential staff growth. Then surely I should do it right?
Like if I were to compete with 1 person trying to grow their business, and I had 1,000+ people, all doing their jobs effectively, being organised, working as a system not all relying on me, the competition where it’s 1 staff member on average would get beaten.
And surely any excuse you could give, I could just hire someone to solve that excuse.
Like “oh but what roles do you hire these people to do?” well I could hire someone whose role is to figure out what roles they should do. “But what if x?” well I could hire someone whose role is to solve that too. And so on. “Oh but do you have enough money to pay these staff?” Yes. And I can hire people whose job is to bring in money. Whether it’s fundraising, raising from
Did Hitler fight WW2 with 1 person? No. He fought it with millions, if not hundreds of millions of people.
Did Amazon/[insert any Fortune 500 company] get to their size today from having 1 staff member who did everything? No. They had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of staff.
Did any successful mom and pop shop/small business get to their size today from 1 staff member? No. They are one of the largest employers in the USA. Which means they hire a lot of people. Successful mom & pop shops generally have more staff the more successful they are.
Armies generally have more success the bigger and more effective they are.
Companies generally have more success the more staff and more effective the staff are.
So surely we shouldn’t hold ourselves back, to use the example of war, it’s like trying to go to war with others who have hundreds of thousands of people in their army, with just 1 person, yourself. Who is going to win? Them.
How are you going to compete with companies with way more staff, and way more effective staff than you? You would have to become exponentially more effective as 1 person which I just don’t know if it’s realistic.
I think it’s more delusional to believe that 1 person can do as well as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 or more people who are each as effective as that 1 person.
So if you were to win, you would probably want to expand your army/staff and make them more effective, rather than try to make yourself somehow perform on the same level as armies/companies with thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. It’s just delusional to believe you can beat them in my opinion.
In business, you’d have to be extremely skilled at hundreds of different skills, spend 10+ hours on 100+ individual areas of the business each week to compete with 1,000+ staff who, if performing effectively, would crush you.
This is just my thoughts.
Am I being delusional? Come on…
I just feel like this is the way. Just look at the most successful organisations in history. Was it 1 person?
No, 1 person cannot realistically win a war against 100,000+ people. No matter how good they are. They would need to be top 0.00000000001% in skill in the world at what they’re beating the other side at.
Could 1 footballer beat a football team of 100 people of equal ability than them? No.
Could a company of 1 person outperform a company of 1,000 people? No.
So I believe if I can solve the ability to do this, I can grow a team of unlimited size to conquer and beat any problem thrown at us.
It’s just down to control of people.
Money doesn’t exist.
Even biggest most successful companies in the world mostly didn’t get there on their own.
I believe less than 1% of Fortune 500 Companies were bootstrapped. Or something similar.
And this is what I’m saying.
People in the small business/entrepreneur world tell you you need to have everything yourself.
How are you going to outfinance, outcompete companies on complete other levels without acquiring these resources from others? Just relying on yourself.
How could 1 person get more financing/investment in a company from investors compared to 1,000 of equal ability.
It’s never 1 person ‘beating the world’. Or beating the industry on their own.
Maybe if your aspiration is to be an average business.
“Oh but you should do what is best at each level, and it’s different for each level. Start just by yourself until you get X revenue. THEN hire people”
…..Well if you struggle to get X revenue on your own, how are you ever going to hire others?
The others help you grow the revenue in the first place.
I feel like the small business world is too overreliant on the founder and delusional about the capabilities of 1 person when competing against units 100-1,000x + bigger than them.
Come on.
Anything you want to compete in. In business.
Generally you already have competition.
And if you manage to somehow “spot” something they’ve “missed”, they could just copy you and wipe you out with their massive resources anyway.
In my opinion you need to expand your resources as FAST as possible.
Not this BS “oh wait until you get X profit on your own to hire other people”
Well if you’ve only made good profit on your own as a freelancer, and you’ve spent a lot of years trying to get a business off the ground solo, what are you meant to do?
“Oh just make it work” Great advice.
I just feel like there’s too much delusion into what it actually takes.
In a job or as a freelancer. It’s easier to make $3k-5k/month revenue because you’re only competing against individuals.
But when you try to compete against other businesses to make $3k-5k/month profit, you’re competing against businesses with 10x-100x the people, the money, the resources, the everything, to beat you.
So how are you meant to realistically beat them on your own? Without expanding your resources as quick as possible.
So because of this I believe if 1 person on their own is somehow meant to take a business from $0 to $10k/mo profit, then surely it will happen quicker if more people, of equal ability, are trying to make the business $0 to 10k/mo profit.
To be honest I don’t know what the truth is. This is just what I believe the truth is.
Because I’ve consumed so much wrong information from people acting like they have the correct advice in business.
All Youtube videos, articles, courses, claiming to make you successful in business, when in reality it’s just advice that sounds either easy to say or easy to hear.
Like it’s easy to say as a comment to this post, a response that takes 5 seconds to write, like the first thing that comes to your mind, like “just figure it out on your own”. But that’s not necessarily the truth, it’s just easy for you to say as a commenter. Comments aren’t necessarily the truth.
And on the other side business advice is easy to hear. Like “work on your own, make $1m/month, move to X country, live the life, working 2hours/day” which is just pure delusion. And most of the time the content/advice’s purpose is to benefit the business who made it, not the receiver of the advice. Because it’s selling a course or they have ad sense so they just want maximum engagement and views.
And anyone who is successful in business doesn’t need to give any advice. Because they’re applying the advice. Not giving it. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos etc have no strong incentive trying to help others get to their level because they could just make an extra $10M-100M from spending the same time/energy/resources giving advice into growing their business.
They’re never gonna have advice that would help you beat them because otherwise they would’ve applied it themself.
And they are actually incentivized to not want others to truly succeed. Because it means more competition for them and less success for them.
So 99%+ of info online just seems like it’s not true.
I’m trying to figure out what is true and what isn’t.
Honestly though it’s difficult to even trust what anyone says in business. Any advice or feedback. For the reasons given.
Because 99% of feedback is either from people who haven’t truly grown a successful business, or it’s not related to you, or it involved luck, or it’s just like a motivational quote they tell you, or it’s a snarky comment they tell you.
It’s only helpful to them. And you are actually their customer or viewer or their entertainment. Not a successful business yourself. Because it’s just all misinformation that all contradicts with the truth.
So not even sure if it’s worth trying to get advice or if it’s all just pointless, just to figure it out myself from experience, trial and error and learning from my own thinking than relying on any other thinking.
Anyway do you think this is just crazy and I’m going crazy or is there any truth to what I’m saying?
Let me know your brutal honest feedback

Hey, so this is a post that I make quite out of curiosity as I'll be traveling to Canada and I'm planning on visiting the US in the upcoming years too, being a resident of EU country.
I couldn't help but notice that there's like gazzilion types of credit cards in the US (apparently even Starbucks issues their own? wtf?) and I was simply wondering if Credit Cards are really a standard type of payment instrument in the US? If I visit, will I encounter any issues "armed" mainly with my debit card? If so - do you recommend any "worldwide" type of CC I should get?
Credit cards are not really a thing in the EU - I mean, they are, but from what I've read only like 25-30% of people have them and minority of them ever uses them on a daily basis because the yearly interest rates are like 20-28% so people usually just take out loans which are half of this if they need anything they can't afford. For me it's also an instrument that I have in my wallet but I've only used it like twice in my life. They also don't really come with any sorts of benefits, mainly a few hundred euro "welcome voucher" if you apply for one and that's about it. Never heard of any cashbacks or anything really profitable and I don't really know anyone owning one.
So these are my main questions - should I take a credit card from my country if I'll be travelling to the US for a few weeks of sightseeing because debit might be an issue, and if so - can you recommend anything worldwide? Are there any issues with acceptance between Visa and Mastercard? I have some basic visa thing with like 2000 EUR limit. Are credit cards really so popular in the US? Are there really so many benefits that come with those cards?
Sorry if my questions seem dull, but I've only just read a few articles online on payments in North America and I'm just quite confused on what to expect - it seems totally different than what I'm used to and I don't want to encounter any issues. I'm also just curious.

The global vacuum cleaner market is poised to exhibit a significant Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.5% from 2024 to 2030, reached at a valuation of approximately USD 10 billion in 2020. Key drivers of this growth include the rising disposable income per capita and evolving consumer lifestyles. Additionally, the expanding working population and the convenience offered by vacuum cleaners are contributing to increased demand, particularly in the residential sector. Moreover, heightened concerns regarding health, hygiene, and safety are driving demand in industrial sectors such as manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and food & beverage, bolstering overall market expansion.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=4380
Market Trends:
Transition towards Cordless and Robotic Vacuums: Cordless and robotic vacuum cleaners are gaining popularity due to their convenience and ease of use. Consumers are increasingly opting for these models for hassle-free cleaning experiences and greater mobility around the home.
Focus on Smart Home Integration: Vacuum cleaner manufacturers are integrating smart features such as Wi-Fi connectivity, app controls, and compatibility with virtual assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant. This trend allows users to remotely control and monitor their vacuum cleaners, enhancing convenience and efficiency.
Emphasis on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability: There is a growing emphasis on energy-efficient vacuum cleaners that reduce electricity consumption and environmental impact. Manufacturers are developing eco-friendly models with improved energy ratings and recyclable components to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers.
Customization and Personalization: Consumers are seeking vacuum cleaners that cater to their specific needs and preferences. Manufacturers are offering customizable features such as adjustable suction power, specialized cleaning attachments, and customizable cleaning schedules to meet diverse user requirements.
Multi-Surface Cleaning Capabilities: Vacuum cleaners with versatile cleaning capabilities across different surfaces (e.g., carpets, hardwood floors, tiles) are in high demand. Manufacturers are developing models equipped with adjustable brush settings and suction power levels to effectively clean various floor types.
Market Opportunities:
The vacuum cleaner market presents a multitude of opportunities driven by evolving consumer preferences and technological advancements. The transition towards cordless and robotic vacuum cleaners offers opportunities for manufacturers to capitalize on the growing demand for convenience and automation in household cleaning. Integration of smart home features presents avenues to enhance product offerings and cater to tech-savvy consumers seeking interconnected home solutions. Additionally, the emphasis on energy efficiency and sustainability opens doors for innovation in eco-friendly vacuum cleaners with reduced environmental impact. Customization and personalization options allow manufacturers to cater to diverse user needs and preferences, while the expansion of commercial and industrial applications offers avenues for growth beyond traditional residential markets.
According to the recent report published by RC Market Analytics, the Global Vacuum Cleaner Market is expected to provide sustainable growth opportunities during the forecast period from 2024 to 2030. This latest industry research study analyzes the vacuum cleaner market by various product segments, applications, regions and countries while assessing regional performances of numerous leading market participants. The report offers a holistic view of the vacuum cleaner industry encompassing numerous stakeholders including raw material suppliers, providers, distributors, consumers and government agencies, among others. Furthermore, the report includes detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the global market considering market history, product development, regional dynamics, competitive landscape, and key success factors (KSFs) in the industry.
Browse the Full Report Discretion @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/vacuum-cleaner-market/
Geographically, the vacuum cleaner market report comprises dedicated sections centering on the regional market revenue and trends. The vacuum cleaner market has been segmented on the basis of geographic regions into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. Vacuum cleaner market estimates have also been provided for the historical years 2020 to 2023 along with forecast for the period from 2024 - 2030.The report includes a deep-dive analysis of key countries including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, China, Japan, India, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, among others. Thereby, the report identifies unique growth opportunities across the world based on trends occurring in various developed and developing economies.
The Vacuum Cleaner Market Segmentation:
By Product:

• Canister
• Central
• Drum
• Robotic
• Upright
• Wet & Dry
• Others

By Application:

• Industrial
• Residential
• Commercial

By Distribution Channel:

• Online
• Offline

By Region:

• North America
• Europe
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East & Africa

Key players in the global vacuum cleaner market include iRobot Corporation, Dyson, Ecovacs, Nilfisk Group, and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. These companies employ strategies such as expansion, new investment, service innovation, and collaboration to explore market opportunities. Additionally, players are pursuing geographical expansion and acquisitions to leverage joint synergies and gain a competitive edge in the market.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=4380
Key Questions Answered by Vacuum Cleaner Market Report:

• Product popularity and adoption based on various country-level dynamics
• Regional presence and product development for leading market participants
• Market forecasts and trend analysis based on ongoing investments and economic growth in key countries
• Competitive landscape based on revenue, product offerings, years of presence, number of employees and market concentration, among others
• Various industry models such as SWOT analysis, Pestle Analysis, Porter’s Five Force model, Value Chain Analysis pertaining to Vacuum Cleaner market
• Analysis of the key factors driving and restraining the growth of the global, regional and country-level markets from 2020-2030

About Us:RC Market Analytics is a global market research firm. Our insightful analysis is focused on developed and emerging markets. We identify trends and forecast markets with a view to aid businesses identify market opportunities to optimize strategies. Our expert’s team of analysts’ provides enterprises with strategic insights. RC Market Analytics works to help enterprises grow through strategic insights and actionable solutions. Feel free to contact us for any report customization at sales@researchcorridor.com.
Media Contact:
Company Name: RC Market Analytics Pvt. Ltd. Contact Person: Vijendra Singh Email: sales@researchcorridor.com Visit us: https://www.researchcorridor.com/

The global non-alcoholic beverage market is projected to witness a substantial Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of approximately 6% from 2024 to 2030. Key drivers of this growth include the increasing consumer inclination towards ready-to-drink beverages and the surge in social and cultural activities worldwide. Moreover, the growing awareness among consumers regarding health consciousness is anticipated to boost the demand for nutritious beverages, thus contributing to the market expansion throughout the forecast period.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=39608
Market Trends:
Rise in Health-Conscious Consumerism: The trend towards healthier lifestyles is driving demand for non-alcoholic beverages that offer functional benefits such as hydration, vitamins, and natural ingredients. Consumers are increasingly seeking beverages with lower sugar content, organic ingredients, and added nutritional value.
Growing Preference for Ready-to-Drink (RTD) Beverages: Convenience plays a significant role in consumer beverage choices, leading to a rise in demand for ready-to-drink options. RTD beverages, including bottled teas, coffees, energy drinks, and functional waters, cater to consumers' on-the-go lifestyles and busy schedules.
Innovation in Flavors and Ingredients: Beverage manufacturers are constantly innovating to meet evolving consumer preferences by introducing new flavors, ingredients, and formulations. This includes exotic fruit blends, botanical infusions, plant-based alternatives, and functional additives like probiotics and adaptogens.
Focus on Sustainability and Eco-Friendly Packaging: Environmental concerns are influencing beverage brands to adopt sustainable practices throughout their supply chains. This includes using eco-friendly packaging materials, reducing carbon emissions, and implementing recycling initiatives to minimize environmental impact and appeal to environmentally conscious consumers.
Expansion of Non-Alcoholic Beer and Wine Categories: The growing trend towards moderation and mindful drinking is driving the expansion of non-alcoholic beer and wine categories. Beverage companies are introducing alcohol-free alternatives that mimic the taste and experience of traditional alcoholic beverages, appealing to health-conscious consumers and those seeking alternative social options.
Market Opportunities:
The non-alcoholic beverages market presents a wealth of opportunities fueled by several key factors. With the rise in health-conscious consumerism, there is a growing demand for beverages offering functional benefits and natural ingredients, creating opportunities for companies to innovate and introduce healthier alternatives. The trend towards convenience is driving the popularity of ready-to-drink beverages, opening avenues for product diversification and expansion into new packaging formats. Additionally, the focus on sustainability and eco-friendly practices presents opportunities for brands to differentiate themselves by adopting environmentally responsible manufacturing processes and packaging solutions. The burgeoning market for premium and artisanal offerings allows companies to tap into consumer preferences for unique flavors and high-quality ingredients, while the expansion of non-alcoholic beer and wine categories caters to the increasing demand for alcohol-free alternatives.
According to the recent report published by RC Market Analytics, the Global Non-Alcoholic Beverages Market is expected to provide sustainable growth opportunities during the forecast period from 2024 to 2030. This latest industry research study analyzes the non-alcoholic beverages market by various product segments, applications, regions and countries while assessing regional performances of numerous leading market participants. The report offers a holistic view of the non-alcoholic beverages industry encompassing numerous stakeholders including raw material suppliers, providers, distributors, consumers and government agencies, among others. Furthermore, the report includes detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the global market considering market history, product development, regional dynamics, competitive landscape, and key success factors (KSFs) in the industry.
Browse the Full Report Discretion @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/non-alcoholic-beverages-market/
Geographically, the non-alcoholic beverages market report comprises dedicated sections centering on the regional market revenue and trends. The non-alcoholic beverages market has been segmented on the basis of geographic regions into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. Non-alcoholic beverages market estimates have also been provided for the historical years 2020 to 2023 along with forecast for the period from 2024 - 2030.The report includes a deep-dive analysis of key countries including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, China, Japan, India, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, among others. Thereby, the report identifies unique growth opportunities across the world based on trends occurring in various developed and developing economies.
The Non-Alcoholic Beverages Market Segmentation:
By Product:

• Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSDs)
• Fruit Beverages
• Bottled Water
• Functional Beverages
• Sports Drinks
• Other

By Distribution Channel:

• Supermarkets and Hypermarkets
• Food Service & Drinking Places
• Convenience Stores
• Vending Machine Operations
• Other

By Region:

• North America
• Europe
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East & Africa

Major players in the global non-alcoholic beverage market include PepsiCo, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé S.A., Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., and The Kraft Heinz Company. These companies are pursuing market growth through expansion, new investments, innovative service offerings, and strategic collaborations. By entering new geographical markets and acquiring other businesses, they aim to gain a competitive edge and benefit from synergistic opportunities.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=39608
Key Questions Answered by Non-Alcoholic Beverages Market Report:

• Product popularity and adoption based on various country-level dynamics
• Regional presence and product development for leading market participants
• Market forecasts and trend analysis based on ongoing investments and economic growth in key countries
• Competitive landscape based on revenue, product offerings, years of presence, number of employees and market concentration, among others
• Various industry models such as SWOT analysis, Pestle Analysis, Porter’s Five Force model, Value Chain Analysis pertaining to Non-Alcoholic Beverages market
• Analysis of the key factors driving and restraining the growth of the global, regional and country-level markets from 2020-2030

About Us:RC Market Analytics is a global market research firm. Our insightful analysis is focused on developed and emerging markets. We identify trends and forecast markets with a view to aid businesses identify market opportunities to optimize strategies. Our expert’s team of analysts’ provides enterprises with strategic insights. RC Market Analytics works to help enterprises grow through strategic insights and actionable solutions. Feel free to contact us for any report customization at sales@researchcorridor.com.
Media Contact:
Company Name: RC Market Analytics Pvt. Ltd. Contact Person: Vijendra Singh Email: sales@researchcorridor.com Visit us: https://www.researchcorridor.com/

Record temperatures, record migration, record emissions, record displacement, record PFAS……start building an ark.
Last Week in Collapse: May 12-18, 2024
This is Last Week in Collapse, a weekly newsletter compiling some of the most important, timely, useful, soul-crushing, ironic, stunning, exhausting, or otherwise must-see/can’t-look-away moments in Collapse.
This is the 125th newsletter! You can find the May 5-11 edition here if you missed it last week. You can also receive these posts (with images) every Sunday in your email inbox with Substack.
——————————
Flash flooding in northern Afghanistan killed 300+ people and destroyed 1,000+ homes. Hundreds of thousands of others have been affected. Last month, similar floods in the region killed 70+. Four died in Texas storms last week as well.
Venezuela is suffering from record wildfires, which so far this year have burned about 5M acres—almost the size of Sardinia. Some experts think indigenous people started the blaze as an attempt at forest clearance, which quickly got out of hand. “Institutional failures” compounded the disaster when the ailing government responded with an inadequate number of poorly equipped firefighters. Another study from last week examined the impact of wildfires on soil health.
Flooding and “cold lava” killed 50+ in Indonesia, injuring dozens and displacing several thousand. Cold lava is a mixture of water and rocks tumbling down the side of a volcano. Meanwhile, an actual volcano erupted in Indonesia, sending smoke & ash 5000m high; further eruptions are possible soon.
The Swiss Re Institute published a 37-page report last week about natural disasters in 2023—and how much damage, in USD, they caused. The largest catastrophe was the February 7.8 earthquake in Türkiye & Syria, which killed 59,000+ people and caused $163B+ in damage. The report is full of interesting graphics & data about natural disasters.

“Last year, economic losses from natural catastrophes reached USD 280 billion, meaning that 62% of the global losses were uninsured….the insured losses surpassed USD 100 billion for the fourth consecutive year….annual insured losses will grow by 5–7% over the long term…today’s insured losses could double in 10 years….There were 142 insured-loss inducing catastrophes in 2023, a new record. Most were of medium severity, which we define as events resulting in losses of USD 1–5 billion….Over the last 30 years, we estimate that natural catastrophe insured losses have grown by 3 percentage points more annually than the global economy (in inflation adjusted terms)...”

Flooding and heat waves are impacting Brazil’s oranges, responsible for about 70% of the world’s supply. One food analysts declared that the “era of cheap food is over”—in the UK, at least. That may be one reason why UK residents took record food bank packages last year. Madagascar is struggling to adapt to a future with far less rainfall.
France is growing more concerned about a dam on Lake Geneva, controlled exclusively by Switzerland. The Rhône River, which begins in Switzerland and flows south through France, is shrinking in summers as climate change melts Switzerland’s remaining glaciers.
The Tonlé San River has been dammed in Vietnam, lowering the level in Cambodia and sometimes drying the river downstream entirely. Meanwhile, China’s lychee harvest is getting blasted by rain, impacting the world’s largest source of lychee. And, once again, Saudi Arabia is suffering flooding in its inland regions. 7 dead in historic flooding in Iran.
The eminent climate scientist James Hansen posted that, since “human-made aerosols and their cooling effect are in decline,” the cooling effect of La Niña will be counterbalanced by these rising temperatures. He also identifies a “large anomaly of increased absorbed solar radiation at midlatitudes in the Northern Hemisphere” responsible for rising temperatures there. CO2 levels are rising faster today than they have at any point in the previous 50,000 years…and a study of millennia-old trees determined last summer was the hottest worldwide in 2,000+ years…
Record nighttime May temperatures were tied in the Philippines and Vietnam. A couple Indonesian cities broke records for May temperatures. And a number of southern African states saw more records drop. And Toronto saw a record tied for the number of days reaching 14 °C (57 °F). A heat wave has returned to Bangladesh. Flooding in Cali (pop: 2.9M), Colombia.
The University of Washington was ordered to stop a geoengineering project that scientists sere conducting from the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier. The experiment ejected aerosolized saltwater in an attempt to reflect solar radiation. A comparative study in Nature Communications of a number of carbon pricing found that, yes, carbon pricing does work to reduce the total CO2 emitted.
It’s that time of the year again. Wildfires in Canada grow, some of which are moving towards the tar sands—forcing thousands to evacuate. 39 of the total nation’s blazes are “out of control,” resulting in air quality alerts in the United States. Meanwhile, across the Caribbean, water shortages have become the new normal, and residents (and tourists) are finding their old consumption habits hard to change. St. Lucia has declared a water emergency. In Myanmar, water shortages worsen, particularly as related to the spiraling conflict.
At least ⅛ of Europeans live in a place at risk of extreme flooding—so says a 175-page report from the European Environment Agency posted on Wednesday. The number of people living in flood-risk coastal areas in the EU & UK is expected to jump 24% by 2050. The graphics-packed report also considers how flooding will impact healthcare facilities, mental health, wastewater treatment plants, the spread of disease, cyanobacteria, permafrost thaw, and much else.

“Europe has seen devastating floods following record rainfall, droughts of magnitudes not experienced in hundreds of years, continuing sea level rise, and increasing lake and sea temperatures….permanent water stress already affects 30% of people in southern Europe….since 2018, more than half of Europe has been impacted by extreme drought conditions….Climate change is expected to increase mercury bioaccumulation in the marine food chain due to rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification and permafrost thawing….Depression, anxiety and PTSD may persist for years after a flooding event….Under the changing climate, northern Europe is becoming wetter in general, but drier in summer. Southern Europe is becoming drier, especially in winter. For central-eastern and western Europe, the trend is less clear…” -selections from the report

Milan suffered flooding last week, the worst May flooding in 170 years. Early spring in the UK has disrupted migratory bird species and their usual patterns.
A 74-page working paper which is not yet peer-reviewed claims that earlier estimates for how much GDP would be impacted by another 1 °C temperature rise is way less than it would be in actuality. The paper claims the real cost (in USD) is about 6x greater. They claim “global temperature has much more pronounced impacts on economic activity than local temperature” and that extreme weather is mostly behind the projected decline in productivity.
——————————
Epidemiologists are worried about how climate change in Africa may extend the life of disease-bearers like ticks and mosquitoes. Other epidemiologists are worried about how cattle may become a permanent reservoir for H5N1. Growing traced of bird flu have been found in wastewater testing in the U.S., but investigators think it may be runoff from infected dairy farms.
Obesity, high blood sugar, and high blood pressure rates today globally are 50% higher than in 2000—though researchers claim that air pollution still poses a larger threat. Of a study participants in Hawai’i, 75% had respiratory issues, probably from the Maui wildfires last year.
The 2024 World Migration Report is out, and its 384 pages are not as apocalyptic as one might think. However, internally displaced people are at their all-time highest. India, Mexico, Russia, China, and Syria lead the world in emigrants; another document contains the definitions for who exactly constitutes a migrant. Unfortunately much of the data relied upon ends in 2022. Data from this year, not included in the above report, indicates a 40% jump in traffic through the Darien Gap compared to the same time period in 2023.

“The last two years saw major migration and displacement events that have caused great hardship and trauma, as well as loss of life….There have also been large-scale displacements triggered by climate- and weather-related disasters in many parts of the world in 2022 and 2023, including in Pakistan, the Philippines, China, India, Bangladesh, Brazil and Colombia….disinformation tactics are increasingly being used by nefarious actors with negative impacts on public, political and social media discourse on migration….Forced displacement is the highest on record in the modern era…overconsumption and overproduction linked to unsustainable economic growth, resource depletion and biodiversity collapse, as well as ongoing climate change (including global heating) are continuing to grip the world….the risk of further conflict has not been higher in decades, as military spending reached a new record high of USD 2,240 billion in 2022…” -excerpts from the introduction

Another report, focusing on internal displacement, came out last week; its 69 pages show a cross-section of about 47M people displaced by natural disasters (56%) or armed conflict (44%). Most of the disasters were storms & flooding, and most of the conflicts were civil wars of some form. This report also provides detailed region-by-region analyses—with sub-Saharan Africa accounting for 46% of global IDPs.

“Conflict and violence triggered 13.5 million movements, the highest figure for the past 15 years….Disasters and conflict are presented as different triggers, but their impacts can overlap, often leading to repeated and/ or protracted displacement….Drought triggered 331,000 displacements in Somalia….Floods triggered 550,000 displacements in Ethiopia….Conflict and violence triggered 3.8 million displacements in DRC in 2023, a slight fall from the record four million in 2022, but still the second-highest figure globally after Sudan….nearly two-thirds of the internal displacements recorded in 2023 originated from Khartoum state. More than 39 per cent of the state's inhabitants were forced to flee, leaving entire neighbourhoods empty….Criminal and communal violence triggered nearly three-quarters of Nigeria's 291,000 conflict displacements….” -selections from the spotlight on sub-Saharan Africa

Experts are concerned about the mental health impacts that climate change has on our minds. Hotter temperatures reportedly increase depression & aggression. Wildfires and storms can cause PTSD. Workers feel stress and desperation as their usual industries are impacted. And air pollution influences ordinary brain processes in many ways.
Some analysts believe “Peak China” may be over, signaling a period of economic tapering-off, as well as a growing militancy. Increasing U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are continuing to separate the two economies. The Netherlands finally formed a provisional government, though its proposed immigration & farming policies have set it at odds with the EU.
The Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, released a 46-page report on potential climate risks to the banking system’s resilience. As far as I understood, most of the risk lies in extreme weather events and the risk to insurance agencies.
Part of southeast England experienced an outbreak of Cryptosporidium, a diarrhea & vomiting illness, highly contagious, which can last weeks. At least 22 cases have been reported. Meanwhile, the CDC is issuing warnings about the more dangerous strain of monkeypox circulating in the DRC, although cases are currently limited to Africa.
North Carolina’s Senate voted to ban mask-wearing last week, under the reasoning that it would make police identification of protestors difficult. An fMRI study found lasting neurological changes in COVID survivors; they “had significantly higher cognitive complaints of mental fatigue and cognitive failure….even two years after recovering.” Experts say a summer rise in COVID cases is coming to the United States.
A study on The Canadian/American Great Lakes found that PFAS levels are increasing in the 3 largest lakes (Superior, Huron, and Michigan), while decreasing in the other two (Erie, Ontario). The study also found that precipitation is the primary means by which the Lakes are accumulating PFAS, since the chemicals are small & stable enough to move through the water cycle. Meanwhile, in England’s Lake District, a telecom failure resulted in raw sewage being pumped into England’s largest and most famous lake, Windermere, on-and-off for 10 hours; and a major British water CEO took a $4M USD pay package last year. And a look into the Chicago River’s health found that microplastics & trash are endangering health & biodiversity.
——————————
An assassination attempt by a lone wolf on Slovakia’s PM left him in critical condition, but likely to survive. 11 civilians were slain by cartel fighters in a few battles in Mexico. Violence continues to spiral out of control in Goma, DRC.
In Haiti, everything worsens indefinitely. Guns have reportedly entered from Florida, a phenomenon which officials call an “iron river.” Police have been put on the defensive against the growing might of the gang warlords.
A brawl broke out in Taiwan’s parliament. An Iranian plot was allegedly foiled to smuggle weapons into Jordan to destabilize the pro-U.S. regime.
Dozens more died in Sudan from escalating violence around Darfur. People are warning about “a disaster on top of a disaster” and the possibility of Sudan splitting apart. Others have called it “hell on earth” as 1,000+ refugees cross the Chad border every day. Disease and malnutrition are growing, while famine encroaches upon 9M helpless victims of the conflict—but the world’s attention is elsewhere.
The U.S. Army Engineers completed constructing the pier in Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid. Some 600,000 Gazans have been displaced from Rafah already, and fighting has escalated against Hamas militants in northern Gaza.
Taliban forces skirmished with Pakistani soldiers for about 90 minutes last week. Taliban attacks in Pakistan, and counterattacks have resulted in a kind of ambient disruption for the rocky border zone.
Violent protests—and counteroperations—are continuing in New Caledonia (pop: 270,000), a Pacific island part of overseas France. The riots, which have killed 6 people so far, began after metropolitan France proposed a plan to expand voting rights beyond indigenous residents. A state of emergency has been declared amid worries about a spiral of violence taking hold.
As the Sahel dries out, experts are concerned about the links to rising terrorism in the region. The Sahel accounts for over 40% of global terrorism deaths—according to the analysts’ understanding of “terrorism.” Mali in particular has reportedly become home to 41 new, different non-state armed groups (NSAGs) since 2007. A contested election in Chad resulted in the consolidation of the interim leader’s power.

“If governments are continually unable to solve regional issues, the people will be at the whim of any terror group that has a basic organization. It serves these groups’ interests to promote insecurity where they can and create security where they want. A “hearts and minds” campaign in the Sahel could lead to long-term and locally supported insurgencies in a land that is currently rife with civil strife.” -from the article

Some wargamers concluded that a Trump victory in 2020 would spell the end of NATO, or at least the end of its utility. Vladimir Putin replaced his minister of defense with a top economic advisor, just before going to Beijing to reaffirm their friendship with “no limits.” Some say Putin is planning on a forever war. Some say NATO is gearing up for one, too.
Russia made several gains in the suburbs of Kharkiv, seizing several settlements which some analysts doubt they will hold. Putin claims they aren’t really trying to take Kharkiv anyway… Russia also made small progress in the Donbas—although they suffered their largest one-day casualties since the start of the war. The U.S. allocated another $2B to hasten the delivery of weapons to the front lines. The next weeks will be crucial on the front. Switzerland has invited 160+ nations to send delegates to a peace summit intended to design a path to making peace in this War.
——————————
Select comments/threads from the subreddit last week suggest:
-Brazil’s flooding was really, really bad, judging from this post and its accompanying images. Across just one of Brazil’s 26 states, 600,000+ people have been made homeless, 100+ have died, and the storm season isn’t over yet. Some of the flooding isn’t expected to subside for another month.
-How specifically might climate change make humanity extinct? This thread crowdsources a number of plausible ways, from ordinary famines to nuclear war and even a massive deoxygenation process. I tend to think it will be a consequence of an eventual nuclear exchange, followed by extended famine and disease.
Got any feedback, questions, comments, complaints, upvotes, doom prophets to follow, hugelkultur guides, directions to off-grid bunkers, ark schematics, etc.? Check out the Last Week in Collapse SubStack if you don’t want to check collapse every Sunday, you can receive this newsletter sent to your (or someone else’s) email inbox every weekend. What did I forget this week?

Human rights: Food for a 2024-relevant thought ‘HR and injustices in 2024’

HRR 724


[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about the galloping inequalities behind HR violations. It lets facts speak for themselves. No comments added. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducitraduire los/les Readers; usautiliser deepl.com

[Every now and then, I thought we have to reflect on ‘the totality’ of the indeed depressing seemingly unrelated realities; nobody does it better than OXFAM].

1.0. Since 2020, and the beginning of this decade of division, the five richest
men have seen their fortunes more than double, while almost five billion
people have seen their wealth fall.

1.1. 791 million workers have seen their wages fail to keep up with inflation
and have lost US$1.5 trillion over the last two years, equivalent to nearly a
month (25 days) of lost wages for each worker.

1.2. Billionaires are US$3.3 trillion or 34% richer than they were at the
beginning of this decade of crisis, with their wealth growing three times as
fast as the rate of inflation.

1.3. Despite representing only 21% of the world population, countries in the
Global North own 69% of global wealth and are home to 74% of the world’s
billionaire wealth.

1.4. Globally, men own US$105 trillion more wealth than women --equivalent to
four times the size of the US economy.

1.5. If the current trend continues, we will see the first trillionaire in 10 years,
but we will not eliminate poverty for 230 years.

1.6. If each of the five wealthiest men were to spend a million dollars daily,
it would take them 476 years to exhaust their combined wealth.

1.7. It would take 1,200 years for a female worker in the health and social
sector to earn what a CEO in the biggest Fortune 100 companies earns on
average in one year.

1.8. The richest 1% own 43% of all global financial assets.

1.9. A wealth tax on the world’s millionaires and billionaires could generate
US$1.8 trillion dollars each year.

2.0. According to new data covering the first six months of 2023, 2023 is set to
shatter all records as the most profitable year yet for big corporations. 148 of
the world’s biggest corporations (where data is available) made nearly US$1.8
trillion in profits in the 12 months leading up to June 2023, which is 52.5%
higher than their average for 2018–21. Their windfall profits --defined as
profits exceeding the 2018–21 average by more than 20% -- are nearly
US$700bn. Taxing these windfall profits at 90% would generate nearly
US$628bn in revenue.

2.1. The biggest winners in terms of windfall profits have been 14 oil and gas
companies whose profits in 2023 were 278% above the 2018–21 average,
representing US$190bn in windfall profits in 2023 and US$144bn in 2022.

2.2. For every US$100 of profit generated by 96 major companies between July
2022 and June 2023, US$82 was returned to shareholders in the form of stock
buybacks and dividends.

2.3. New Oxfam analysis of the World Benchmarking Alliance’s data on over
1,600 of the largest and most influential companies worldwide shows that
0.4% of companies are publicly committed to paying their workers a living
wage and support payment of a living wage in their value chains partners.

2.4. Oxfam’s analysis of the World Benchmarking Alliance’s data of over 1,600
of the world’s largest companies finds that only 0.7% fully meet a global bar
for collective bargaining --by disclosing collective bargaining coverage in their
workforce and their approach to supporting collective bargaining through their
business relationships (e.g., their suppliers).

2.5. New data on over 1,600 of the largest and most influential companies
reveals that only 24% have a public commitment to gender equality. Just 2.6%
of companies disclose information on the ratio of pay of women to men.

2.6. Just 4% of the over 1,600 largest and most influential companies sampled
worldwide fully meet the World Benchmarking Alliance’s social indicator on
responsible tax, by having a public global tax strategy and publicly disclosing
corporate income taxes paid in all countries of residency.

2.7. Shell made US$29.2bn in profits between July 2022 and June 2023, an
increase of 222% compared to its average profits from 2018–21. Of those
profits, 87.7% were handed back to shareholders in the form of stock
buybacks and dividends.

2.8. Between July 2022 and June 2023, Brazil’s Petrobras made US$30.3bn in
profits --almost four times more than its average annual profits from 2019–2021.
It paid out 118% of those profits to shareholders in the form of dividends --
more than three times what Petrobras invested in capital expenditure.

2.9. If the amount companies spent on dividends and shareholder buybacks
for the richest 10% in 2022 was redistributed to the bottom 40% of the income
distribution, global income inequality as measured by the Palma ratio could
decrease by 21.5% --equivalent to the actual drop in the Palma ratio observed
over 41 years.

2.10. Just half of the amount from payouts to the top 10% in 2022 could
reduce global poverty (defined as US$6.85 a day, 2017 PPP), and a mere 1.6%
of the payouts could eliminate extreme poverty as defined by the World Bank
(US$2.15 a day, 2017 PPP).

2.11. The world’s five largest corporations combined are valued at more than
all the GDP of economies in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined.

3.0. Of the 10 largest listed companies in the world, seven have a billionaire as
either a principal shareholder or CEO. The total value (market capitalization) of
these companies is $10.2 trillion.

3.1. Of the 50 largest listed companies in the world, 17 (34%) have a billionaire
as either a principal shareholder or CEO. The total value (market capitalization)
of these companies is $13.3 trillion.

Bottom line: Phew!

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at [schuftan@gmail.com](mailto:schuftan@gmail.com)
All Readers are available at www.claudioschuftan.com

If you do not want to receive these Readers anymore, do send me a message with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject line.

Salutations and greetings brothers and sisters in Christ.
Having posted last week about the current situation and end state/long term objectives, I would like to identity what the current state of the country is in relative openness to meeting our criteria. A lot of what I write comes from research sources from government websites (such as the US Census Data), research websites from trusted sources (such as the PRRI), or good primary source content from creators or first-person perspectives. Today I want to share a report from PRRI that I references previously in my post about end state and objectives. This will lay out what states have the highest concentrations of support for Christian Nationalism based on research, large groups/concentrations of Orthodox Churches, Large groups/Concentrations of Mainline Protestant churches, and then large groups/concentrations of Evangelical concentrations/groups. Using this data we can distil down to the various different states that would have the highest success rate for growing support for our objectives and end states.

• Large groups of mainline protestants function as a potential recruiting opprotunity. As these churches become liberalized and lose membership/die out, it allows for those aligned with our values to recruit and convert these individuals co-oping them into the cause.
• Large congregations of Orthodox Churches can be used as a staging ground for the Neo-Orthodoxy revival within America and support the conversion of these churches into an Autocephalous Western Right Apostolic Holy Orthodox Church of America. Our objective number 1 for achieving our end state.
• Large support for Christian Nationalism already exists within Evangelical Christianity. This means while conversion to the Neo-Orthodoxy movement to achieve our first objective, it is not strictly necessary if individuals join Evangelical Christian groups which support Christian Nationalism.
• These three sources of Christian believers to support the desired end state for Christian Nationalism is essential.

If you recall from my previous post Objective 2 to meet our end state for the Nation is as follows: "38 out of 50 states within the United States must have greater than 50% Christian Nationalists adherents living within them by 2058. (creates super majority)." In this post I identified that we have to focus on 38 states to build up a primary base for changing the geo-political landscape by altering the socio-cultural landscape via Western Anglosphere focus Christian values. Specifically, I call out for a Western Right Orthodox Church of America but any congregation which aligns with Christian Nationalism would suffice. Just that Western Right Orthodoxy would be a solid cornerstone/foundation which would have the structure and adherence rate to survive greater than 80+ years rather than the mercurial protestants denominations which shift like sand. However, if those denominations can stand firm long enough to enact true political reform, amending the constitution, then it is worth to bring those denominations into the fold and act as one body of Christ.
Looking at the data from PRRI: Data Here You can see the breakdown of the different states which have high or higher percentage of support to the cause of Christian Nationalism. What this means for us, is it allows us to narrow down to our targeted 38 states we need to achieve our objectives. While we want to be advancing on all fronts, these 38 will have the highest chance of making mounting or achievable impact on Christendom at large.

• As previously stated: "New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, California, Washington, Connecticut, and New Jersey are below the 25% general support for Christian Nationalism." What this means is that while we should try and spread the cause in all directions to all different states, these states have the lowest chance of it catching flame or finding a foundation.
• Interestingly enough however, many of these states have large concentrations of old Orthodoxy residing within them: California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey all have large amounts of Orthodox Concentrations. Data Here Sadly they are drowned out by large amounts of non-Christians within these locations. New York, Illinois, and California have large amounts of Mainline Protestant which have the highest amounts of potential pickups of those leaving the denominations after becoming super liberalized towards Orthodox/Christian Nationalists sympathetic groups. Data Here
• What this means is that while growth opportunity exists in New York, California, and Illinois we will struggle to gain and maintain a majority within the state just do to the demographic nature and the percentage game. Not that it is not worth our time, but we cannot rely on it. That said we could focus efforts in select swing districts at the local/congressional level in New York, California, and Illinois to possibly bring about pushing them towards the bubble and eroding hyper liberal power bases.

With the date for mentioned, we would have to conclude that these 11 states are not reliable for our growth and target objectives. Again, as with the case of New York, Illinois, and California, growth opportunity exists but not enough to justify targeting those states. Our focus now shifts to the bubble/swing states that we can make a difference to bring to the fold.

• As previously stated: "Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Arizona, Utah, Rhode Island, Delaware, Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are on the 25-29% cusp of supporting Christian Nationalism. Growth opportunity exists but could easily swing the other way.". What this means is that we would need to focus on these swing states and select at least one to focus our attention to bring it above the 30% thresh-hold for sustained and consistent push towards the cause to for fill our objectives.
• The largest concentrations of Mainline Protestant denominations and Orthodoxy residing within them is Pennsylvania, with Michigan and Wisconsin in solid second place leading the others. Arizona and Colorado are behind Michigan and Wisconsin but hold a solid base in both Mainline and Orthodoxy. Meaning it would not take much to swing Colorado and Arizona to be more inline with our stated goals that we need to achieve.
• Out of the rest, Hawaii might be the biggest outlier and most difficult to change do to geographic reasons. While a solid base for what we wish to accomplish exists, the demographics of such a place are working against us in % of population vs base. I would advocate for throwing out Hawaii and placing it into the below general support category.
• Utah is a special case. Mormons, which would best be classified as a wild card, dominate Utah politics along with other Christian denominations. Forward progress will be difficult in Utah, but it might be more of a dialogue than a genuine need for conversion/bringing Utah into alignment.
• What this means is that Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine will be the long haul in this process to round out our 38 required states to align with the Anglosphere Western Right Orthodoxy / support for Christian nationalism. Naturally Vermont and Delaware will present interesting challenges. It would require demographic changes and construction of large amounts of mission work and proselytizing. Alternatives would have to be sought for these two otherwise if needed: Viriginia and New Jersey are likely candidates given the high number of Orthodoxy or Mainline protestants vs Delaware and Vermont.

This leaves us to the 38 states that we have to focus on to achieve our objectives on the strategic level for the United States to regain the conceptualization of Christian nationalism dominated by our Western Right Orthodox Church of America focused on preserving the ideals of Anglosphere cultural and societal roots forward for the next 80-120 years.

• Alabama, Alaksa, Arizonia, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware*, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey*, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah**, Vermont*, Virgina*, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
• Delaware and Vermont can be changed for New Jersey and Virgina respectively which is the reason for the call out. Utah is also a special case given its high Mormon population.
• Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona have unique opportunities with the largest growing non-white Christian Nationalists groups: Hispanics who are Evangelicals. Continued growth in this area can eventually turn all four corners into solid supporters for our socio-cultural fabric which we wish to layout. Of them, Colorado faces the most pushback but growing areas of support.
• Different regions within the 38 states are going to have to move/work in different ways to achieve our objectives. Just because a state has +30% of Christian Nationalists support already AND might traditionally thought politically as a "red" state, that does not mean they align with our core values or end state. New Mexico and Arizona are wildly different than Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia. Requiring different approaches to changing the views on a local level.
• The flexibility of Mainline and Evangelical Protestantism is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. The common faith shared across state borders and regions does not always align culturally or politically. One socio-cultural norm must exist. While sub-cultures are welcome, they cannot deviate from the overarching Anglosphere cultural norm which must dominate to align the whole country with our values and preserve the Republic.

This goes into the objective number 1 to meet our end state for the United States and Christian Nationalism. As stated previously: "Establish one Autocephalous Western Right Apostolic Holy Orthodox Church of America with Romanian, Russian, and Antiochian ceding to this new Orthodox Church with establishment of a Patriarch of America." This will create a large common Holy and Orthodox Church of America that will allow for Anglosphere dominate cultural to thrive from the local/micro level all the way to the macro-country wide level. The church will function both culturally and religiously to preserve our common Anglosphere dominated values and Western conceptualizations of rights within our Republic.
As always, please let me know what you think and what can be done to improve. Is this too wordy? Is everyone able to follow along fairly well? Let me know or join the conversation!

Article: https://www.useyourbrainforex.com/post/us-investors-flock-to-long-term-bonds-amid-rate-cut-bets
In a significant move, US investors are aggressively shifting their money into long-term bonds, betting that this often overlooked asset class will benefit from future interest rate cuts. 📉💸
Research by JPMorgan Chase & Co. indicates that the top 20 mutual fund managers in the US have increased their duration over the past two months as yields climbed. Investors are favoring high-grade corporate bonds over government debt to avoid negative carry, according to Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, a global market strategist at the bank.
This shift comes as long-term corporate bonds regain popularity, driven by recent data showing a decline in US inflation for the first time in six months. Markets are now pricing in two rate cuts this year, reigniting interest in these bonds.
Gershon Distenfeld from AllianceBernstein Holding LP notes that yields typically rally three to four months before the Federal Reserve starts cutting rates. He recently extended the duration in his $23 billion American Income Portfolio, preparing for potential rate cuts that could happen anytime from now until 2025.
Bank of America Corp. strategists also suggest that the "anything but bonds" trade may have peaked, predicting a comeback for long-duration debt in the second half of the year. Fund managers have already increased their bond allocation by an average of 7 percentage points from April, while cash levels dropped to their lowest in nearly three years.
In response to this demand, companies like Merck & Co. Inc. are issuing long-term bonds, taking advantage of low prevailing credit spreads and locking in risk premiums. Merck's recent 30-year bond is the longest-dated euro corporate bond since 2021, contributing to an increase in the average maturity of corporate bonds issued this month.
Luca Bottiglione from Zurich Insurance Group AG and Althea Spinozzi from Saxo Bank AS highlight that companies are finding a sweet spot in the markets. They can secure the lowest yields on the yield curve while investors, eager for an aggressive rate-cutting cycle, are willing to extend duration.
Join the discussion on how these strategic shifts might impact the market and your investments! 💬