World War 3

A world war is a near impossibility. How can the whole world fall out over the same thing?

Well they cant. A world war is when two world powers fall out and then the rest takes sides or hide under a rock. World war II was between Britain and Germany, the reason is not important.

I am going to bet that in under 10 years time, there is going to be another world war, this will be between America and China.

As most already know, America is in huge debt. What most people don't know, is that America owe most of that debt to China. China is going to pretty soon overtake America as the new world super power and they want what is owed to them. America knows that they cant afford to pay China back in full, so what they are doing is rather clever; America is printing money like there is no tomorrow. Billions and billions have already been printed, all in high domination bills. The money is so vast that it cant be introduced into circulation or else it would cause hyper inflation like you wouldn't believe  Printing the money is fine, as long as you have the gold reserves to match the papers worth. The problem is that America now has far more paper currency then it has gold and this is driving the worth of their currency down. As the american currency becomes weaker, the overall debt to China goes down due to the fact that the world trading currency is dollars. 

If america owed $1 billion for example, and they print large amounts of paper currency without gold counterpart, then the debt might reduce to $800 million if you measure it by the original worth of the money. 

China has worked this out, and they are now doing all they can to change the world trading currency into Chinese currency to thwart Americas attempts to dilute the debt. This however is not working, and i reckon that it will result in war. 

Time will tell, but as it stands, China hold the better hand and america knows it.

Thriller

Michael Jackson was possibly the king of pop music, and his music is possibly the most well know in the world. My issue is not with his talent, which is undeniable, my concern is the individual himself. I am aware that it might seem distasteful to criticize someone who has passed away, but criticism is not my intention. I want to look at the effects success had on Michael Jackson.

Forget your Justin Bieber's and Lady Gaga's, Michael was the biggest and the richest musician that has ever lived, he was also the most famous, this is not mere opinion as it has been recognised by the guinness book of world records. This man has contribute more to dance, fashion and music then any other individual dead or alive and this is why he saw such success.

Sadly however Michael Jackson was not perfect, his huge wealth led to the development of an addiction to spending; Michael was infamous for spending literally millions per binge and this led to his financial demise. By the end of his career he had sold 750 million records and won more awards then any other artist in history but he was tainted from constant negative press and his addiction to spending money. Michael received huge media attention when it came out that he had been having medical assistance to change the colour of his skin, and although he denied this to start of with, it became clear pretty soon that he had in fact had his skin bleached; this was an act that lost him a great many supporters, particularly in the African-american community. Such was his overall popularity that any amount of negative press would not dent the millions of fans he had over the world. Another scandle that tainted his reputation was that of Child molesting, and although nothing was ever proved, it didn't help his wavering supporters.

The addiction to spending money was the result of what was reported to be a $900 million fortune, some even claim that his bank balance alone reached levels close to this which would have made him the first billionaire musician if you take into consideration his assets and the music catalogue he owned, including all of the Beatles tracks which he reportedly paid $46 million for;however much of this was rough estimation and speculation. There was also another side to Michael; by the end of his life in 2009, he had donated £300 million to charity's across the world and although he had received so much negative media attention over his career, he funeral in 2009 was the most high profile in history, with over 1 billion viewers across the world.

To summarise: Although flawed, Michael Jackson was and is the Most successful and most loved musician ever and he has donated more money then any other celebrity. Arguably money corrupted him slightly and at times his fame hindered him, but over all he was a man that standards are now set by and that is a feat to which all can strive for.

Chelsea

I am a Chelsea fan. (for those who don't know, Chelsea is a English football team).


This team is owned by a Russian billionaire, who has made a reputation for having no limits to what he spends of this football club, most recently splashing out £50 million on Fernando Torres. Some people claim that money has been the key to his success, effectively 'buying success', but is this a bad thing? 


There are teams in the world who will only accept players who were born local to their area, regardless of that  teams finances, and other teams such as Barcelona and Manchester City have spent vast quantity's of money importing the best talent from around the world to their respective clubs. The afore mentioned teams have indeed seen success, with Barcelona being renowned to be the best club in the world. But the money spent in this industry has always been a contentious issue. The English football regulator, the "FA" are planning to take steps to prevent this money monopoly by implementing rules that state that if a football club does not turn a profit every year, then it will face punishment in the form of a fine or a positional penalty, which they think will eradicate the richer clubs from throwing money around and achieving success merely from the level of investment. 


Let me ask you: When purchasing a car or a watch, are you not of the opinion that to a degree the more you pay, the better quality you receive? A £30 watch will not be made to the same standards as a £500 watch, and obviously there are watches, in the same way that there are cars that cost a disproportionate amount of money, but that does not invalidate the point, would you not agree that when owners of football clubs spend more money, they are not buying success but investing, and success is a product of their investment?


The point im trying to make is that we do not live in a communist society, and there will always be financial differences, particularly in competitive sports such as football, and that should not be taken as an unfair advantage but rather seen as something to which all should aspire. 


'If you have the money, spend it"....would you not agree?