# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  Optometry in 2035. Does it exist?

## optio

In 20 years, will optometry as we know it still exist?

Eye health aside, any optometrist honest with herself will concede the primary purpose of an optometrist is to refract. Refraction, although definitely a skill, is at risk of extinction due to advances in technology.  Although technology is a threat to many aspects of modern eyecare, and while one can argue about the timing/immediacy of such events (i.e. are we on the cusp of wholesale change now, or is the landscape going to largely be the same 10 years from now?), I consider refraction particularly susceptible to obsolescence in the continuum of facets of eyecare (which includes things like eye health assessments, appliances for seeing, and surgery).   

I consider visual/seeing appliances to eventually be at the mercy of technology as well, but I believe that era remains farther off.   But when we have the world's most wealthiest corporations such as Google blurring the line between technology and every-day consumerism/physiology (e.g. Google Glass), and predicting that the human brain will be embedded with data chips by 2030 (while actively pursuing that goal), it's hard to see how human-performed refraction will continue to be a paid-for service in the future.  Kiosks already exist for refraction today in the U.S., not to mention an iPhone app.

How long do optometrists have?  For those who will not be "retired" in 20 years, how much longer will the practice of optometry be able to sustain an optometrist's career?  Will those early in their careers today have to eventually re-educate themselves and re-enter the workforce in another capacity?

----------


## RIMLESS

I think it will evolve to be radically different by 2025.  Your post is very interesting.

----------


## optio

What "radically different" changes are you predicting? What do you believe an optometrist will be doing in 2025?

I chose a time horizon of 20 years over 10 years, because in 10 years, I believe refractive error will still be corrected by glasses.  If refracting robots do eventually replace optometrists, this will take time and money.  Time, for laws to catch up to modern technology, and money to put these robots into each refraction lane in the country, as they will not be free.  In fact, this "robot-scenario" may never really happen, and if it does, may only be temporary.  Thus, I don't think it's guaranteed we'll see such changes in 10 years, but 20 years is anyone's guess as there will be new non-3-O players involved.  "Optical lenses" may very well not be the primary means for correcting refractive error by 2035 either, as corporate behemoths such as Google and Apple will probably be involved at that point, and they are all about providing technology to the masses (unlike ophthalmology, whose refractive interventions are prohibitively expensive for most, and will thus not be the primary reason why glasses become obsolete at any time in the foreseeable future).

----------


## David_Garza

I've heard this for 25+ years.  Yes it will but it may not be exactly what it is today.  
Did anyone think ODs would be using OCTs or VFs in the late 80s? 
Careers evolve as do most things in life.

----------


## Chris Ryser

http://www.odcareer.com/future-of-optometry/#content

----------


## optio

> http://www.odcareer.com/future-of-optometry/#content


From the site:

_What changes will we see in the next 20 years?  Here is what I believe optometry care will encompass by the year 2035:_

_Optometrists will largely separate into medical and refractive specialists.__Optometry residencies focused on ocular disease will continue to further incorporate co-management with ophthalmology.__75% of all states will have certain laser (SLT, PI’s, yag etc)  and injectable privileges.__5% of all states will have posterior segment laser privileges and intravitreal injections.__A “medical school track” will be established to allow optometry graduates an opportunity to complete an ophthalmology residency without having to complete formal medical school training.__Optometry and Ophthalmology will get along (for the most part).  Ophthalmologists will still petition against all of the procedures listed above, but the two professions will work harmoniously to provide the best care for the patient._
_My predictions might be completely wrong, but I don’t think so.  States with large rural populations will slowly jump on the bandwagon to reform optometry laws.  The greatest resistance will come from states with large metropolitan areas where patients have easier access to ophthalmologists._


Nothing in this author's opinion considers the role technology will play in vision.  In fact, we could have his exact 2035 scenario TODAY through legislation alone.

----------


## optio

> Careers evolve as do most things in life.


You're right, "careers" do "evolve" although mouthing platitudes doesn't mean optometry necessarily will.  Some careers evolve better than others.  Some careers don't evolve at all.  Professional typewriter repairmen probably aren't doing too well today.  That's the point of my OP.  

Apple and its iPhone has effectively put an end to all traditional low vision reading gadgetry, that just a few years ago, cost literally thousands of dollars more.  I hardly believe those Sherlock-Holmes-magnifying-lens-makers have evolved into Apple Inc. technicians.  

You're right about OCTs and VFs but you're also wrong.  Most ODs aren't using them as their patients can't afford them.  

Some ODs will be able to survive in a human-performed-refraction-free world, but will everyone?

----------


## fjpod

Everything changes, I suppose, but I do not agree about a few things you said about refraction.  In my mind, refraction is not just determining the best sphere, cylinder and axis.  True, most people can be taught to do that, and even a dumb-phone can be programmed to do it.  

PRESCRIBING, on the other hand, is another matter. Certainly for a large majority of patients, simple myopes,... a quickie refraction might suffice, but there are many patients with anisometropia, latent hyperopia, muscle imbalances, medical issues affecting best acuity, that are quite problematic.    Medical decision making skills are needed here.

I think the State Boards of our professions will be fighting an uphill battle to stop these online refractions...just look at what is happening with online glasses and contacts.  It seems we live in an age where the "rights" of the consumer outweigh public licensing laws and the concept of public protection.

I don't see Optometry today as primarily a refracting profession.  I have so many technological aids that help me to determine refractive information...it is more a matter of making the right decision as to what to prescribe based on all factors including the habitual Rx and symptomatology.

Medical care is a BIG part of optometry today.  Ophthalmological residencies are down across the country, those who do become OMDs tend to have more surgical practices.  Optometrist numbers are increasing.  

So, will the delivery of refractive services and materials change over the next 20 years?...probably.  Will the need for optometrists decrease?...not likely.

----------


## optio

I think your perspective is still within the "refraction" box.   I'm an optometrist so you don't have to tell me about the skill of refraction.  I'm talking about changes that don't involve the current three-Os.  For instance, everything about "prescribing" you describe above can be applied to selecting low vision reading aids.  But all that training goes to the wayside, when you use an iPhone with a real-time magnifying glass app.  So no, in terms of low vision reading aids, prescribing skill doesn't save the prescriber from advances in technology.

I'll mention there are already modern or contemporary challenges today that didn't exist before.  Internet dispensing is one, but what about over-supply?  There's more graduates coming out these days than 10 years ago, so supply/demand alone makes it harder for ODs to get by now, than before.  Evolution is one thing, but supply and demand is another.  If there's too much supply, salaries go down.  Are we to blame new grads for their under-employment that they haven't been adept at evolving?  

What I was referring to, however, to larger outside-the-scope changes.  Google has been developing driverless technology to make roads safer.   An Alberta mine is using this technology to drive its mine trucks.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode...work-1.3119963

Are those now-unemployed drivers supposed to evolve into public-transit drivers?  There are already public transit drivers.  Those people will simply be out of work.  What was supposed to be an innocuous means of helping reduce traffic deaths will now bankrupt several hundreds of families.

At some point, Google will invent a contact lens that you put in your eye that will allow you to get a real-time Iron Man virtual-reality interface, that is independent of optometric refraction.  I think that's in play for 20 years from now.  Things like that are the game changers I'm talking about that will make optometric refraction obsolete.

----------


## optio

I'm going to mention that the point of this thread isn't to try to  prognosticate WHAT will replace glasses/optometrists, but that my  position is human-performed refraction will end within a generation.   Current IT specialists estimate by 2050, artificial intelligence will  have reached a point that we will be able to have relationships and  marry robots.  I believe if a robot is capable of fornication, it will  be capable of refraction.  That's 35 years from now.  I didn't want to  discuss 2050 because that's probably going to be mostly irrelevant to  most of us.  I didn't want to discuss 10 years from now either, cause  the point wasn't to get into whether humans can or should be replaced by  autorefractors.  Although I guess I can address that now briefly.

Non-human  (auto) refraction already exists.  In the US, some OD is marketing a  system that is an auto-refraction signed off by an OMD, and it's  apparently already legal in some 20+ states.

http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+R.../10751137.html

If  we expand the scope to outside North America, optometry in fact doesn't  even exist in many countries.  Glasses are prescribed by autorefractors  or eyeglass-peddlers (refractionists?), so the non-optometrist paradigm  already exists in the world today.  Legislation is responsible for the  existence of optometry in North America.

At some point, people  won't pay $95 to have a human do a refraction on them because they'll be  able to get a reliable refraction done somewhere else for less.   Go to  some other countries (Japan, France) where refraction is treated like  the measuring of feet to size shoes, and hell-no they won't pay for a  refraction (so optometrists in France are "unemployed" in that they  don't even exist there).  Any advances in 3-O technology will inevitably  protect ophthalmologists more than optometrists.  As an aside, it's not  as though medicine is completely immune to tech either.  If my  understanding is correct, there is now not enough work to go around for  cardiac surgeons because of the advances in stent technology.   "Non-surgical" heart-docs who do get their training through internal  medicine channels - these folks are called cardiologists (as opposed to  surgeons), are able to apply stents very uninvasively.  So gone are the  days where every blocked artery required a cardiac surgeon to open a  guy's chest to do a bypass.  Again, I'm not a heart guy, so pardon any  inaccuracies.  

But the point is, refraction at it's most basic  form, is an algorithm.  A computer can be taught to apply an algorithm.   And even if there's still some residual "human-experience" component,  it's not as though it is infallible either.  We all know of a local  optometrist who gets paid to routinely prescribe less-than stellar Rxs  for his patients.  In that case, a smart computer may in fact be able to  do the job better, and soon enough, for less.  So no, human refraction  isn't necessarily always going to be better than a robot.

The  current paradigm has companies like Luxottica and Zeiss as king.  If  it remains that way, then perhaps optometry very well may be able to  sustain itself going forward.  However, this will not last forever.   Google and Apple combined have what, 10,000X the market capitalization  of Luxottica?  If they get involved, things will change fast.  They not  only have the wealth, but the talent to to change the game.  Is ANYONE  at Luxottica even intelligent enough to be hired to work at Google?   Chances are, no.  And they are working on the visual experience.   There's already Google Glass.  Even if it isn't Google, or Apple, this  isn't the point.  There will be a game changer within our lifetimes that  makes human performed refraction obsolete, whether due to robots, or a  new refractive "solution", and it will come from outside the 3-Os.  At  that point, optometrists won't necessarily go obsolete, but there will  be a much reduced need for them.

----------


## optio

> I've heard this for 25+ years.


I'll mention that this is impossible as Google was founded in 1998.  If you think there'll be optometrists toting around phoroptors in 2035, then we'll just agree to disagree.

----------


## fjpod

I guess you'll just have to carry on a discussion with yourself.....

----------


## optio

> I guess you'll just have to carry on a discussion with yourself.....


Actually I was done until you replied.  Your point?

Also 700 views in just a couple days.  It seems there's a lot of folks interested in reading what I have to say.  Including yourself.  Thanks for perusing this thread.

----------


## Chris Ryser

I am always wondering that new developments in any field are given only interest on what is happening on this continent instead of looking at a world wide situation.

The North American continent has become the play and testing ground for the 2 biggest players world wide in the optical manufacturing field, *namely Essilor and Luxottica who now definitely have entered the direct to consumer market.*

*Eye care training develops livelihoods in rural India* - *
"Thanks to a new public private partnership agreement recently signed in Rajasthan, 4,000 youths are expected to be trained over the next three years in that state alone. Since the beginning of the year we have equipped 70,000 new wearers, with EMO responsible for putting glasses on the faces of over a third of those wearers, explained Saugata Banjeree, Head of 2.5 NVG India, We have now partnered with several local skills and livelihood development agencies to roll out the training of EMO. 
*
- See more at: http://www.essilorseechange.com/deve....7370ZEaf.dpuf

*Knowledge share is a two way street in India*
*In January, Essilor organised its first Eye Mitra annual convention for local entrepreneurs. Weeks later, the Groups Advanced Management Program brought in 33 senior staff from 12 countries to learn about developing markets on the ground at Indian rural eye clinics.*


*There is no age limit for learning new things. I successfully completed my training and am now doing well and conducting vision screening camps regularly, said Mr Nand Kishore, a previously unemployed 57 year-old at the Eye Mitra (Friend of the Eyes in Hindi) Convention.*
*One of the first wave of Essilor trainees, he has  acquired the skills and knowledge to become a friend of the eyes in his local community, and given a starter-kit to help set up his new business. He was one of around 100 individuals at the convention near Delhi. Many had travelled long distances to swap ideas with their fellow Eye Mitras and interact with Essilor managers.*


- See more at: http://www.essilorseechange.com/know....MFiTAxLa.dpuf

----------


## optio

> I guess you'll just have to carry on a discussion with yourself.....



I just noticed that you are the same person who replied above.  It didn't occur to me when I replied to your post (my last post above).  My apologies.  I thought you were some outside observer posting a "troll" post with nothing better to say.  Given you had already replied with your opinions above, that totally changes the context.

I think everything you have posted here is reasonable, even your last remark.

Anyhoos - 25 years ago, we weren't in the digital age yet. 25 years from now, we'll almost be 50 years into the digital age.  EVERYONE in this thread has referred to inevitable changes/evolution of our profession.  If so, why is there resistance to the idea that some of these changes may be bad for practicing optometrists?  I won't post again unless prompted.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *EVERYONE in this thread has referred to inevitable changes/evolution of our profession.  If so, why is there resistance to the idea that some of these changes may be bad for practicing optometrists? *



Life has been too good for the status quo, just about forever, specially for the ones who are also selling glasses.

The internet and technologies have been and will even more change the world over the next years to come.   New ways of testing eyes automatically for prescriptions are being developed and refined as we go along.

In the meantime your largest optical suppliers are doing their best to push you off the map when the time comes and it might be even earlier than you predict.

----------


## optio

Anyone know why this average-salary-information website says most people in optometry "move on to other positions" after 20 years?   What do you think it's referring to?
*
"An Optometrist earns an average salary of C$87,781 per year. Most people  with this job move on to other positions after 20 years in this field."*
http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/...metrist/Salary

----------


## jc17777

as an optician I would love to earn that average annual salary. Why would an optometrist move to another position unless it was related to the field and they were making more money

----------


## optio

I have absolutely no doubt the website is wrong (about moving on to other positions).  I just don't understand why they would be so wrong about that fact, and what led them to believe it was true to begin with.  I'm almost certain that historically, most optometrists stay as optometrists after 20 years of work.

I'm also curious to know where they get their salary stats.

----------


## jc17777

http://www.jobs4ecps.ca/JOBS4ECPS_Sa..._20150210.pdf?

According to that survey done by jobs 4ecp's optometrists average salary is actually higher than what was listed

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I have absolutely no doubt the website is wrong (about moving on to other positions).  I just don't understand why they would be so wrong about that fact, and what led them to believe it was true to begin with.  I'm almost certain that historically, most optometrists stay as optometrists after 20 years of work.
> 
> **I'm also curious to know where they get their salary stats.*



That website belongs to  a private firm that asks for opinions.
Go and look for it:

Contact
Payscale Inc
1000 1st Ave, South
Seattle,  WA 98134ACT
PayScale, Inc. 
1000 1st Ave South 
Seattle, WA 98134


If you want official statistics you go on industry Canada look for a profession, and do your own search. Then you will get the real facts, but they are usually about 2-3 years behind times.

----------


## rbaker

Well, clearly (no pun intended) people will still need medical and refractive eye care in the future. I believe that the driving force in the US and Canada as well as the rest of the developed nations will be driven by economics. 

Optometry and Ophthalmology will soon merge into a single profession and the "new" eye doctor will manage a large clinical staff of ancillary personnel who will perform all the drut work such as refraction, tonometry, visual fields, fundus photos and all the rest of the acquisition of data and metrics which allow the eye doctor to make medical decisions. We already see this business model in some large ophthalmology practices where technicians, technologists, APRN's and PA's perform 90% of the work.

We will also see an increased utilization of Temporary _Foreign Worker_ Program ( TFWP in Canada ) and Foreign Workers Visas in the US. This use of foreign workers is already quite prevalent in nursing homes, physical therapy and hospitals.

Clearly, the cost of health care at its present state is, in the long run, unsustainable and the possibility of a single payer system in the US looms on the horizon. Canada is already sucking the hind teat.

There will be a few of you who will be able to hold on to the old ways but for most the party is nearly over.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Optometry and Ophthalmology will soon merge into a single profession and the "new" eye doctor will manage a large clinical staff of ancillary personnel who will perform all the drut work such as refraction, tonometry, visual fields, fundus photos and all the rest of the acquisition of data and metrics which allow the eye doctor to make medical decisions. *We already see this business model in some large ophthalmology practices where technicians, technologists, APRN's and PA's perform 90% of the work.*


Revenge of the Opthalmo

................... I have lived through one of those right here in Naples a few years back, they even have an optical store off the waiting area.

After having gone through the mill, I saw the doctor who told me that I had a cataract in my left eye, and that he was going to fix it for $ 4,000.

I said no thanks, and that I was having it done back home in Canada under the national medicare for free. 

He gave me the exam results in a sealed envelope which I delivered to the license bureau, were after opening the envelope I was told that he suggested that I have to redo the physical driving test.

........I agreed right away, did it and passed with flying colors and got my license back validated for a few more years. 

Greed can still exist even in a big medial box environment.

----------


## throughalensdarkly

I think rbaker might be right when he says "Optometry and Ophthalmology will soon merge into a single profession".  I'm still something of a novice in the optics world, but to me this makes some sense...

Doctors will fulfill the medical role (whichever title they want to use). Comprehensive eye exams are important and we should all have them on a regular basis - stuff like glaucoma, macular degeneration, etc requires a highly trained medical professional to diagnose and treat, and probably will for some time.  But refracting itself is going to be less and less dependent on a highly trained medical professional as technology moves forward, and someone who is just having trouble seeing out of their old specs really just wants to have a new rx and a new pair of lenses. They don't want and don't need a comprehensive medical exam for what they're trying to do.  They should get that exam on a regular basis, but we can't make them do it.  We should all go in for regular physical checkups too, but again a lot of people don't and we can't make them.  Does that mean they shouldn't be able to get a bottle of Tylenol for a headache? Of course not, and someone who doesn't want to bother getting a comprehensive exam shouldn't be restricted from getting a pair of glasses.  A healthcare system where people didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for medical care would go a long way towards getting them in the door for a comprehensive exam, but that's another issue.  

Also - getting a pair of specs with a bad rx isn't going to cause medical issues is it? It's just a redo and lost money for the optical, which provides the incentive to get it right.  If tech gets to the point that autorefraction (or something like it) becomes really reliable, what's left for optometrists to do?  There will be the doctors for full exams and fixing any problems those exams find, and then there will be the local optical where you can get a refraction and a pair of glasses, or get a pair of glasses using an rx generated by a doctor at a comprehensive exam that may include refraction.  I don't see any problem with that...    

Again I'm not an industry veteran by any means, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but... am I?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *There will be a game changer within our lifetimes that  makes human performed refraction obsolete, whether due to robots, or a  new refractive "solution", and it will come from outside the 3-Os.  At  that point, optometrists won't necessarily go obsolete, but there will  be a much reduced need for them.
> *



..............interesting discussion

The start of that future will begin in about 2 1/2 month from now, probably around the end of June 2018, when the now world wide accepted merger between Essilor and Luxottica will happen.

This will create a similar situation in the optical retail business around the globe, of what happened in the oil industry not so long ago. There no more small service stations that sell the gaz and make repairs, the retail outlets consist now of multiple pumps, self service and some of them have also a car wash and, or a food store.

In the optical trade the merging main players have also played politics for a long time, by supporting professional associations as well as governments on many levels.

We should be seeing major changes in all of our eyecare professions over the  next few years.

----------


## Lab Insight

> ..............interesting discussion
> 
> In the optical trade the merging main players have also played politics for a long time, by supporting professional associations as well as governments on many levels.
> 
> We should be seeing major changes in all of our eyecare professions over the  next few years.


Chris, the professional associations are just as much to blame for this debacle by allowing it to happen for so many years and accepting bribe sponsorship money at the same time.  

Whether the associations knew it or not at the time, the sponsorship funds were more of a pay off to turn a blind eye and pave the road for the future to where we are today.

Now the associations bit the hand that fed them, and tried to take them to court, which is even more ludicrous.  The lawyers on both sides have to be laughing their asses off on this one - do I want my new yacht in white or beige?

----------


## fjpod

Computers may replace manual objective and subjective refraction... in fact they already have.  But deciding what to prescribe so that the patient will be happy with their Rx, and not come back complaining, has not yet been mastered by the AI people.  In fact, it has not yet been mastered by many people holding licenses that allow them to refract.

----------


## optio

There is this.

https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/29-1041-optometrists

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Whether the associations knew it or not at the time, the sponsorship funds were more of a pay off to turn a blind eye and pave the road for the future to where we are today.
> *



..........................we are now 2 months before the fully accepted merger by the world wide authorities.

We will be seeing a modernized version and situation, that we have already experienced in Canada for many years, by the near domination of the optical retail business by Imperial Optical.

However most of today's professionals have only a very faint idea whatever  happened then. Only this time it will be more complex and total as the preparation period has been very carefully planned into details in all sectors from manufacturing to retail over the last 15 years, or more.

We all have time to put on our seatbelts before the rocking starts.

----------


## McAnerin

I believe, that instead of discussing WHAT is coming in the near future, we should discuss how we best should EVOLVE to meet it. I've recently moved to a kiosk style optical in a mall, that pushes volume and affordable frames, w/ no optometrist at all. It's been very lucrative, while still giving people a personal experience. Changes are coming, and the winners are the ones that find out how to make it work for them. Unlike the big companies, we cant choose what the game is, but we can certainly have the best strategies for the new playing field.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Changes are coming, and the winners are the ones that find out how to make it work for them.* *Unlike the big companies, we cant choose what the game is, but we can certainly have the best strategies for the new playing field.*


nice post on a different idea...........and it seems to work.

----------


## drk

> Chris, the professional associations are just as much to blame for this debacle by allowing it to happen for so many years and accepting bribe sponsorship money at the same time.  
> 
> Whether the associations knew it or not at the time, the sponsorship funds were more of a pay off to turn a blind eye and pave the road for the future to where we are today.
> 
> Now the associations bit the hand that fed them, and tried to take them to court, which is even more ludicrous.  The lawyers on both sides have to be laughing their asses off on this one - do I want my new yacht in white or beige?


+1

----------


## drk

> Computers may replace manual objective and subjective refraction... in fact they already have.  But deciding what to prescribe so that the patient will be happy with their Rx, and not come back complaining, has not yet been mastered by the AI people.  In fact, it has not yet been mastered by many people holding licenses that allow them to refract.


FJP, you are of course correct.

I think the best way to conceptualize it, however, is that you aren't going to get a machine to practice optometry.  

The difference in concept being, what "optometry" is.  

I know you're an old guy, and so am I.  I've done this forever.  The concept that was promulgated on the front end of the thread "at the core, optometry is just refracting" is way, way, way off the mark.  We "solve eye problems".  All damn day long.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm irritated when those outside the profession think of optometry that way, but they're ignoramuses.  But for "optio" to say that makes me cry.  Maybe she's a newbie?

----------


## fjpod

You're right except for one thing.... I'm not old...lol.  



> FJP, you are of course correct.
> 
> I think the best way to conceptualize it, however, is that you aren't going to get a machine to practice optometry.  
> 
> The difference in concept being, what "optometry" is.  
> 
> I know you're and old guy, and so am I.  I've done this forever.  The concept that was promulgated on the front end of the thread "at the core, optometry is just refracting" is way, way, way off the mark.  We "solve eye problems".  All damn day long.
> 
> Nothing more, nothing less.
> ...

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Computers may replace manual objective and subjective refraction... in fact they already have.  But deciding what to prescribe so that the patient will be happy with their Rx, and not come back complaining, has not yet been mastered by the AI people. * *In fact, it has not yet been mastered by many people holding licenses that allow them to refract.*



I would just like to add that in many or all professions there are superb specialists and also some that are not and minimal.

It is a fact that there are many brains, even being funded by major corporations that are working on simple and automatised solutions to measure the optical error of the human eye and neutralize it with a perfectly valid  prescription.

By the year 2035 all of you will be used to purchase glasses online and have them adjusted and serviced by an optical service outlet of the online seller, or a dispensing optician that has survived the change, and that adjustment or service will be against a fee.

The first such change will most probably be introduced  starting in the year 2018, when the LensCrafter stores will very probably, also become service centers for Essilux online owned opticals, of which there are now according to my own calculations at:
http://optochemicals.com/web_listing.htm
near the bottom of the page. 
Some twenty of them on a worldwide basis are Essilux owned.

These corporation opened online opticals are for sure not turning out crappy quality as being owned by the opticals
largest corporation, and lens and frame manufacturer and suppliers.

*So lets put on our seatbelts and be ready for some major changes*.

----------


## Golfnorth

> I would just like to add that in many or all professions there are superb specialists and also some that are not and minimal.
> 
> It is a fact that there are many brains, even being funded by major corporations that are working on simple and automatised solutions to measure the optical error of the human eye and neutralize it with a perfectly valid  prescription.
> 
> By the year 2035 all of you will be used to purchase glasses online and have them adjusted and serviced by an optical service outlet of the online seller, or a dispensing optician that has survived the change, and that adjustment or service will be against a fee.
> 
> The first such change will most probably be introduced  starting in the year 2018, when the LensCrafter stores will very probably, also become service centers for Essilux online owned opticals, of which there are now according to my own calculations at:
> http://optochemicals.com/web_listing.htm
> near the bottom of the page. 
> ...


Yes and I predict that major changes will come in the optical chemical market too. 
Sorry Chris but you will be out of business soon at Opto Chemicals.

----------


## optical maven

Recent studies show, for Canadians, there still is an overwhelming percentage that prefer in person shopping.  Online hasn't penetrated as much as US.  Perhaps our cold climate means going to the mall is better than staying home.  For sure online shopping is there and one day may be the only avenue for sales.  But so far people still like to put something on in person and then buy.  Exceptional service will still retain customers.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Yes and I predict that major changes will come in the optical chemical market too. 
> 
> **Sorry Chris but you will be out of business soon at Opto Chemicals.
> *



Thank you Golfnorth.......................... for your prediction.

However your prediction is just about 9 month late, I am out of business since August 31, 2017 when my lease ended, which I made after I sold my 15,000sq foot building a few years back.

In the meantime I have sold the OptoChemicals company to McCray, just about next door to you.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *But so far people still like to put something on in person and then buy.  Exceptional service will still retain customers.*


........good point.

However the generation of the older non web savvy people
is currently dying off. and most of them will be gone in a couple of years. 

An old tool shed in Florida house which I converted into a modern office that had a floor model air conditioner which broke down after 5 years of use. some 5 years ago.

I went back to Home Depot were I bought it originally. They did have non in stock and the temperature was hot.

So I went on AMAZON on the internet. and they had one floor model with also a heater included for 300.00 less that the one in the store, and I ordered it.

Ordering was Wednesday afternoon at 3pm and Thursday morning at 11 am a UPS truck stopped and rolled the 2 boxes right to my office door.

The saving was the $ 300.00 and  another $ 30.00 to rent a Van at Home Depot if they would have had the air conditioner.

----------


## optio

Somewhat tangentially related to this thread.

_Amazon's US sales to match Walmart's within three years, JP Morgan predicts
_https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/15/amaz...-predicts.html

That is quite the forecast.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Somewhat tangentially related to this thread.
> 
> Amazon's US sales to match Walmart's within three years, JP Morgan predicts
> 
> **That is quite the forecast.*



.......................yes that is quite a forecast and will probably happen.

However it does not tell us who is losing that amount of sales increase ?

If they start to sell eyeglasses will they compete with the present players or our established B&M market ?

----------


## Chris Ryser

I just had another experience with Amazon. I ordered last Thursday an electronic collar dog training system.

They emailed that it would be delivered on Sunday.

At 1pm a US Post Office Van stopped by the house and delivered the small box. (I am still in Florida)

I am wondering how Amazon can get the US Post office to work and deliver on a Sunday.

----------


## rbaker

> I just had another experience with Amazon. I ordered last Thursday an electronic collar dog training system.
> 
> They emailed that it would be delivered on Sunday.
> 
> At 1pm a US Post Office Van stopped by the house and delivered the small box. (I am still in Florida)
> 
> I am wondering how Amazon can get the US Post office to work and deliver on a Sunday.


So are we taxpayers wondering about the USPS. The U.S. Postal Service lost $2.7 billion in fiscal 2017 while delivering packages at greatly reduced rates. I am not to thrilled with Cliff Flaven picking my pocket so you can get your package on Sunday. 

Stop wasting tax payers money. Privatize the US Mail. And, while you are at it, privatize the Veterans Administration.

----------


## Chris Ryser

There are now only 13 days left before the deadline of June 1, 2018, for the worlds biggest event to happen any day in the optical eyeglass industry of wholesale as well as retail.

As Canada is an easier test market than the USA, and directly run by the French head office, the changes will very probably be felt faster, than across the border in the USA.

They will start advertising their by internet sold glasses, to be serviced by the LensCrafter and the Essilor owned "New Look" chain stores. That will provide them with some over 700 stores to start with, and become internet products sold service stations, besides their regular activities.

Opticians could be competitive by starting a similar system.

----------


## CNG

Optometry and Opticianry will embrace telemedicine and it will be an important part of their practices. The industry will turn into thumprint technology in which refractions and lenses will be based on computer generated maps that are unique to each practice. Refractions that only work with in-house printed lenses and frames will be the norm. Eyeglasses will still be around as these new maps will allow to compensate the minute changes that are related to aging. Surgery will be the done remotely by big centers for the masses but aging preventing will not stop changes in refraction. Contact lenses will still be fitted but they will be high tech lenses that connect social media, work and leisure that must be fined tune by opticians. Cell phones are a thing of the past. Your connectivity to the world will be paid to opticians instead of phone companies. Ophthalmology will eventually disappear as surgery will be done totally remotely and optometrists will be in charge of any disease. Life will be back to being Rose color for everyone in the optical field. Ah opticians still do not refract...they now have A.I. Refractors.

Enjoy.

----------


## Trina

> There are now only 13 days left before the deadline of June 1, 2018, for the worlds biggest event to happen any day in the optical eyeglass industry of wholesale as well as retail.
> 
> As Canada is an easier test market than the USA, and directly run by the French head office, the changes will very probably be felt faster, than across the border in the USA.
> 
> They will start advertising their by internet sold glasses, to be serviced by the LensCrafter and the Essilor owned "New Look" chain stores. That will provide them with some over 700 stores to start with, and become internet products sold service stations, besides their regular activities.
> 
> Opticians could be competitive by starting a similar system.


Every time I read something like this, my stomach drops. Whatever happened to the laws preventing a monopoly?

----------


## Golfnorth

> There are now only 13 days left before the deadline of June 1, 2018, for the worlds biggest event to happen any day in the optical eyeglass industry of wholesale as well as retail.
> 
> As Canada is an easier test market than the USA, and directly run by the French head office, the changes will very probably be felt faster, than across the border in the USA.
> 
> They will start advertising their by internet sold glasses, to be serviced by the LensCrafter and the Essilor owned "New Look" chain stores. That will provide them with some over 700 stores to start with, and become internet products sold service stations, besides their regular activities.
> 
> Opticians could be competitive by starting a similar system.


Chris;

I was not aware that Essilor owned New Look.
Are you sure?

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## Lab Insight

> Chris;
> 
> I was not aware that Essilor owned New Look.
> Are you sure?
> 
> Regards,
> Golfnorth


You are correct, New Look is it's own public stock company.  Essilor and Shamir both currently supply lenses under contract, but no ownership stake.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris;
> 
> I was not aware that Essilor owned New Look.
> Are you sure?
> 
> Regards,
> Golfnorth*



and 





> *You are correct, New Look is it's own public stock company. Essilor and Shamir both currently supply lenses under contract, but no ownership stake.*



Make you own conclusions. Yes they are a public company, however the boss is a high ranking livelong Essilor career guy.
Check out were they got the funds to make all these recent purchases of the other chains.

Mr. Antoine Amiel is President, Director of the Company. He was Vice Chairman of the Board of the Company. He is an experienced international executive from the optical lens industry. 

Between 2009 and 2012, Mr. Amiel held executive positions within Nikon Essilor Co. Ltd., a Tokyo based joint venture between Nikon Corporation and Essilor International which manufactures and distributes Nikon ophthalmic lenses worldwide. From 2005 to 2012, he was Executive Officer, Vice President International Subsidiaries and CEO of Nikon Optical USA, Canada and United Kingdom. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Amiel was Managing Director of Nikon Optical UK Ltd. From 1999 to 2002, he was Nikon Essilor’s Chief Financial Officer. Prior to his time with the joint venture he held several finance and marketing positions in Asia Pacific and North America

*Chairman Since 2015

Amiel has a master in Corporation Finance from the University de Paris IX Dauphine.

source:
https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/man...-Antoine_Amiel*

----------


## Chris Ryser

*So Figure it out yourself, who is the pulling the strings in this venture.*Here is some more .....................................

The company has accumulated 173.28 M in total debt with debt to equity ratio (D/E) of 123.2 indicating the company may have difficulties to generate enough cash to satisfy its financial obligations. New Look Vision Group has Current Ratio of 1.06 suggesting that it is in a questionable position to pay out its financial obligations in time and when they become due.

source:
https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/man...-Antoine_Amiel


So Figure it out yourself, who is the pulling the strings in this venture.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Look at the forecasts for 2050..................................

see at :  *https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fate-...vitor-pamplona*

----------


## optio

I got something in the mail today. My sense is that this "invite" has been mailed to all ODs and OMDs across Canada. Given their target audience, some general MDs may have been targeted as well.

*E-eyecare*
https://www.e-eyecare.com/

It says it was launched on Aug 15, 2018.  There isn't a lot of info in the packet that was mailed to me, so I visited the website, and from what I gather, it is a "telemedicine", remote-ophthalmology platform. It seems the idea is that any patients I need an OMD consult for (they claim an ability to manage glaucoma, cataract, cornea, neuro, and retina), I can send to them.  Now as of today, not all the links on the website are working, so I only see various pictures and some title-headers, but my sense of the platform is as such:  I'll have some internet-connected computer in my exam room.  It'll have a camera.  If I get a patient I need a consult for, I'll be able to do a face-time thing with a live ophthalmologist somewhere.  He/she will be able to view what I see from my slit-lamp (so my slit-lamp will have a digital-camera as well).  Because there is some sign-up involved, and they claim rapid access to my clinical charts, then for my computer to participate in their platform, it will have to download certain software and I will have to use "their" charts.

I have no idea if this will get off the ground.  Is it futuristic?  Yes.  Is it conceivable that such a telemedicine platform can succeed?  Yes.  Is THIS particular group the one that will succeed in making such a telemedicine platform widespread?  That I don't know.  First, if they are going to announce a "launch" of their platform on Aug 15, and mail invites to professionals across the country, then they should at least ensure their website is up-to-date and working properly.  The "Our Work", "Learn More", and "Join Us" links, and all links beginning halfway down the page aren't working.  The "Medical Director", who signs the invite letter I got, a Dr. Mahta Rasouli, says in multiple online bios that she is the recipient of an "Outstanding Canadian Youth Medal".   That particular bio is in several places online.  When I Google "Outstanding Canadian Youth Medal" in order to see what it is, the only places on the web that reference such an award are links of the same biography.  I think if you're going to feature a big award in a widely-circulated biographical profile, then you should at least get the name of it written correctly.

Anyways - just nitpicking some stuff.  But if you're going to try to revolutionize eyecare, that will require a LOT of work, and a LOT has to be done right.  If whoever is in charge isn't looking after little details like this, my sense is that there'll be another company that will.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *e-eyecare is an innovative softwarethat brings ophthalmic care to the 21st century. This ophthalmology softwareconnects Referring optometrists/general medical practitioners orophthalmologists to other Consultant comprehensive/sub-specialized ophthalmologists,for further assessment and suggestions on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring.
> 
> *





No names, no physical address ..................................

Looks like an idea that has no real backup at this stage, and they are looking for participants that will commit to the idea.

Will take some time to  build up.

----------


## fjpod

We all have to be careful of the proper definition of telemedicine (or telehealth).  In it's true definition, a telemedicine encounter must meet very strict inter-active guidelines in order to be able to bill it to medicare, medicaid, and commercial insurance.    

Virtually all of what is being sold over the internet is not telemedicine.  It is opportunistic internet business.  Oh,... they may say they are high quality, that they bring convenience to the patient, that they save money, that they are altruistic.  Most of these vendors don't even accept insurance but are simply trying to get cash (credit card) payments.  It may have a place.  It may grow, or it may flop.

----------


## optio

There may be even bigger issues stopping optometry from existing in 2035.  Without exaggerating, "modern" society "as the locals know it" may not even exist at that point.  You can argue it already doesn't exist in some places in the world today.

There is a growing plethora of literature discussing the future of the world vis a vis climate change.  The issue is, as the world warms, natural disasters increase in both frequency and intensity.  This not also destroys communities, but a hotter world leads to droughts, famines, mass migrations, and war.  You can argue the "apocalypse" already exists in some places in the world, e.g. hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico and cyclone-ravaged Mozambique and Zimbabwe.  I'm sure some of those living in fire-alley Australia today aren't feeling too well about their prospects.  If your home is gone, it's hard to be thinking about other things other than survival.  For kids growing up in such situations, it's probably hard to remain optimistic about one's future, or even to visualize it.  And things will only get worst.  It is very possible 2020 will be the coldest year of our remaining lifetimes.

Modern society is incompatible with a healthy planet, and we are running headlong into an unknown future.  That said, chances are the economy will collapse before climate change kills any of "us" (first worlders who aren't living on the eastern seaboard or on the Gulf of Mexico).  The next economic downturn will truly be catastrophic, especially with interest rates already at historic lows and debt levels at all-time-highs.  It is entirely possible there will be "no recovery" from the next economic downturn.  And while we're here, let's mention that we are decades past the "due date" for a worldwide flu pandemic (unless the current SARS 2.0 is the one we've been waiting for).

Hopefully we're all still around in 2035 to see how things have turned out.

----------


## optio

You can't time the stock market they say, and you really can't.  But with values at almost all-time-highs, why would anyone want to be even more greedy with the Dow at 29000++?  It was clear last week that coronavirus is an existential threat.  It almost certainly, probably won't be, but the possibility can't be ruled out.  Given the downside risk, timing a "sell" was obvious - things were obviously going to get worse before they got better.  I exited 50% of my holdings last Friday afternoon, right before the post I made above.  Stocks fell (as expected) on Monday, recovered a bit mid-week, and have crashed again.  The timing to get back in, however, will be difficult.  It'll depend on your risk tolerance.  I don't have the crystal ball on that one, but last week's sell was a no-brainer for anyone who did.  (as an aside, do your investing yourself, not through some sales person like a Primerica thief, so that you can stay on top of opportunities like this)

Getting back on-topic, the reality is that in *the* *best-case 2035 scenario*, the only thing we have to worry about is if online refraction (or robots or whatever) has threatened the livelihood of some optometrists.  There are much bigger existential threats on the horizon.

There are some concerns that the entire world equities market is heading for a cliff.  The current value of fossil fuel corporations worldwide is estimated to be worth anywhere between 5 and 20 trillion dollars.  If, in a moment's notice, the prevailing attitude decides that all that equity should undergo a heavy devaluation because of a worldwide move away from non-renewables, then those corporations will be instantly worth trillions of dollars less, erasing enormous value off of people's balance sheets worldwide.  This will cause a financial collapse of almost complete totality, far exceeding anything the world has experienced before with no obvious catalyst for recovery.  At a point where the world would need the natural resources of a healthy, sustainable earth (bountiful fish stocks, healthy forests, etc.) for recovery, would be the very time the world would be unable to provide it.  There is a very obvious reason why Aramco decided to go public last fall. 

In addition to, preceeding, or perhaps compounding the above problem, is that interest rate policy, long used by central banks as their "Stormbreaker" for times of economic malaise, has not recovered anywhere near enough from 2008 to be an effective tool against the next downturn.  So much of the market is based on greed and fear, and given that investors understand this (that further lowering already-depressed interest rates will not be enough to stimulate a distressed economy), people will head for the exists and fast.  Possible "cures" such as MMT and QE are not going to work.  With the world as indebted as it is, either of these "solutions" will cause some fixes in the system, but cause other problems elsewhere. A huge QE, for instance, could strengthen the US economy, but weaken foreign ones (like the Chinese). Given the interconnectedness of the world economy, it would be one step forward for one step back. 

And of course, climate change. This will profoundly affect each of our lives, and likely far sooner than 2035.  It will make, and is already making parts of the world unliveable.  It will cause massive re-assessment of value and much value (e.g. real estate in hurricane or fire-prone areas) will be lost.  Not to mention, as species go extinct and animal numbers collapse, there will be threats to food supply, security, and politically stability.  This is the future.

It is my wish, that in 2035, all we have to concern ourselves with is online refraction and 1-800 Contacts.

----------


## optio

Back in April 2019, Mark Carney (the Canadian who was heading the Bank of England) along with 33 other Central Banks, wrote an open letter to the world about the risk a sudden devaluation of the fossil fuel economy.  This is before Greta became a household-name, before the current Australia wildfires, and before the current zeitgeist that accepts that the world truly is on fire.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news...inancial-risks
_"If the financial community acts on these recommendations we will be two big steps closer to ensuring an orderly transition to a low-carbon economy. We recognise that the challenges we face are unprecedented, urgent and analytically difficult. The stakes are undoubtedly high, but the commitment of all actors in the financial system to act on these recommendations will help avoid a climate-driven “Minsky moment” – the term we use to refer to a sudden collapse in asset prices."_

No one knows when the pop will occur, but when it does, it will be catastrophic.  1929 will look like a mild recessionary bump.  The world economy will be destroyed.  And I believe it is reasonable to suppose this will probably happen before 2035.

----------


## optio

So still a bit OT for this board, but I wanted to add to the idea I alluded to above.  A collapse in the oil industry (and therefore the world economy) may not be caused by a shift to renewables - it could be by a far worse "reason":  the future inability of the industry to be profitable.  This is serious.

*Government Agency Warns Global Oil Industry Is on the Brink of a Meltdown* (Feb 4 2020)
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8848g5/government-agency-warns-global-oil-industry-is-on-the-brink-of-a-meltdown
_We are not running out of oil, but it's becoming uneconomical to exploit it—another reason we need to move to renewables as quickly as possible._

Bottom line is this.  There is plenty of fossil fuels in the world. Problem is, we've mined all the "easy to get to" conventional stuff already. What remains, is ever-more-difficult and more-costly-to-access sources (deep offshore, oil sands, shale), so that the costs associated with extraction makes such ventures uneconomical - too little ROI and therefore a collapsing industry. This reminds me of the premise of some who say that the current world economy wasn't a product of democracy, capitalism, or economic policy, but from cheap energy. In the 1800s, all you had to do was stick a hole in the ground and out came liquid gold.  It was, the argument goes, all that plentiful free energy (and not any particular financial policy) that powered the development of today's economies.

But the world relies on (requires?) oil to remain below a certain cost in order to keep its economy functioning.  It can at most afford oil at $100/barrel, but it is becoming increasingly impossible to extract and sell oil profitably at that price.  Bottom line is that the cheap energy that powered the creation of our civilization is nearing its end.  There will be massive consequences for this.  To say the problem is existential is not an exaggeration. If there is no gas to buy, how does the economy function?

*“To phase out petroleum products (and fossil fuels in general), the entire global industrial ecosystem will need to be reengineered, retooled and fundamentally rebuilt," the report notes. "This will be perhaps the greatest industrial challenge the world has ever faced historically.”*

----------


## optio

You may want to stock up on food.

----------


## optio

Covid-19 will be very unhelpful for young optometrists of the future. Historically, economic crises are what have always led to the biggest structural changes in the marketplace.  The panic of 1907 led to the creation of the Federal Reserve, the WW1 economy led to women having a role in the workforce (as well as universal suffrage) and trade unions, and WW2 resulted in the creation of a huge consumer economy and widespread access to education. (I could go on. 2008 resulted in the disappearance of full time work/benefits and the creation of the gig economy...)

There will be an untold number of changes because of Covid-19, but one obvious change will be the growth and establishment of telemedicine. Actually, if I were in charge of one of those online refraction platforms today, I would be doing everything I could to leverage this pandemic to have as many people do at-home DIY "eye exams" as possible (one can easily conceive of some coronavirus-related "promotion" like a free trial, which would not only entice first-time users, but could also generate themselves lots of valuable publicity). A second thing I would do, is try to expand from refraction, by adding health elements of eye exams, since going forward, remote examination will have broad acceptance, so the only roadblock would be the mechanics of actually getting them done. Telemedicine will result in a decreased need for physical chair time, and as such, a decreased need for actual practitioners. I'd personally be very concerned if I was a Canadian optometry student who wasn't paying a Canadian tuition (e.g. a Canadian studying in the US) about my ability to make that financial investment pay off. It was already probably a very borderline investment to begin with and Covid just made it a lot worse. For Canadian students in the US right now, I imagine a delayed graduation is a distinct possibility, not to mention the uncertainty around arranging externships, board exams, etc. Not to mention the plummeting CAN/USD exchange rate.

Covid, perhaps the biggest economic shock of our lifetimes (and this saying a lot since we lived through the GFC, though climate catastrophe will be worse) will be a net negative for optometry going forward. There will be a smaller need for optometrists (in terms of how many of us are required) by 2035.

----------


## optio

Is The Next Downturn Coming?
- If its due to fear of environmental collapse, it will be very bad

Predicting the exact timing of financial downturns is impossible, but there are times when the signs of a correction are ubiquitous. Years of ZIRP because of 2008 followed by even more liquidity due to Covid, has resulted in massive asset and even non-asset bubbles. When people are putting billions of dollars of real money into absolutely nothing (crypto, GME, AMC) and deli stores with 35K sales/year have a market cap of 100 million (look up Your Hometown deli in New Jersey), then it probably means we're closer to the top than to the bottom. No one is in cash these days because interest rates are zero. So equities are at maximum valuations, but not only that, people have been finding all sorts of ways to spend their money like investing in intrinsically valueless assets like digital NFTs and crypto currencies. If you look at historical bubbles, right before the pop there was always signs of excess.  2007 housing, 1999 dot-com, 1929 roaring twenties, etc. There is a future for blockchain technology but can anyone argue with a straight face that we can sustain all of Bitcoin, Dogecoin, poopcoin, Safemoon, Ethereum, Ethereum Junior, and Ethereum & Friends? People are just piling all their money into these things, yet there is literally nothing there.  When sentiment craters, people will realize the emperor has no clothes. Who is going to buy all these worthless beanie babies?  We're therefore at a top. So now what?

I think it's worth thinking back to late 2019, early 2020, before Covid, and when I made a lot of the posts above. The Australia wildfires I think were a psychological turning point for many in a way that previous environmental disasters were not.  The G7 country of Australia became ground zero symbolizing the new world we find ourselves in.  For several months, the world saw those lush green forests on fire, and orange skies over the Sydney Opera House. I think for many, it was then that the climate problem became real.  Then we had Covid, so everyone forgot again.  But there will be another fire season this year. Reports everywhere are expecting it to be really bad.

There will be a day when the world will realize there is no infinite future of infinite growth. We live on a non-infinite planet. If and when that realization occurs, when bankers and investors realize that we are long past our carrying capacity, that nature giveths but also takeths away, and that the primary assumption that undergirds our entire capitalist financial system is wrong, there will be a reckoning.  One day people will realize we cannot keep cutting down trees and poisoning oceans into eternity, and that these actions will eventually result in business revenues and GDP to fall. An increasingly decimated ecosystem is a negative influencer for stock valuations.  That will be reflected in the markets as fear. There will be a 1929, but with no recovery.  The entire process will potentially take years, with fits and starts, but it will occur.  We live beside a hen that lays golden eggs, but that hen has been neglected and abused, so one day there will be no more eggs, or at least they will be much smaller and fewer between.  When people realize that not policy but the environment is the superstructure of the economy and that superstructure is failing, it will probably be THE inflection point of this short history of civilized humanity.  When the economy crashes due to the fear of coming ecological collapse, there will be no return.

I don't know when THE crash will occur due to a realization of a non-infinite-growth future but it will happen one day. This CNN article from 2 days ago reports the IMF says that climate change can cause a financial crisis. 

*Climate change could ignite a financial crisis, IMF official says*
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/03/inves...imf/index.html

What's incredible to me is that a concept like this can actually be considered news. Is it not obvious that our economy is based on taking the living and turning it into the dead?  What we define as GDP is actually taking forests and rivers and polluting them so that we can have money in our bank accounts.  Production of "natural resources" is simply the destruction of nature. Every facet of our economy is about causing pollution.  When I buy grapes from South Africa for $1.99/pound, it's because the cost of the pollution caused in packaging then shipping them to my local Walmart is borne by Mother Earth.  How else can I get grapes from the other side of the world so cheap?  It's because all that gas and plastic pollution went into the environment for free. No one had to pay for it. Except the environment.

Getting back to the market bubble, we're somewhere near a market top.  We're also coming into a drought/fire season that may result in months and months of seeing the world on fire in the way Australia was.  In this case, it'll be the U.S. and in particular, California.  I think, therefore, there'll be incoming reasons for financial pessimism.  This most certainly will not be the final financial collapse, but I'm thinking there's a pullback coming. 

I would like to say that some people believe the already frothy markets will continue to stay on fire for the next two years due to re-opening.  They argue the high P/E ratios now will correct themselves as companies see their growth rebound. I think these arguments are fine, but they don't preclude a near-term correction. So what I'm arguing is not necessarily a crash, but the circumstances exist for the possibility of a big correction.  The final death-throe collapse, hopefully, is still a while away.

Lastly, I read someone's financial opinion yesterday - he said he felt Bitcoin was a forward indicator of the market. BTC peaked in April.  He felt markets lagged BTC by 2 months. So we're about there now. So if you're trying to time the markets, that's something to think about.

*Drought saps California reservoirs as dry summer looms*
https://apnews.com/article/californi...f46880ed6dab9c

*Shocking photos show impact of California drought*
https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-b1859667.html

*California faces worst drought in decades: 'Economic disaster'*
https://www.foxnews.com/science/cali...nomic-disaster

*A severe drought is gripping the Western U.S. as wildfire season begins*
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/04/drou...on-begins.html

----------


## optio

FWIW, I literally called a top. My post above occurred on Saturday June 5.  End of day June 4 was a recent peak.


I emptied a single account that June 4, going all cash, then this past Monday, I dumped it all into inverse Bitcoin (BITI) at 19.50.  Up 10K this week.

----------


## optio

*Are we mispricing climate risks or not pricing them at all? * (June 17, 2021)
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-e...ng-them-at-all
_"The IMF has recently warned equity investors that they are not sufficiently pricing climate change risks."_

Not sufficiently pricing climate change risk?  I personally agree with the title that we're not pricing them at all.

Climate change is an existential risk for civilization. For the markets to be ignoring it in its entirety, is truly mind-boggling. What this also means, is the moment the market DOES recognize it, the collapse in equity values will be catastrophic. Climate change is not going to be fixed in our lifetimes.



40% of the worst California wildfires since 1930 occurred in 2020. This year is predicted to be worse.

There will be a day when the markets realize the earth is no longer going to be "Business-As-Usual".  As temperatures rise, so will droughts, so will wildfires.  We'll be spending more and more GDP on fighting disasters, not growing the economy.  As temperatures heat up, weather patterns slow, meaning areas with rain will be inundated and dry areas will become more parched.  This will affect food growth and agriculture.  The point is, things are on a downwards trajectory but the markets do not consider any of this.  It's been a down week on the DJIA.  Are people going to realize soon that dogecoin, AMC and digital NFTs really aren't worth a trillion dollars? 

There will be a day when the markets realize the world we are in now.  It's hard to predict when that will happen but as I mentioned, this year's fire season is going to be very bad.  When there's daily news in July and August of how California is being burned to the ground, that could wake people up.  

You may want to decide if you want to be in this market or not.  I think it would be prudent to be defensive.

----------


## KrystleClear

I am sure we have all seen those "dump your eye doctor" commercials advertising an online refraction/contact lens renewal service. It's a little scary to me. How can an app or an optometrist tell if you have corneal neovascularization from contact lens overwear/abuse when they aren't physically present to examine your eyes? Of course, the fine print is that you should still see an eye doctor but they over-estimate how much concern the public has for eye health. I had a room-mate once who was wearing daily contacts for three years, so he claimed. I doubt there was even anything left.

There needs to be an industry push for the importance of seeing an eye doctor routinely. Our optometrist and ophthalmologist have predicted that patients are at risk of stroke or have already had a stroke long before the primary care doctors have. They have discovered patients were diabetic who had not been diagnosed by their PCPs. We can glean a great deal from a comprehensive dilated eye examination. It's crazy to me that we often see patients in their forties and fifties who have never had an eye exam outside of the very basic one done by the school nurse back in grade school.

Also, yes, we are basically at the point of no return as far as climate change goes. Just this week there are reports of fire-nados. Yikes. Scientists are warning us that the moon's wobble combined with rising sea levels due to melting polar ice will cause extreme flooding. Business cannot continue as usual. Tinfoil hat though here, but part of me suspects the billionaire space race is really them planning their exit if and when the crap hits the fan. Maybe they'll bring some of us peasants along. They will still need eye exams, glasses, and eye surgery in space, right?  :Unsure:

----------

