Friday, August 07, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
What a total punk (Congress stinks!).
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” - House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Professional politicans, for the most part, are scum. These people are going to socialize one sixth of the American economy, and these pukes who are voting on it will not even read the bill. If it's too long and complicated to read, perhaps that's a sign that it's too complicated and full of things they want to hide from the American people.
Punks.
Professional politicans, for the most part, are scum. These people are going to socialize one sixth of the American economy, and these pukes who are voting on it will not even read the bill. If it's too long and complicated to read, perhaps that's a sign that it's too complicated and full of things they want to hide from the American people.
Punks.
Nothing to worry about....
Interesting quick article about a geologist who's working to debunk the myth of man-made global warming. Considering my last post about getting shouted down by "people of science" who's bias makes them unwilling to even listen to an opposing viewpoint, I thought it was interesting he has trouble getting the book published:
"That book [A Brief History of Planet Earth], published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become."
Hmmm... a best selling author who can't find a publisher for a new book because of intimidation from the environmental nazis. That's "open" mindedness for you ;-).
Full article here.
"That book [A Brief History of Planet Earth], published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become."
Hmmm... a best selling author who can't find a publisher for a new book because of intimidation from the environmental nazis. That's "open" mindedness for you ;-).
Full article here.
Monday, July 06, 2009
How dare you not assimilate!
I was at a baseball game the other day with a friend when the topic of global warming came up. He asked, “are you one of these people who don’t believe there is a problem?” This is always a tough question for me to answer—not because I don’t know what I think, but because I’m internally doing the calculus around “is this person going to bother listening to what I have to say?”
The problem with global warming is that it has fallen into the “everybody knows” category, meaning that the “fact” that man is killing the Earth through various activities is a known fact, and questioning this in ANY way puts you on par with the “Flat Earth” set. Well, I am not a global warming denier, but having doubts or even asking for clarification does not make me into a criminal. Perfectly “normal” everyday people will shout you down in a heartbeat, “oh come ON! Don’t know anything?”
The irony is that the people shouting you down are typically the ones that have been spoon-fed their information. They’ve heard it enough times that they’re more than comfortable feeling smart by tearing down your opinion, though they haven’t a scientific bone in their body, and haven’t bothered to ever consider a single dissenting opinion. Real “informed.”
The very real truth is that global warming is an uber-politicized issue. That by definition makes it ripe for misinformation and exaggeration. People who take the time to think about the issue would of course be on guard for biased opinion.
The Wall Street Journal had an op-ed the other day about the EPA’s silencing of a noted NASA scientist and global warming critic. (The EPA silences a climate skeptic). Alan Carlin, a 35 year veteran of the EPA doesn’t believe in global warming. Having amassed an argument against man made global warming, your government, in the form of the EPA management has silenced him. Essentially telling him to not publish or speak on the topic if he values his job.
If “everyone knows” that man made global warming is a fact, and the proof is absolutely incontrovertible, why are so many so threatened by people who ask questions? Hmmm… could it be that the Al Gore stands to benefit personally from the “fact” of global warming? Could it be that Democrats and their henchman at Goldman Sachs stand to benefit both politically (power grab) and economically from a massive Cap & Trade system? Funny, I don’t stand to make a dime from asking for a little more proof.
The problem with global warming is that it has fallen into the “everybody knows” category, meaning that the “fact” that man is killing the Earth through various activities is a known fact, and questioning this in ANY way puts you on par with the “Flat Earth” set. Well, I am not a global warming denier, but having doubts or even asking for clarification does not make me into a criminal. Perfectly “normal” everyday people will shout you down in a heartbeat, “oh come ON! Don’t know anything?”
The irony is that the people shouting you down are typically the ones that have been spoon-fed their information. They’ve heard it enough times that they’re more than comfortable feeling smart by tearing down your opinion, though they haven’t a scientific bone in their body, and haven’t bothered to ever consider a single dissenting opinion. Real “informed.”
The very real truth is that global warming is an uber-politicized issue. That by definition makes it ripe for misinformation and exaggeration. People who take the time to think about the issue would of course be on guard for biased opinion.
The Wall Street Journal had an op-ed the other day about the EPA’s silencing of a noted NASA scientist and global warming critic. (The EPA silences a climate skeptic). Alan Carlin, a 35 year veteran of the EPA doesn’t believe in global warming. Having amassed an argument against man made global warming, your government, in the form of the EPA management has silenced him. Essentially telling him to not publish or speak on the topic if he values his job.
If “everyone knows” that man made global warming is a fact, and the proof is absolutely incontrovertible, why are so many so threatened by people who ask questions? Hmmm… could it be that the Al Gore stands to benefit personally from the “fact” of global warming? Could it be that Democrats and their henchman at Goldman Sachs stand to benefit both politically (power grab) and economically from a massive Cap & Trade system? Funny, I don’t stand to make a dime from asking for a little more proof.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
True now more than ever...
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' "
- Ronald Reagan
Sunday, June 21, 2009
It's the Government's fault
A few months ago, I was driving home and passing by the Boston Federal Reserve building and saw a huge protest against the Fed. Ever since my UMASS days I have always thought that protesters are usually...well, stupid. Okay, I'm not a "protest" guy. Not so much because I don't believe (hey, it's meaningful in Tehran), but more that the activity gets so watered down when people protest at the drop of a hat.
My first reaction the protestors, which included small childred with signs demanding "End the FED!" (you have to be an adult to even remotely understand the arcana of "the FED"), was that these people were moonbat, beatnick, nutjobs... I mean hey, someone has to clear our checks, and set interest rates....right? Right?
After reading Ron Paul's book, The Revolution, A Manifesto, I signed up for a Ron Paul mailing list somewhere, and the Congressman Paul's recomendation of this book is what turned me on to it. Well, I have to say that after reading Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, next time, I might be making my own sign and joinging the protest.
If you're a free market guy, or proclaim to be, this is a must read. It hits home. This book makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. The ENTIRE point of the belief in free markets is that individuals (in aggregate) will always make better decisions with their money and resources than a third party (e.g. government). As any economist will tell you, the "price" of anything is a piece of information. In order for free markets to work...prices must float and be determined by supply and demand. Allowing the market to work is what sets the right price for any product or service.
What this book does best, is explain the problem of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is essentially a central planning entity that sets the price of money. It's price controls. The Fed's price controls essentially screw up the free market by setting prices at the most basic level of a free market economy. "Fiat money," that is money that is controlled by a centrally planned entity (in this case the Federal Reserve board) drives the business boom/bust cycle that we experience in our economy. It also provides an irresistable, crack-cocaine-like opportunity for governments to devalue money by just printing more.
It's government's fault. Centrally planned money is subject to the whims, foibles, and just plain corrupt motives of a small set of people in our goverment (The Fed, plus the political pressure of Washington D.C.). The right solution, as this book also advocates, is "Commodity money." The United States should go to the Gold standard as fast as possible. Do not "pass Go," and we WILL collect "$200" in the form of stable money that will gain value over time.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Federal Reserve has got to go!"
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Question Mr. President...
"Thank you Mr. President. You have been President now for over two months. Can you give a timeframe tonight to the American people that you will commit to stop answering every quesiton with the words, "I didn't create these problems, I inherited them. This is how it was when I got here...?"
Thursday, March 05, 2009
"Work, ideas, innovation..."
There is a great article in today's WSJ by Daniel Henniger called "Has Obama buried Reagan?"
The article makes the perfect point that if we could get one person who could explain Reganomics (a.k.a. ECONOMIC GROWTH!) only HALF as well as Ronald Reagan, we'd win back this country. As a conservative it is SO frustrating that nationaly known Republicans are so poor at articulating our basic fiscal values. Who are these gutless idiots? For crying out loud-- LOW TAXES, Stable MONETARY POLICY, BALANCED BUDGETS throug smaller and smaller governement...And for the love of God almighty -- FREEDOM!!!! LIBERTY! Why can't these LOSERS get this basic concept out there. We're Americans, we don't need this disgusting, revolting nanny state that Obamunism is foisting upon us.
Rush is totally right. DO NOT BE EMBARASSED TO BE CONSERVATIVE. This IS a Conservative-right nation. Even people who don't consider themselves conseravtive DO act and believe based on fiscal conservative values.
Henniger is right - Economics in one Lesson, Free to Choose, The Reagan Diaries...if only they taught these texts in school!
Sigh.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Heeeeeeeer's Socialism!!!
....er....I thought the automobile was invented in Germany.
Did he just promise to cure cancer?
Socialized health care...this year? Don't get sick.
Monday, February 23, 2009
A Bipartisan idea for the Stimulus
William J. Suntz’s cover article in the February 23, 2009 issue of The Weekly Standard entitled “Law and Disorder – the case for a police ‘surge,’” is brilliant. What’s more, if it was in a different publication (say, The Atlantic, or Newsweek) its premise would be falling off the lips of both Democrats and Republicans. The basic premise of the piece is that as the “surge” in Iraq was successful in tamping down violence there, so could a domestic surge of Police quell the violence in the United State’s urban centers.
The author points out that the front line of America’s race problem is very much entwined with the crime rate. You probably wouldn’t be shocked to learn that poor black neighborhoods have a much higher murder rate that the suburbs – but listen to the actual numbers. “In the United States in 2005, the homicide rate among wintes stood at 3.5 per 100,000. Among blacks, the figure was 26.5.” Almost eight times the rate! The argument he goes on to make is compelling, that government is falling flat on it’s obligation to keep urban black populations safe. That is racism, isn’t it? (Related 2005 posting).
Stunz makes the case that the correct response to crime in urban centers is not more efficient imprisonment of offenders, but rather deterrence brought about by the increased safety felt by a community:
“The answer is the same in American cities as in Iraqi ones. General Patraeus saw the process: Increase soldiers’ street presence, make civilians feel safe, and the local traffic increases; before long, the streets are inhospitable to terrorists and militia members. Over time, the real work of pacification is done by civilians reclaiming their own streets.”
Stunz goes on to make a nice comparison of criminal acceptance of risk and price stability. As he puts it, “Criminals are what economists call ‘risk-preferring;’ they enjoy taking changes.” He points out that when punishment for crimes varies widely, it’s a form of “price-instability,” more like a lottery. “Fluctuating ‘prices’ thus rob criminal punishment of its deterrent power.” I think this example is interesting and it makes sense – the decision to commit a crime is of course – at least by the rational minded – weighed against potential consequences. Potential crime is only prevented when the prevailing feeling is you’re more likely to get caught than not.
This article is so commonsense it makes you wish you could make every politician sit and absorb it. The sad part, as pointed out in the beginning of the article, is that with all this completely wasted (my words) spending in the stimulus package, we could easily finance a surge in police officers across America’s violent urban neighborhoods. The first and maybe most important purpose of government is protecting its citizens. We’re spending crazy amounts of money anyway – why wouldn’t bringing safety and security to all neighborhoods be something both Democrats and Republicans would support? Surge or no surge, that is government spending I can get behind!
The author points out that the front line of America’s race problem is very much entwined with the crime rate. You probably wouldn’t be shocked to learn that poor black neighborhoods have a much higher murder rate that the suburbs – but listen to the actual numbers. “In the United States in 2005, the homicide rate among wintes stood at 3.5 per 100,000. Among blacks, the figure was 26.5.” Almost eight times the rate! The argument he goes on to make is compelling, that government is falling flat on it’s obligation to keep urban black populations safe. That is racism, isn’t it? (Related 2005 posting).
Stunz makes the case that the correct response to crime in urban centers is not more efficient imprisonment of offenders, but rather deterrence brought about by the increased safety felt by a community:
“The answer is the same in American cities as in Iraqi ones. General Patraeus saw the process: Increase soldiers’ street presence, make civilians feel safe, and the local traffic increases; before long, the streets are inhospitable to terrorists and militia members. Over time, the real work of pacification is done by civilians reclaiming their own streets.”
Stunz goes on to make a nice comparison of criminal acceptance of risk and price stability. As he puts it, “Criminals are what economists call ‘risk-preferring;’ they enjoy taking changes.” He points out that when punishment for crimes varies widely, it’s a form of “price-instability,” more like a lottery. “Fluctuating ‘prices’ thus rob criminal punishment of its deterrent power.” I think this example is interesting and it makes sense – the decision to commit a crime is of course – at least by the rational minded – weighed against potential consequences. Potential crime is only prevented when the prevailing feeling is you’re more likely to get caught than not.
This article is so commonsense it makes you wish you could make every politician sit and absorb it. The sad part, as pointed out in the beginning of the article, is that with all this completely wasted (my words) spending in the stimulus package, we could easily finance a surge in police officers across America’s violent urban neighborhoods. The first and maybe most important purpose of government is protecting its citizens. We’re spending crazy amounts of money anyway – why wouldn’t bringing safety and security to all neighborhoods be something both Democrats and Republicans would support? Surge or no surge, that is government spending I can get behind!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Bill Gates on Talent Management
Bill Gates directly addressed the issue of Talent Management in education during his address at last week’s TED conference. After an initial discussion of the battle against Malaria in the poorest parts of the world (complete with an actual release of mosquitoes into the crowd) Gates gives a great example of a true Performance Management process at work. It’s useful to look at because it mirrors exactly what HR professionals would like to accomplish inside of their own organizations.
You can watch the video of the talk here (the Malaria discussion is about ten minutes at the start): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_unplugged.html
As you watch the discussion, note each piece or step of an integrated talent management process that comes into play:
1. Defining Organizational Goals – In the U.S. the top 20% of individuals get a superior education, but the balance of people are continually getting a less and less competitive education versus some other countries. The goal then is to increase the performance of the bottom 80%.
2. Identifying key Jobs that affect the desired outcome – Gates presents evidence from studies that show the difference in performance between top quartile teachers and bottom quartile. It turns out that teachers in the top quartile are able to increase the performance of their classes on test scores by 10% in a single year.
Gates puts an exclamation point on this with the example, “If the entire U.S. for two years had top quartile math teachers, the entire difference in test scores between us and Asia would go away.” This of course begs the question, how do we find, recruit, and or grow more top performing teachers?
3. Characterizing what predicts success in that role (Competencies, Skills, and Experience) – Once you’ve decided which key jobs drive the economic value of your company, or in this case your organizational goal to improve education, you need to describe what traits are predictive of success (in say, your Job Profile!) Gates simply asks, “How do you make a great teacher?”
Mr. Gates then takes us through a quick set of attributes that might be predictive of what makes a top quartile teacher: Seniority, whether the person participated in Teach for America, whether they have a math degree (he’s talking about math teachers), or whether the person has a Master’s degree. In real life of course, there might be 10, 20 or 100 different measures.
4. Measuring variability of performance in that job – Gates illustrates the problem of feedback in the teaching role. He actually hits on what is more of an Education specific issue – that is, that teacher’s contract might only allow a principal to observe in his or her classroom a single time a year, and only with notice. The problem is the total lack of coaching or feedback on the behaviors and competencies that make someone a great teacher. Union issues aside, there are certainly comparisons to the once a year appraisal process common in most corporate settings. Does anyone believe that type of appraisal process is core to changing the behaviors that drive top quartile performance? Of course not!
5. Turnover & Retention in that role – Guess what? According to Gates, “On average, the slightly better teachers leave teaching. There’s a lot of turnover.” That may have a lot to do with the next step…
6. Pay-for-Performance – Spoiler alert. If you haven’t watched the video, this ruins the payoff. As it turns out, the characteristics that are predictive of top quartile performance map out like this:
- Possession of a Master’s Degree: Almost no effect
- Teach for America: A little bit more effect
- Math major in college: A bit more effect
- Actual past top performance: GINORMOUS effect
Gates kicker in this section, of course, is around the pay portion. What do teachers get bumps in pay for? Seniority, and earning a Master’s degree.
7. Coaching & Learning and Development – Finally, the most optimistic part of Gate’s presentation comes at the end. If you can move around some of the incentive systems the real opportunity is around developing individual teachers. Using various tools to coach and develop individuals, the hope is that they can encourage the behaviors that drive top quartile performance.
The one major piece of a talent management process Gates doesn’t mention in all this is Recruiting. However, from here it’s an easy leap to see the value in integrated talent management. If we fully understand our Organizational goals, the jobs that drive the goals, and the job behaviors that predict top performance, we can focus hiring efforts on measuring those behaviors and skills.
Did you notice there is no discussion here about managing “A” players? While you want to identify key players, it’s not to manage them, it’s to learn what behavioral competencies they use to produce top performance. The “managing” part is about managing “A” jobs. How do I reduce the variability of performance in the key roles that drive my Organizational goals? By focusing on a foundational piece of the system, in this case jobs, they’re looking to increase the performance of the whole. THAT takes an integrated approach to talent management. Of course, there’s no discussion here of technology, just the process. However, in practice, you must have technology in place to support a systematic approach to this many individuals.
“By thinking of this as a Personnel system, we can do it better.” - Bill Gates
You can watch the video of the talk here (the Malaria discussion is about ten minutes at the start): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_unplugged.html
As you watch the discussion, note each piece or step of an integrated talent management process that comes into play:
1. Defining Organizational Goals – In the U.S. the top 20% of individuals get a superior education, but the balance of people are continually getting a less and less competitive education versus some other countries. The goal then is to increase the performance of the bottom 80%.
2. Identifying key Jobs that affect the desired outcome – Gates presents evidence from studies that show the difference in performance between top quartile teachers and bottom quartile. It turns out that teachers in the top quartile are able to increase the performance of their classes on test scores by 10% in a single year.
Gates puts an exclamation point on this with the example, “If the entire U.S. for two years had top quartile math teachers, the entire difference in test scores between us and Asia would go away.” This of course begs the question, how do we find, recruit, and or grow more top performing teachers?
3. Characterizing what predicts success in that role (Competencies, Skills, and Experience) – Once you’ve decided which key jobs drive the economic value of your company, or in this case your organizational goal to improve education, you need to describe what traits are predictive of success (in say, your Job Profile!) Gates simply asks, “How do you make a great teacher?”
Mr. Gates then takes us through a quick set of attributes that might be predictive of what makes a top quartile teacher: Seniority, whether the person participated in Teach for America, whether they have a math degree (he’s talking about math teachers), or whether the person has a Master’s degree. In real life of course, there might be 10, 20 or 100 different measures.
4. Measuring variability of performance in that job – Gates illustrates the problem of feedback in the teaching role. He actually hits on what is more of an Education specific issue – that is, that teacher’s contract might only allow a principal to observe in his or her classroom a single time a year, and only with notice. The problem is the total lack of coaching or feedback on the behaviors and competencies that make someone a great teacher. Union issues aside, there are certainly comparisons to the once a year appraisal process common in most corporate settings. Does anyone believe that type of appraisal process is core to changing the behaviors that drive top quartile performance? Of course not!
5. Turnover & Retention in that role – Guess what? According to Gates, “On average, the slightly better teachers leave teaching. There’s a lot of turnover.” That may have a lot to do with the next step…
6. Pay-for-Performance – Spoiler alert. If you haven’t watched the video, this ruins the payoff. As it turns out, the characteristics that are predictive of top quartile performance map out like this:
- Possession of a Master’s Degree: Almost no effect
- Teach for America: A little bit more effect
- Math major in college: A bit more effect
- Actual past top performance: GINORMOUS effect
Gates kicker in this section, of course, is around the pay portion. What do teachers get bumps in pay for? Seniority, and earning a Master’s degree.
7. Coaching & Learning and Development – Finally, the most optimistic part of Gate’s presentation comes at the end. If you can move around some of the incentive systems the real opportunity is around developing individual teachers. Using various tools to coach and develop individuals, the hope is that they can encourage the behaviors that drive top quartile performance.
The one major piece of a talent management process Gates doesn’t mention in all this is Recruiting. However, from here it’s an easy leap to see the value in integrated talent management. If we fully understand our Organizational goals, the jobs that drive the goals, and the job behaviors that predict top performance, we can focus hiring efforts on measuring those behaviors and skills.
Did you notice there is no discussion here about managing “A” players? While you want to identify key players, it’s not to manage them, it’s to learn what behavioral competencies they use to produce top performance. The “managing” part is about managing “A” jobs. How do I reduce the variability of performance in the key roles that drive my Organizational goals? By focusing on a foundational piece of the system, in this case jobs, they’re looking to increase the performance of the whole. THAT takes an integrated approach to talent management. Of course, there’s no discussion here of technology, just the process. However, in practice, you must have technology in place to support a systematic approach to this many individuals.
“By thinking of this as a Personnel system, we can do it better.” - Bill Gates
Monday, February 09, 2009
Less Thomas, more Milton...
After reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman, I have to say that what the United States really needs is not the prescriptions of Thomas Friedman, but a big dose of Milton Friedman!
With my dig out of the way, I have to go on to say that I consider Thomas Friedman must reading. The World is Flat and the Lexus & the Olive tree were both great reads, and Hot Flat and Crowded is just as interesting. While I ended up disagreeing with his conclusions, the reading is certainly fascinating and a great addition to the conversation on the environment.
The most interesting discussion in the book was about the correlation between freedom in the world and the price of oil at any given time. Studies have shown that when a worldwide “freedom index” (an amalgamation of different factors including free elections and other characteristics of free societies) is compared to the prevailing price of oil, a surprising correlation of less freedom comes with a higher price of oil. Basically, it works like this. The higher the price of oil, the more money Petro-dictators have to give away free goodies (in the form of social subsides) to their people. Then in turn, the higher level of goodies, the lower social unrest in these countries. Unfortunately, in return for higher standard of living/handouts, those same people are willing to live with reduced freedom. Or at the very least, it’s harder to get an opposition movement going.
The reverse is true as well. The lower the price of oil, the harder it is for Petro-dictators like you’ll find in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Russia to hold onto their tyranny. Friedman claims this is one of his main points when speaking in front of conservative groups who might be less interested in his global warming message. I have to say, the value of low-priced oil for national security reasons is compelling on its own. I just differ on how to get there (drill here, drill now!)
That discussion is worth the cost of the book on it’s own. Friedman than goes on to discuss several other aspects of the battle against global warming. If there is a flaw in the book, it’s Friedman’s total hook, line, and sinker buy-in to man-made global warming. Assumption after assumption is presented as fact, and if you don’t agree that it’s irrefutable facts you’re a “naysayer.” In the end it doesn’t matter. Even a naysayer like me sees the great benefits to a green revolution (“you had me at national security”).
My real point of contention with Friedman is his gas tax. He rightly observes that high oil prices represent a price signal makes a market for alternative energy. He’s also right that the unpredictable price volatility prevents true private sector investment in alternative energies (why would I put 100 million into wind-farms technology when oil might be a dollar cheaper six months from now – as it’s turned out to be).
It is the kind of conundrum that argues for some type of government intervention. Even a laissez-faire kind of guy like me can almost get over that (almost). Friedman’s solution is to tax you more. He’d like to put a floor on the price of a gallon of gas – still allowing shifting in the price, but any savings below a certain floor determine the amount of the tax (e.g. If the “real” price of gas is $2.50 and the floor is set at $3.00, Uncle Sam nets fifty cents). His goal is to set the price high enough and stable enough to foster investment in alternative energy sources.
It would be one discussion if this new consumption tax was offset with a reduction in other taxes such as income, but Friedman basically chalks it up to “hey, extra revenue for the government!” The real problem in my mind is the distortion of the market. “Price” is the most important piece of information for effective free markets, and price controls always corrupt the outcome. Because of that I just cannot get on board, as seductive as it might sound.
The real solution is in the passage on moon shot versus “1,000 garages.” The question he’s looking at is about whether this effort is a massive “moon shot” effort that needs an enormous centralized government solution, or whether it instead will get solved by the thousands of inventors and entrepreneurs out there. It seems to me that rather than mucking up a perfectly good free market system (bounded by law/contracts), why not sponsor the equivalent of the Ansari X Prize? Heck, we’re talking government here…even if you made the prize “one BILLLION dollars,” it would still be cheaper for American tax payer.
The Price of Everything
"The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity," should be required reading in every high school across America!
The book explains "how the world works" in the form of a parable. A young, professional tennis player is dismayed when a local hardware store raises its prices after a natural disaster in his town. The obvious "price gouging" infuriates him and he becomes the spokesman against the big box retailer in an on-campus movement at Stanford. When our hero's girlfriend comes home and talks about her unique economics professor the action is just getting started.
It's not such a page turner that I'm really risking ruining the ending for you here, but I'll save you the details. It's a parable, so it's about the lesson more than the story. The reason I loved the book is that it is able to explain in plain terms a free market system and how it works. Not a demand curve in sight but you'll take more away from this book than any basic economics class you had in college!
Monday, June 16, 2008
So incredibly sad about Tim Russert
You know I'm not even sure what year I started watching Meet the Press with Tim Russert. I believe it was in the early 90's, sometime around the time when I was newly married and had a new baby daughter. Watching all the Tim Russert tribute shows this weekend I figured out that it was only in 1991 that Tim took over the show. For years and years now it has just been an assumption that nothing happened on Sunday morning until after 11:30 when MTP was over. Has driven more than one girlfriend in the past crazy (until the invention of Tivo!).
You know I completely forgot I had this blog thing. At some point it just seemed to be me yelling into the big "nothing." Either that or me just way too enthralled with my own thinking that night. I think i remembered it tonight because I just want to record how much i hate, absolutely hate the fact that Tim Russert is gone. I loved MTP with Tim Russert. LOOOOVED it. I would never miss it if I could help it. Friday was just an absolute shock. Tim Russert was just an "assumption," just part of my Sunday morning.
Lots of people have talked about how good he was at interviewing people and I agree with all of that. Now that he's gone, what I think about is just the "comfort" factor. There were certain things that were just part of the experience: "Our issues this week," and "If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press."
I saw some thing on Drudge or somewhere that linked to an article that had mild surprise at the reaction, that Tim was being treated like a head of state. I can't believe there would ever be anything but such a reaction. I mean really - Tim was the guy that kept those bastards on Captial Hill honest, right? I know they're not all bastards, but plenty are. He was just such a good guy, and we trusted him to be fair.
When my daughter was young she would come to visit me on the weekends, and she knew the TV rules on Sunday morning. She would moan about MTP and leave the room. I used to joke "Tim Russert is like your second father!" She never really went for that, but I took some pleasure in that just this year, as a teenager, she'd started to "not mind" MTP so much. She even watched with me. I hope her ongoing "A+" in world Civilization (closest thing to civics in high school) is a tribute to some of her forced watchings of the goings on in the world on MTP.
My friend Cara and I argue on IM all the time (for fun!) She is very liberal, and of course I am an "enlightened free market conservative." We don't agree on much of anything...ever. She IMed me the news on Friday. My first and only reaction was just, "NO!" On one thing we agree- we know that Meet the Press will never be the same.
I remember famous people passing away and feeling sad before. I felt bad when Johnny Carson died. I felt bad when President Reagan died. The fact that Tim Russert was so, so young, and had so much left. I don't remember the last time i felt so, truely sad when someone I've never met passed away.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Gun control means hitting your target…
Okay, ok, so that’s over the top NRA type slogan, but after the differing results of two murderous rampages this week, you have to admit that it’s at least a valid point of view. Today the latest whack job crazy went on a shooting spree in Colorado Springs, killing at least four people. Thankfully, there was a security guard there…with a gun!
Jeanne Assam, a security guard employed by the church under attack, shot the attacker dead:
"I saw him coming through the doors," she told reporters on Monday. "I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer, and I came out of cover and identified myself, and engaged him, and took him down. And that's pretty much it."
Amen!
I’m sure I’m not the only person that is completely sick of these absolute crazy people who need to take out their frustrations on the innocent.
I do not own a gun, but I’m perfectly comfortable around them. My father taught me how to shoot at a young age, and that included absolute respect for the weapon and what it can do. Even still, I’ve often revisited my feelings on gun control and wondered if maybe America would be better off without all the guns. I think perhaps the answer was once “yes,” but that now it is too late. We’d be better off without all these guns, but it is impossible to get this genie back in the bottle. There are just too many out there.
Certainly tragedies like Virginia Tech and last week’s Mall shooting would have been averted if the United States citizens had never had guns so readily available, but they did, and they do. If that’s the case, how much better (or rather, less worse) would Virginia Tech and the numerous mass shootings have been if someone with a good heart had protected the defenseless. Good for Jeanne Assam. Thank God that she was there, that she had a piston, and that this creep didn’t get away with killing more than the four people that he did.
Jeanne Assam, a security guard employed by the church under attack, shot the attacker dead:
"I saw him coming through the doors," she told reporters on Monday. "I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer, and I came out of cover and identified myself, and engaged him, and took him down. And that's pretty much it."
Amen!
I’m sure I’m not the only person that is completely sick of these absolute crazy people who need to take out their frustrations on the innocent.
I do not own a gun, but I’m perfectly comfortable around them. My father taught me how to shoot at a young age, and that included absolute respect for the weapon and what it can do. Even still, I’ve often revisited my feelings on gun control and wondered if maybe America would be better off without all the guns. I think perhaps the answer was once “yes,” but that now it is too late. We’d be better off without all these guns, but it is impossible to get this genie back in the bottle. There are just too many out there.
Certainly tragedies like Virginia Tech and last week’s Mall shooting would have been averted if the United States citizens had never had guns so readily available, but they did, and they do. If that’s the case, how much better (or rather, less worse) would Virginia Tech and the numerous mass shootings have been if someone with a good heart had protected the defenseless. Good for Jeanne Assam. Thank God that she was there, that she had a piston, and that this creep didn’t get away with killing more than the four people that he did.
Monday, October 08, 2007
hey this thing works!
Hello World???
This thing hasn't let me log in for months. So much to rant about! Will be sure to get back to it asap.
So funny watching Hardball tonight. I saw Pat B. arguing with Robert Reicsh (am I spelling that right? No time to lookup tonight). Surreal to see Pat be SO wrong on free trade (knew he was a protectionist) and RR be so hard core free market. In my mind RR totally destroyed him. Even weirder to see Chris Matthews announce Pat as the"winner!" The more i watch him the more I'm convinced that Matthews is a complete idiot!
This thing hasn't let me log in for months. So much to rant about! Will be sure to get back to it asap.
So funny watching Hardball tonight. I saw Pat B. arguing with Robert Reicsh (am I spelling that right? No time to lookup tonight). Surreal to see Pat be SO wrong on free trade (knew he was a protectionist) and RR be so hard core free market. In my mind RR totally destroyed him. Even weirder to see Chris Matthews announce Pat as the"winner!" The more i watch him the more I'm convinced that Matthews is a complete idiot!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
I spent the weekend watching all sort of documentaries, starting with a Saturday morning running of HBO’s “The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib.” When pictures of the events at Abu Ghraib first surfaced a few years ago, I had the reaction that most all Americans had, horror. This was not our America, this was not representative of the ideals we hold dear.
Unfortunately, given the climate at the time (and still pervades today), the dialog about these completely unacceptable events quickly devolved into a blame game. Instead of rooting out causes, punishing wrong doers, and putting measures in place to prevent this in the future, the discussion immediately went to cries of “Bush lied!” or “America, love it or leave it.” In retrospect, I think responsibility for the poor handling after the fact lies with the Bush administration, and more specifically Donald Rumsfeld.
More on that in a second, but first a few words on torture. If any good has come from the whole ordeal it is that the events have forced the discussion of torture into the national debate. As a civilized society, we pride ourselves on being “above” the coarser elements of humanity. For example, rather than follow a path of vengeance toward serial killers and mass murderers, we dole out life imprisonment or even quiet euthanasia by lethal injection to people who clearly earned far worse. We like to think that we have taken the high road versus evil.
Torture, in the context it’s entered into our national discussion on the other hand is a different animal all together. Torture as we are discussion it has a goal or end of its own, to extract information. In traditional confrontations where one nation is heads up fighting another, it is easy for both sides to agree not to torture captured combatants under the Geneva Conventions. However, the world is different now. We, that is, “civilized” people, are scared. Faced with faceless, unknown enemies that don’t “fight fair,” we’re as a society thrashing on what is a “right” or “moral” path. How do we fight evil without it pulling us down with it?
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz has written extensively about torture and posed difficult questions that we need to confront as a nation. The American people are somewhat bi-polar on the issue of torture. On the one hand, we despise torture and anything remotely resembling it. As practiced by unlawful tyrants, say Saddam Hussein, we’re outraged and disgusted. On the other hand, we cheer many of our idyllic heroes, the “Dirty Harry’s,” and the “Jack Bauer’s,” when they take the pragmatic-but-brute-force measures necessary against evil doers to save the innocent.
Dershowitz cuts to the quick of the matter with his hypothetical scenario –(paraphrasing) Imagine a known killer has been captured. Prior to capture he has kidnapped your child (not “a” child, your child). The child is in a box, buried in the ground with only an hour of oxygen left. The killer isn’t saying where to find the box. In this instance, Mr. Civilized, would torture be an acceptable tool to save the life of your child? Is there a parent out there, confronted with this reality that would say “no?”
Intellectual discussions and new world reality aside, what happened at Abu Ghraib was nothing remotely like the seemingly black and white scenario above. It’s clear, from the documentary’s point of view at least, that what happened at Abu Ghraib was grossly out of line with anything Americans would ever accept as their standards. What happened at Abu Grahib appears to be a case of the lack of enough resources (or the right resources), lack of proper communication, and lack of leadership around what is acceptable. Military Police, who were trained for battle operations around collecting POWs, not being prison guards, were in effect co-opted by Military Intelligence. The practice of “softening up” prisoners prior to interrogations was left in the hands of non-trained, non-accountable, non-lead individuals. The best description was one witnesses mention in the movie of how it reminded him of the behavior of the school boys in the Lord of the Files.
The real loss here is America’s claim to the high ground. It is a basic American value that when they can the strong should protect the weak. The individual gets the benefit of the doubt (which does not mean that enemy combatants get the rights that an citizen accused of a crime does). This is not what happened here. The images at Abu Ghraib have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. This was a big loss that unfortunately, no one really paid for. Several soldiers were convicted of various infractions, and one Brigadier General was dropped in rank. I really like Donald Rumsfeld. I think he’s smart, and tells it like it is, and was honestly working to protect the United States. The documentary showed proof that Rumsfeld approved some techniques for extracting information from enemy combatants. I’m not sure you can place actual blame for Abu Ghraib on the approvals Rumsfeld made, but it’s clear to me now that we should have placed responsibility. Unfortunately, it’s lonely at the top. If someone working for you steps out of line that bad on your watch, you have to go. Rumsfeld probably should have been taken out of office, if only to send a high-level message to the world that Abu Ghraib is not what we stand for. (To his credit, Rumsfeld offered to resign three times while in office)
Unfortunately, given the climate at the time (and still pervades today), the dialog about these completely unacceptable events quickly devolved into a blame game. Instead of rooting out causes, punishing wrong doers, and putting measures in place to prevent this in the future, the discussion immediately went to cries of “Bush lied!” or “America, love it or leave it.” In retrospect, I think responsibility for the poor handling after the fact lies with the Bush administration, and more specifically Donald Rumsfeld.
More on that in a second, but first a few words on torture. If any good has come from the whole ordeal it is that the events have forced the discussion of torture into the national debate. As a civilized society, we pride ourselves on being “above” the coarser elements of humanity. For example, rather than follow a path of vengeance toward serial killers and mass murderers, we dole out life imprisonment or even quiet euthanasia by lethal injection to people who clearly earned far worse. We like to think that we have taken the high road versus evil.
Torture, in the context it’s entered into our national discussion on the other hand is a different animal all together. Torture as we are discussion it has a goal or end of its own, to extract information. In traditional confrontations where one nation is heads up fighting another, it is easy for both sides to agree not to torture captured combatants under the Geneva Conventions. However, the world is different now. We, that is, “civilized” people, are scared. Faced with faceless, unknown enemies that don’t “fight fair,” we’re as a society thrashing on what is a “right” or “moral” path. How do we fight evil without it pulling us down with it?
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz has written extensively about torture and posed difficult questions that we need to confront as a nation. The American people are somewhat bi-polar on the issue of torture. On the one hand, we despise torture and anything remotely resembling it. As practiced by unlawful tyrants, say Saddam Hussein, we’re outraged and disgusted. On the other hand, we cheer many of our idyllic heroes, the “Dirty Harry’s,” and the “Jack Bauer’s,” when they take the pragmatic-but-brute-force measures necessary against evil doers to save the innocent.
Dershowitz cuts to the quick of the matter with his hypothetical scenario –(paraphrasing) Imagine a known killer has been captured. Prior to capture he has kidnapped your child (not “a” child, your child). The child is in a box, buried in the ground with only an hour of oxygen left. The killer isn’t saying where to find the box. In this instance, Mr. Civilized, would torture be an acceptable tool to save the life of your child? Is there a parent out there, confronted with this reality that would say “no?”
Intellectual discussions and new world reality aside, what happened at Abu Ghraib was nothing remotely like the seemingly black and white scenario above. It’s clear, from the documentary’s point of view at least, that what happened at Abu Ghraib was grossly out of line with anything Americans would ever accept as their standards. What happened at Abu Grahib appears to be a case of the lack of enough resources (or the right resources), lack of proper communication, and lack of leadership around what is acceptable. Military Police, who were trained for battle operations around collecting POWs, not being prison guards, were in effect co-opted by Military Intelligence. The practice of “softening up” prisoners prior to interrogations was left in the hands of non-trained, non-accountable, non-lead individuals. The best description was one witnesses mention in the movie of how it reminded him of the behavior of the school boys in the Lord of the Files.
The real loss here is America’s claim to the high ground. It is a basic American value that when they can the strong should protect the weak. The individual gets the benefit of the doubt (which does not mean that enemy combatants get the rights that an citizen accused of a crime does). This is not what happened here. The images at Abu Ghraib have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. This was a big loss that unfortunately, no one really paid for. Several soldiers were convicted of various infractions, and one Brigadier General was dropped in rank. I really like Donald Rumsfeld. I think he’s smart, and tells it like it is, and was honestly working to protect the United States. The documentary showed proof that Rumsfeld approved some techniques for extracting information from enemy combatants. I’m not sure you can place actual blame for Abu Ghraib on the approvals Rumsfeld made, but it’s clear to me now that we should have placed responsibility. Unfortunately, it’s lonely at the top. If someone working for you steps out of line that bad on your watch, you have to go. Rumsfeld probably should have been taken out of office, if only to send a high-level message to the world that Abu Ghraib is not what we stand for. (To his credit, Rumsfeld offered to resign three times while in office)
On America’s positive side, we really wash our dirty laundry in public. Few countries around the world practice the self-flagellation that we do. We’re big, and we’re powerful, and we mean well, but sometimes we screw up (big). When we do, we beat it to death, and we do so in public. I found the participants and witnesses in the movie to be quite credible and forthcoming about the situation and the things they did wrong. Unfortunately, the self-examination will be lost on America’s enemies. Our best hope is that we learn from our mistakes going forward.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Wisdom of Crowds
Just finished James Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds.” This is a great book about the “behavioral economics” involved in groups. The basic premise of the book is that with certain conditions met, the decisions and actions taken by a group of people produces consistently better results than those that would have been taken by any single person in the group, including the smartest and or best informed individuals.
Surowiecki explores numerous examples that encompass problems of cognition, cooperation and coordination. Through these examples, he shows how very often performance of these groups is strikingly better than the performance of any single person. A group of people with a diverse set of information and opinions on a topic, can better predict the right answer if they have a way of systematically aggregating all of their input. Each person has a different set of incomplete information for a particular problem, some of it correct, some of it incorrect, but all of it incomplete. The aggregated results of these different proposed answers cancel out the incorrect information, and produce a better (not necessarily “best”) result.
One of the things I found most interesting in the book was the discussion of predictive markets. A predictive decision market is a form of game theory whereby different actors are allowed to trade on the given likelihood of possible events. The idea is that a group of people betting on potential outcomes can predict certain events as more likely than others, giving government or private enterprise more actionable information.
You might remember a few years back a DARPA project called the Policy Analysis Market (PAM) (which was lumped under a program called Total Information Awareness) that set up a market that predicted the possibility of world events including terrorist attacks, assassinations, and other world events. Some eager beaver congressional-types leapt on the program as morbid and “crazy.” It’s unfortunate, as it could be one way to better aggregate and surface the U.S.’s maze of intelligence agencies. Today the United States’ intelligence information is spread out across myriad agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, ATF, etc.) that don’t have incentive to always work together. PAM would have had actors across these organizations make “bets” on potential world events. No, not with real money – though predictive decision markets get better when the actors have real skin in the game of one sort or another. The U.S.’s solution to the cross agency information problem? Make them all report to a single person, the National Intelligence Director. If Surowiecki’s theory is to be believed (and it’s a convincing argument) this is the exact wrong action – in effect, placing all of the responsibility on a single person (see the CEO-worship section near the end of the book). We can only hope that the predictive decision market has been setup anyway, but that it’s actually classified.
A real predictive decision market that you can go to and play with (and bet real money) is called Intrade Prediction markets. Intrade allows you to bet on real events, including current events, financial index milestones, entertainment, and even the weather. For example, you can bet that on both the Republican and Democratic nominations for the 2008 election, as well as the eventual winner. For example as of today the market predicts a 51% likelihood that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic ticket (Obama is tracking next at 23.4, and Edwards at around 11, plus other candidates which are more noise.) Just to mark it down, if you were to take the leaders in both Presidential and VP nominations, the Democratic ticket will be Clinton/Obama. Republican ticket will be either Giuliani or Mccain (they’re tracking 31 and 30), with Mitt Romney as V.P. We’ll see. The idea of the market is that as we get closer and closer to an event the market reads information better or sees a given outcome as more likely. Actors in the market can buy and sell contracts at any time.
Predictive decision markets are a really interesting area. Definitely not the last you’ve heard of this topic.
The end of the book describes an instance of crowds not acting in concert for a better benefit, stock bubbles. Surowiecki details multiple examples of stock bubbles, and potential explanations of how and why they are caused (no one knows exactly). One reason (or at least sign that one is happening) is that people are basing their actions on other’s actions, rather than their own information. That is, when people are buying an asset because prices have gone up (opposite usual trend when a price goes up) and they think prices are going to continue to go up – sign of a bubble.
This is a really interesting book – great companion to Freakanomics, The Tipping Point, and The Undercover Economist. Highly recommend it.
Surowiecki explores numerous examples that encompass problems of cognition, cooperation and coordination. Through these examples, he shows how very often performance of these groups is strikingly better than the performance of any single person. A group of people with a diverse set of information and opinions on a topic, can better predict the right answer if they have a way of systematically aggregating all of their input. Each person has a different set of incomplete information for a particular problem, some of it correct, some of it incorrect, but all of it incomplete. The aggregated results of these different proposed answers cancel out the incorrect information, and produce a better (not necessarily “best”) result.
One of the things I found most interesting in the book was the discussion of predictive markets. A predictive decision market is a form of game theory whereby different actors are allowed to trade on the given likelihood of possible events. The idea is that a group of people betting on potential outcomes can predict certain events as more likely than others, giving government or private enterprise more actionable information.
You might remember a few years back a DARPA project called the Policy Analysis Market (PAM) (which was lumped under a program called Total Information Awareness) that set up a market that predicted the possibility of world events including terrorist attacks, assassinations, and other world events. Some eager beaver congressional-types leapt on the program as morbid and “crazy.” It’s unfortunate, as it could be one way to better aggregate and surface the U.S.’s maze of intelligence agencies. Today the United States’ intelligence information is spread out across myriad agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, ATF, etc.) that don’t have incentive to always work together. PAM would have had actors across these organizations make “bets” on potential world events. No, not with real money – though predictive decision markets get better when the actors have real skin in the game of one sort or another. The U.S.’s solution to the cross agency information problem? Make them all report to a single person, the National Intelligence Director. If Surowiecki’s theory is to be believed (and it’s a convincing argument) this is the exact wrong action – in effect, placing all of the responsibility on a single person (see the CEO-worship section near the end of the book). We can only hope that the predictive decision market has been setup anyway, but that it’s actually classified.
A real predictive decision market that you can go to and play with (and bet real money) is called Intrade Prediction markets. Intrade allows you to bet on real events, including current events, financial index milestones, entertainment, and even the weather. For example, you can bet that on both the Republican and Democratic nominations for the 2008 election, as well as the eventual winner. For example as of today the market predicts a 51% likelihood that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic ticket (Obama is tracking next at 23.4, and Edwards at around 11, plus other candidates which are more noise.) Just to mark it down, if you were to take the leaders in both Presidential and VP nominations, the Democratic ticket will be Clinton/Obama. Republican ticket will be either Giuliani or Mccain (they’re tracking 31 and 30), with Mitt Romney as V.P. We’ll see. The idea of the market is that as we get closer and closer to an event the market reads information better or sees a given outcome as more likely. Actors in the market can buy and sell contracts at any time.
Predictive decision markets are a really interesting area. Definitely not the last you’ve heard of this topic.
The end of the book describes an instance of crowds not acting in concert for a better benefit, stock bubbles. Surowiecki details multiple examples of stock bubbles, and potential explanations of how and why they are caused (no one knows exactly). One reason (or at least sign that one is happening) is that people are basing their actions on other’s actions, rather than their own information. That is, when people are buying an asset because prices have gone up (opposite usual trend when a price goes up) and they think prices are going to continue to go up – sign of a bubble.
This is a really interesting book – great companion to Freakanomics, The Tipping Point, and The Undercover Economist. Highly recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
