Here is a question:

If the government can simply print money…….why do they need to tax us?

They don’t need our money at all.  They have the blank check of the printing press at all times.  They could simply spend new money into existence, and leave it at that.

As long as they didn’t print so much that it devalued the currency, it would work fine.  That’s the same basic issue they have now (even with taxes), so that isn’t much of a shift.

Honestly, I can’t think of an economic reason (can anyone else?).

The cynic in me says there are two good psychological reasons to tax:

1. Incentives:  If the government taxes one thing (or gives a tax credit on another) it can influence our behavior.  That’s what the government does…..governs/influences/controls.
2. Government spending and the value of money would be more obvious:  People would realize printing more money devalues the money they already have; it is like theft.  They would equate inflation with theft, knowing the government printed too much (perhaps for war) and that took part of the value of the money that they’d already saved.  On another note, tax evasion would be impossible, since there wouldn’t be any taxes.

Another good question is why we allow governments to run deficits.  The flip side of the original question is:

Why do we allow the government to run the printing press?  Why not force them to spend ONLY tax revenue?

This would produce an even more dramatic outcome than ceasing the printing press:  NO MORE FOREIGN WARS.  If we had to pay each year the full cost of our military and were forced to choose between wars and education or health care (or being taxed at 100% of our income so that we’d starve)….we would always choose domestic issues.  This would also naturally limit the size of the government (since they’d no longer have a blank check).  Government spending could only grow as the economy grew (or shrunk).

Economists argue against this as they cite that governments need to issue debt to undertake large scale activities (wars, stimulus, etc.) that would be impossible if they had to pay for it each year.  I understand this argument and agree to a certain extent….and will only point out that Economists are full of shit and can’t predict as a group whether the sun will come up tomorrow.  As the new day rose and even into the sunset they would still be arguing about whether the sun was actually there at all.

I say the government and its band of inbred, self-serving economists whose theories have no relation whatsoever to reality (and cause us to have to bail them out) should be limited in a natural way.  Perhaps tax-revenue-only spending would be the answer.

I actually know why governments don’t choose this option: it causes them to get overthrown.

In the old days of gold currencies, the governments could only spend the amount of gold they had.  They had to go find new gold to fight wars and they taxed until it impoverished their people.  The people then overthrew the government.

Then one day a nifty, smart group of revolutionaries figured out that with fiat currency they could get around the spending limit problem and just borrow continuously from people who weren’t born yet.  The first groups failed because they got greedy with the printing press, which also impoverished their people…..who then overthrew the government again (notice the theme?).

Then the governments figured out they needed a Goldilocks printing press….print enough, but not too much to impoverish their people.  It doesn’t matter though that they know; it is always easier to mortgage the future than it is to pay in the present….and so all governments will succumb to the temptation of the printing press…and get overthrown as they impoverish their people.

I guess the final question, if I were a government, would be:

Why not both tax us and print money?

Why not have the best of both worlds?  No need to limit yourself to just one of those two options.   Indeed, why not?  I guess, unfortunately, that is the answer.

Tags: economics, money

I write a lot about economics, and honestly I’ve come to understand a pretty good bit about how power is exerted at the macro level (remember economics is about levers and incentives, not money).

At work (and in life) I have no real macro power, but I have seen people who do.  Though I do not like politics from the perspective of Democrats vs. Republicans (since they are largely the same); I do like politics from the perspective of how to influence and how to barter power.

I read Nietzsche’s “Will to Power”; I read Machiavelli’s “The Prince”.  I even read the best-seller 48 Laws of Power.  Sadly I never read Sun-Tzu’s Art of War.

Here is some truth about Power:

– I will never have any….at least not enough to truly influence events on a macro level.  Influence at a local level is nice; however, it will not likely change the general circumstances of my life.

– Money is Power.  Information is Power.  Guns are Power.  I will pretty much never have those in any significant amount (and I don’t want them).

– We aren’t even in the game.  We are pawns.  The top 1% control 42% of wealth in the US.  The flip side is that 40% of the population vies for 1% of the wealth.

– We will never make enough money to escape the hedonic treadmill.  As our salary goes up, so will our lifestyle.  Some people make enough to get our of this trap…most don’t.  Working hard is not the answer.

– We will not be smart enough to “game the system”.  There are a few people at the bottom who draw social security disability that shouldn’t or get too many food stamps, but they are still certainly not the winners.  For us to begin to “game the system” at a higher level we will need more power/information than we’ll likely ever have.

So what is my advice?

CUT EXPENSES…and save.

That’s it.  You thought it was going to be some great revelation, but it isn’t.  We don’t have access to that kind of power.   We play by the rules; we don’t make the rules.

That’s the best most of us can do.  We cannot avoid taxes since we have no deductions.  There is no get rich quick scheme and we’re always faced with potentially crippling medical/education/unemployment/whatever costs.

We will not get ahead by making more money; our lifestyles will go up in lockstep with our salary, but we will be no better off (after about 40K there is no well-being bump from increased earnings).

We cannot pick stocks.  We will not win the lottery.  We will not become rappers and sports stars.  Most of us will never even become managers or VPs.

There are only two sides to the equation:  Expenses and Income.  We cannot affect our income in a way that will allow us to get ahead (where did your 2% raise last year go?), so that leaves Expenses…the only thing we control.

To get more concrete, it is FIXED expenses that kill us.

– A house.  Don’t buy a big, expensive house. A house is not an investment; it never was.  It is a place to live.  Living in a smaller house with a smaller monthly payment is key.  A smaller house will also help your energy bills.

– A car.  Don’t buy a nice car. A car is a waste of money.  Drive the worst car that your lifestyle will allow you to drive…then pick one a little crappier and older.  When you’re out of work and you have 15K extra because you didn’t buy the brand new Infiniti…you’ll be happy.  On a related note, pay cash for your car.  Do not take out a loan.  The car you can afford is the car you can pay for.

– Cable.  I fucking hate cable and as soon as I find a way to watch sports online, I will be ditching cable. I can already watch all the shows I want online.  I can get movies (which I can never find the time to watch anyway) through Netflix.   I still find it frightening that I drop nearly 100 bucks a month to watch a few sporting events.

– No debt: Don’t get trapped servicing debt, credit card or otherwise.

– Student Loans: Don’t go to a good school. They are expensive and will, at the best, get you a good paying job…which will not be all that beneficial for you.  It will be much more beneficial to have no debt and be a hard worker, which will make up for the fact your didn’t go to a good school.  However, do go to a GREAT school if you can get in (Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc.).  This is where the people that make the rules go to school.  If you become tight with them it is definitely worth the money.

What can you spend money on?

– Flat screen TVs, expensive beers, going out to eat, etc:  I’m not saying go crazy, but one time purchases can always be stopped.  Next month simply don’t buy a flat screen TV.  Easy enough. The expense is gone.  This crap about the American consumer being in trouble because they spend too much of frivolous junk is a load of shit.  Those kind of expenses, unless you have some sort of psychological shopping disorder, will not get you in trouble.  It is the recurring expenses, FIXED expenses, that will cause you to go bankrupt.

– Health Insurance:  Unless you’re 20 years old and invincible…buy some, at least a high deductible indemnity plan.  Just wait till you get unlucky and drop 100K on open heart surgery…then try for the rest of your life to recovery economically (and medically) from that.

So that’s it.  That’s being rich:  spending less than you make and having a piece of mind about it.

---

It occurs to me that I’m giving the above advice to myself and others in my income level, which would be pretty much everyone in maybe the 50 – 90th percentile of earnings.

If you are below that (and most people will be below the 50th percentile by definition)….its still good advice in general; however, there is very little you can do.  Sorry.

Your expenses are likely already cut (except on crap like cigarettes and lottery tickets, which you should definitely cut out), and your income will likely never rise high enough to give you significant options.  The US has poor income mobility, especially at the bottom end.

Not that any one person can’t rise above their station in life.  We can.  It just isn’t likely to happen on average.

There is advice I can give; however, it isn’t likely to have any affect for a good number (if advice could help people we’d all be millionaires as there is plenty of it out there).

It is not that I write off the bottom half.  I have been in it (and may be again), and there are plenty of good, nice hard-working people there.

The fact that so many have so few options is what is troubling…not for me, but the future of the country and our children.

Tags: advice, economics, power

There.  I said it.

And I mean it.  Not that certain stocks are a ponzi scheme….the entire concept of the stock market is a ponzi scheme.

Think of all the people that work in industries related to the stock market……are you thinking?  There are newspapers, magazines, and entire TV channels that employee only people talking about the stock market all day.

And they all have no fucking idea what they are talking about.  They are so spectacularly wrong, even weathermen are more accurate than these people….and if weathermen are wrong you simply get wet.  When all these clowns are wrong the global economy is wrecked.

Let’s examine some fundamental truths about the stock market:

Stock shares are fiat money (ie. THEY ARE WORTHLESS): A company issues stock, but what is a stock?  It is simply debt, and they raise public debt (issue stock), because it is cheaper than bank debt.  If they could raise money cheaper simply by borrowing from a bank….they would.  They issue stock debt to YOU because it is cheaper than asking a bank.

Why is stock so “cheap”?  Well….because it is FREE.  Bank debt is harder to get out of.  If the company fails, the liquidated assets of the company will go first to the banks (before the stockholders).  Since debt is concentrated with the bank, they can ask the company to do things (stock ownership is dispersed, so stockholders (unless you’re a really large one) aren’t well organized and have no power).

Do you understand? Companies give you a piece of paper (you can call it stock or you can call it currency), that gives you no charge on the company (you can’t trade it in for any product), puts you last in line for liquidated assets if the company goes bankrupt, and is worth something only because other yahoos agree to pay you for it (but it has no utility).

Stock is simply currency that a company has issued (like the government issues US Dollars)……except you can’t buy anything with it.  You simply own it, like art or baseball cards, until someone else agrees to buy it from you.

The exception to this is companies that issue a dividend (you do actually get something in this case); however, the companies that don’t issue a dividend are still bought and sold very regularly (Microsoft didn’t for years and Google still doesn’t).

Stock price changes do not make (or lose) any money for the company:

Companies issue the public debt of stocks once, at the IPO (Initial Public Offering).  At the IPO they sell a bunch of shares to us and we give them money.  They then spend that money.  They gave us “shares” (which are worthless; they are not “sharing” anything)…..we gave them money.

The stock market is simply a second hand swap meet.

Stocks are to companies as used cars are to car makers……they make NO MONEY when their stock goes up (just like a sold used Toyota makes no money for Toyota).

People investing in stocks do not help business or the economy:

You’re not creating jobs (except in finance) or helping the company; stocks (at their best) are supposed to reflect the underlying health of a company; they do not CAUSE the underlying health of the company.

Here is a thought experiment:

If everyone bought the stock of a company, what would the outcome be?  Nothing except an inflated stock price.  No one really has anything.  Nothing has been produced (except fees for finance companies).

If everyone bought the PRODUCT of a company, what would the outcome be?  Well, they would have something (the product), and the company would get that money.  That is something you can work with.

Stock market prices do not predict anything:

Stocks may reflect some things, though what they reflect I’m not sure (human psychology about the markets themselves perhaps?).  The smartest PHDs in the world have thrown every algorithm in the world at stock data.  It is random from one day to the next.

The only proven way to predict the stock market is to have INSIDE INFORMATION.  The rest of us will never do better than the market in general except by luck.

The capital gains tax reduction on stock investments is simply a tax break for the rich:

The average person gets almost no income from stocks; functionally we don’t really care about the capital gains tax rate….because we don’t have any significant capital gains.

1 percent of all taxpayers collect over two-thirds of all capital gains; that top 1% gets a tax break on their income; we don’t.  We pay 33% or whatever, and they pay 15% on their capital gains.

It is said that a reduced capital gains tax encourages investment.  Perhaps (I won’t go into the economic arguments here)…however, in the labor vs. business struggle…..labor has really been losing out over the past twenty years.  Its hard to have sympathy for the capital gains crowd (since they just wrecked the world economy).

What is good for the stock market is not what is good for America:

Correlation is not causation.  It is true that if the underlying reality of the the economy is good then you’ll probably have a decent market return; however, you CANNOT WAG THE DOG in this case.  Propping up the stock market will not cause a fundamentally sound economy.  It will simply cause the stock holders to get rich…while the underlying fundamentals (labor, jobs, etc) continue to worsen.

Chew on that.

Tags: economics, stock market

Rent Seeking:

Not to be confused with simply paying rent….rent seeking is an economic term to describe extracting an economic “rent” (i.e. some sort of value) on a transaction where the party adds no actual value.  Another definition (from investopedia.com) is when a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.

This is easily applied to the current financial industry.  It is a simplification; however, if the high-finance industry simply ceased to exist, no harm would be done.  They don’t actually produce anything…they simply extract rent as a piece of other, hopefully productive, activities.

Finance claims to do risk assessment. That is almost laughable.  They failed to properly evaluate the risk they themselves created with their fancy debt instruments……and we ended up bailing them out.  If I were them….and they were smart….I would fire themselves.  They are obviously incompetent and a self-contradiction:  If their purpose is to mitigate financial risk and they themselves are the largest risk to global finance…the only logical conclusion is to close their doors and go home.

Rent seekers are bad. They produce nothing and extract a “rent’ (i.e. are a burden) on people who do.  If the rent seekers get bad enough….the producers simply stop producing.

Wealth creation:

Who then are the non-rent seekers?  What actually is a productive pursuit?  This is the more interesting question by far.

I argue that productive pursuits improve lives.

Productive:  Growing food is productive.  Building houses is productive.  Air conditioning, plumbing, refrigerators.

If you have these things….your life will be better.  No doubt.  Black and White.  It gets more difficult though.  Some things are necessary to make things that make life better.

Compliments to wealth creation:  Roads, electricity, computers, telephones, etc.

These are necessary to make the things that make life better.  It gets even harder.

Ambiguous:  What about lawyers?  Are they navigating the law for the wealth creators so they can do their job or are they using their special knowledge of our byzantine legal system to bend the rules in their favor….to rent seek?

What about the health insurance industry?  Are they helping people get health care or are they using their legally created special status to rent seek on people trying to get health care?  If the whole industry simply disappeared, would it really matter?

What about service industry jobs? Are barber shops and nail salons creating wealth? No.  They are not.  They are compliments.  Theses industries (and many others) do not create wealth; they exist solely because of the excess wealth of the industries which create things that make our lives better.

Only when the first dude created enough excess wealth from his labor would their ever be demand for a service job like laundry or cleaning.

After all…..imagine a society where everyone is cleaning for everyone else and cutting their hair….where do these people live?  What would they have to clean if nothing were being produced?  The service industry exists as a compliment.

So……I’ve probably lumped over half (forgive the imprecision) of US economy into non-wealth creating pursuits.  Most people work in service or rent seeking industries.

If this is the case, what about the US economy with its dwindling manufacturing base and increasing service sector?

Can a purely service economy exist?

No.  I don’t think so.  Not for any extended period of time and be prosperous.

There are a precious few things that truly make life better….and the vast, vast majority are all actual THINGS.  They are things enabled by advances in technology.

That’s what true wealth creation is:  Technology enabled stuff we produce that makes our lives better.

Everything else exists on the coattails of those very few items, because without those very few items all the other stuff wouldn’t NEED to exist.

Example:  It might be true that the greatness of the Seinfeld TV show made lives better.  I could agree with that; however, without food, a roof, warmth, indoor plumbing, electricity, etc….no one would care about TV.

What does all this mean?

1) Technology is the basis of everything that makes our life better.  Invest in it.  Waste money on it if needed (don’t waste money on foreign wars).

2) Make stuff that improves lives.  Everything else is either service for those that make things…..or rent seekers.  If you don’t make things, you’ll soon be lining up to be friends with those who do.

Tags: economics

Rand Paul has come under serious fire lately for his staunch libertarian stance on the Civil Rights Act.  The basic gist is:  Government doesn’t need to interfere in a business’s right to be racist if it wants.  The market can decide; if people don’t like racism, they won’t shop at or buy from racist businesses.

One site likened his somewhat naive comments to something college students might discuss in a coffee shop…not something politicians would discuss with any seriousness.

So…I’m a kid in a coffee shop…what would I say?

Let’s play the thought experiment:  pretend we let the market decide…and it decides that it wants to be racist.  This is probably the reality anyway, since why would you need to sign an anti-discrimination law if there weren’t any to begin with?

So is it ok for the market to be racist?

If I don’t like the businesses where I live that are discriminatory; I can just move somewhere else, participate in a different market, right?

Hmm…but you forced me to move. Someone else’s discrimination is affecting where I live, where I shop. And that is just me…what about the people that are being discriminated against?

The Libertarian argument that businesses (or anything else they are referring to) should be “free” to do what they like is bunk.  Your freedom is not always yours alone.  It affects other people; it doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

The extreme example is smoking.  You should not be free to smoke….because your smoke affects other people too.  If you want to smoke at your house or something…ok.  But a ban on smoking in planes, or in buildings, or restaurants is completely appropriate.  If your freedom to smoke means I get cancer, then you should not be free to do it.

Many things are like this.  A more subtle example is the time honored American “freedom” to be rich…really rich.  In America it is ok to be rich (not all countries are so positive about the rich).

But being rich comes at least somewhat at the expense of those who worked to make you rich.  The rest have to watch the rich move to the front of every line, drive nicer cars, live in better, safer houses.  People worry about their plight in life compared to the rich.  The rich simply existing is a source of anxiety which causes ill health.

I’m not saying it is bad to be rich…only that it isn’t in a vacuum.  The rich existing does affect the poor.  The larger the income disparity between the rich and poor, the more the effect.  Most countries have progressive tax schemes at least somewhat due to this.  It is a tax on the rich simply because they are rich (which affects everyone else).

So no.  Racism is not ok.

My grandfather is dying.  That stinks and I love him and its really hard on my family and my mom today asked me if I wanted to speak at the funeral.

Of course I said.  Its my place I think to say something as I was one of those that knew him best…at least as a grandfather.

Now I’m thinking, “What exactly do you say at your grandfather’s funeral”?

I could google it….and for anyone that knows me or reads the website….I google everything.  You can almost always get good information.  I googled songs for my wedding.  I google recipes, places to eat, etc.

But I won’t.  In this case, I don’t think it matters what makes a good speech at a funeral.  I’m not trying to make a good speech….i’m trying to make MY speech about MY grandfather.

I remember when Marc Whitfield was killed; they talked about the honor of serving as a policeman, but to me that was about police….not about Marc.

And I don’t think the speech is to the other people at the funeral…some lesson learned about death, or the importance of those still alive that we love.  I’m not moralizing to the attendees.  That doesn’t matter much and I’m not the person to do that.

In the end, I’m not sure there is much to be learned from death?  It happens.  It may point out some things about life, but death itself is pretty mundane, final, and self-explanatory.

I think I will speak to him directly; it is for him and my family.   Say something nice about how much I loved him; tell a funny story I remember growing up with him.

I’m not religious, but if he can hear…he knew how much I loved him….and it never hurts to hear it again.

I wrote last time about the concept that Goldman is employing:  “all that is not illegal is permissible”.

When they say they did nothing wrong, they mean they did nothing illegal.

If some judge finds that what they did IS illegal, they will find another judge.  If all judges find what they did was illegal, they will make new laws.  If that doesn’t work, they will simply re-organize under some other legal structure and continue to do what they wanted in the first place.

So……how do you win a game?

I assure you it is not by being the best at something.  Hard work is a VERY difficult way to win.  It is a high effort strategy that, in real life, doesn’t often work.

Why can’t you win by being the best and working hard?

Because the rules change (and there is always some fool out there willing to work harder).

In sports, the rules stay mostly the same; the game is defined.  We enjoy the fairness; we scream when the rules (which are limited since the game is well-defined) are broken.

In life, the rules can change; the game can change.  There is no “score”, no tidy buzzer at the end that tells you when its done.  Those who win are those who make the rules.

Goldman can use its influence, its special knowledge, and its money….to make the rules or change them if needed.  They don’t break the law because they make the law.

When I was in business school I was taught attractive industries are those with high barriers to entry.

Here is how you make your industry attractive:   bend the rules in your favor.

Capitalism in the United States is not about competition and free markets.  It is about manipulating the rules of the game in your favor.  That is the easiest way to win any game.  It doesn’t require nearly as much hard work and is a much better guarantee of success.

Think about it:  How can you win long term if there is a level playing field?  The best strategy is to un-level the playing field….not to work harder.  If your long term strategy is working harder, you won’t be on top long…there is always some idiot out there willing to work harder.  If your long term strategy is hard work, you will kill yourself doing it.

I think Goldman’s strategy is simply how capitalism in the US works:  its a plutocracy.  The rich are bending the rules to make sure they stay rich.  The rich are largely smart, and we are busy working hard, so we don’t realize the bait and switch.

I remember the story of Mickey Mouse from business school.  Whenever the early Mickey Mouse movies get close to lapsing their copyright and entering the public domain, Disney simply gets the law changed to extend the copyright.

The pharmaceutical industry peddles treatments that work better than placebos….the treatments don’t have to work better than sunshine, getting friends, eating healthy, taking vitamins, exercising, etc….and often they don’t, but they can’t sell or patent exercise.

They even invent new diseases to match “cures” they have found (had you heard of erectile dysfunction before Viagra?).   You rig the game.  If you can “cure” erectile dysfunction, then you need to make it a disease.  Shyness is a disease now too (social anxiety disorder).

In short, the patent system CREATES the current pharma industry.  The industry manipulates those rules to protect their profits; they don’t want free markets.  Its much more profitable to define diseases or massage the drug approval process regulations.

Also, no business wants free markets……they want free markets when it suits them…and then closed markets when it doesn’t. The patent system creates a closed market; that’s good for copyright holders.

Multi-national corporations (who are also quite well-connected and resourced) want free trade…because it allows them to move goods and labor unfettered.  The only group you can bet for sure will benefit from that arrangement…is the multi-nationals themselves.

Who do you think writes these laws?  The industry almost HAS to write them; because they are the only ones with enough expertise to do so.  Would you want some blowhard politician writing laws about an industry they have never even worked in?  The industry groups draft the laws and try to get the politicians to sponsor them.

Banking is the ultimate special privilege industry:  It gets to create money…and he who creates the money, makes the rules.

If you’re looking for a lesson in my rambling here it is this:   The winners make rules.  Everyone else whines about working hard.

If you beat me 100 to 2 in basketball and I re-define winning as having the lowest score….then I win.  It doesn’t matter how good you are.

Tags: economics

Goldman contends they have done nothing but sell what other sophisticated investors wanted to buy.  Did they do anything “wrong”?

Hmm…….

I want to draw a distinction between ethics and morals:

Ethics is a set of rules, often set by a group, that defines right and wrong.  Morals are our own personal definition of right and wrong.  The two will hopefully be similar, but not always the same.

Goldman’s claim is that they have broken no rules:

They sold things others wanted to buy.

They made the best profit they could.

They did not break the law.

If you add a bit of personal responsibility (morality) to those claims though, the statements change:

They sold things others wanted to buy – – – EVEN though it was complete crap.

They made the best profit they could – – – EVEN when it came at the taxpayers expense or through special connections.

They did not break the law – – – EVEN though they perverted the intention of the law.

Goldman is basically claiming that if they didn’t break any rules, then they didn’t do anything wrong.

When we all know that is complete crap; its a lawyer’s excuse…finding some way of weaseling out of responsibility when it is plain to everyone they’re a bunch of crooks.

Not that I’m necessarily singling out Goldman.  The “profit motive” is a ruthless amoral code; it is the economic phrasing for “the end justifies the means”.

For Goldman, and many other companies, all that is not illegal is permissible.  The law is something to avoid and manipulate.  The spirit of the law is irrelevant.

So, to wrap up…Yes, Goldman has done something wrong….not breaking rules is not the same thing as doing what is right.

Tags: ethics, morality

I am traveling a lot for work these days.  Traveling for work is not healthy.

You work very hard all day; after all you were paid to travel to this place to work….so you do it.

You live at a hotel, so there isn’t much to do once you get back…so you work there too (since there is always something to do).  So I would say I am working from sun up to sun down, with breaks to eat.

Ah…eating.  That is one of the few truly pleasurable things I do in a day.  Since the meals are expensed, I do eat well…which means I eat too much.  Then there is the fact of the stress of working all day…I usually drink with dinner (which is expensed as well).

Working all day means you can’t go to the hotel gym.  The stress and a bed that isn’t yours mean you don’t sleep that well.

I always thought it would be somewhat glamorous to travel for work.  It simply isn’t.  “How was Chicago,” you might ask….well I don’t know, unless you count O’Hare airport, a random office building, and/or the Marriott downtown.

Airports are a HUGE waste of time.  You wait in a bunch of lines, can’t do much in the way of work…the only thing good about airports is drinking before you get on the plane (that’s if you make it to the airport in time, since you always work till the last minute).

You might also think it is cool to be at the airport with your fancy clothes and laptop, going to nice hotels, eating out on the client.  No, it isn’t.

You just wish you were sitting in first class instead of trying to cram your carry-on into the overhead bin and sitting next to some smelly (either from cologne or not showering) yahoo that wants to talk to you the whole time and needs to lose 3o pounds (which is fine…unless you are sitting next to them on a cramped plane).

You wish you were waiting for the plane in the Club Room instead of hunting for some greasy seat to park it while you wait for the opportunity to wait again when you finally board the plane (which you could also avoid if you were a Medallion member).  You really just wish you were at home.

So…..you eat too much, don’t exercise, don’t get to talk to your loved ones much, work too much, drink often, are stressed, and don’t sleep well.

At least I have a job.  For that, I am truly grateful….really.

Its worth it for sure….seeing that I would be living on the streets otherwise.

You don’t even want to hear me complain about that!!!

Tags: work

I never thought much of history when I was in high school.  Why do we need to remember all that silly stuff that happened a long time ago?  That was never fully explained, and so it seems a little pointless.

Now I know it matters, and I wish someone would’ve explained why.  It matters because history repeats itself and people have short memories.

Life is not a laboratory, so you can’t know what will happen if you pass ObamaCare or not.  There is no control group or double blind peer reviewed studies on the subject; we can’t split the US in two and have one group continue status quo while the other pursues health care reform, then compare the results…….but in reality there is something that will often suffice: history.

History (sometimes modern history) runs natural experiments for us; if you understand history, you understand the present…you can preview the future.

Is anything sustainable?

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” It is debated who originally said that, but let’s give it to the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville.

I think about that a lot lately, because I wonder about the sustainability of Democracy.  I’ve already discussed that I don’t understand how our monetary system is sustainable….money as debt requires us all to be in ever increasing amounts of debt to allow the economy to grow.

I watch the welfare systems of Europe….where the people,  always on strike, demand more and more from a government they don’t seem to understand is not giving them jobs.  It does not provide them with healthcare, or a pension, or education, or really anything……it takes from them and when they receive it back they act like they’ve gotten something.  It was theirs in the first place.  If I rob most of your money, then give some of it back to you….have I really done you a favor?

Maybe in some cases…if you can do better with the money than I can (which is possible)……but is it sustainable?  Won’t I always end up voting myself more until I do to the country what the labor unions did to Detroit and the US auto industry?

I think of the US, with its crippling income inequality, and I see a future where voters may well try to vote themselves more.  Why not?

If people no longer feel hard work can get them ahead in life (and I admit that as I watch Wall Street get bailed out while I foot the bill, I wonder whether lobbyists might be better than hard work), they will pursue other means…voting themselves benefits is one avenue.  Crime is another.  Leaving the country is another (an avenue we see Mexicans  pursue).

Government does not hold any real power.  People agree uneasily to be governed because they feel the alternative is even worse…but that doesn’t mean it will always be.  History teaches us that ALL governments except the ones currently in existence have failed. These will likely fail too.

Alexis de Tocqueville also said, “The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage.” and its corollary: No contract can be sufficiently specified as to prevent dishonest behavior by those who wish to gain advantage.

History, and Stanley Milgram’s Stanford Prison Experiment, show that people’s morals are easily swayed.  People act in accordance with the situation.

Our Constitution, Democracy….our way of life…..its all enabled by this basic agreement that we trust people and its possible to come to mutually beneficial agreements.

Government (Democracy or otherwise) is a moot point if people decide the system is rigged against them and that it doesn’t pay to obey the rules.

Governments fail for this reason.  At that point you must reset the people’s sentiment by fixing the system; or you have to bribe them with their own money.

I wonder about the sustainability of all our modern governments.  I think they will fail; perhaps in our lifetime.  I wonder what will come next?

Tags: history