The Right is Wrong and the Left is Wronger

A Rose by Any Other Name

It is a long held tradition in politics to use nicknames as a ploy to belittle policies and personalities.    Reagan's implementation of the Laffer curve was dubbed "voodoo economics".  Recently members of the Bush administration became "Bushies" and worse, those who espoused agressive action against terrorists became "neo-cons".  The political gameplan, once the nickname has been applied, is to deride the person, or ideal using the nickname in a deprecating manner as often as possible.  Using Lenin's axiom "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".  So it doesn't matter that Reaganomics worked. It doesn't matter if all of President Bush's adminstration followed him philosophically.  It doesn't matter if the war in Iraq was necessary.  All that matters is that, in the main, political opposition to these people and ideas was given a "handle" to grab onto by the application of a nickname.

Interestingly, this seems to primarily be a tactic of the left.  What was the derogatory nickname applied to President Carter?  President Clinton?  My theory is that the right, in the main, has greater respect for the office of the presidency and therefore hasn't in the past stooped to these tactics.  This despite the fact that these tactics are demonstrably effective.  Did you remember "voodoo economics"?  Could you come up with a nickname that had been applied to President Clinton?  This despite the fact that Reagan's tenure ended twenty years ago and Clinton's ended nine years ago?  What does this say?

Because these tactics are effective and because the stakes have become so high, I propose that we begin to utilize those tactics of the left that are effective.  While President Obama has only been in office for about three months, he has been prominent in the public eye for about three years.  And while certain political opponents have tried to tag him with nicknames none have appeared to gain any traction.  "Obination" didn't seem to stick (though I liked that one and a $20 Trillion debt seem an abomination).  

As we search for the appropriate appelation for President Obama and his adminstration, there are some rules that must be followed for it to be effective:

        1) It has to be cute and memorable 

        2) It has to be short

        3) There has to be a ring of truth to it

I've thought about several and rejected several, one that seemed at first blush was "The Anti-Christ".  While it has a ring of truth to it (meeting rule 3) and it is short (meeting rule 2), it is in no way cute and therefore must be rejected. 

So one I'd like to propose is "Neo-NatSoc".  This is short for New National Socialist.  This is unfortunately, true (meeting rule 3) it is short (meeting rule 2) and it is memorable as a play on neo-con.  I know that there may be some trademark problems because it is owned by the "National Socialists" and they are a prickly crowd who aren't into sharing.  I also know that it is going to be difficult to brand a non-aryan such as Barak Obama as a National Socialist, but since words mean things and he is a trying to turn the Nation of the United States into a Socialist version of uptopia, it does seem accurate, no matter how distasteful.  So what do you think?  Does this work as a nickname that will stick and can be used to deride President Obama, or can you come up with something that will work better?

Modeling, Simulaton, and Snakeoil, Oh My!

I wouldn't normally speak about myself in a blog post and other than my opinions, in my posts, you would be hard pressed to learn anything specific about me.  Because at the end of the day my posts are about what I believe is right for the country, not about me or my life.  This post is different, what I am about to tell you is in no way meant as a boast.  Rather, I want to establish my credentials simply so that you will know that I know what I am talking about not simply from an opinion perspective, but from a professional assessment.

I have spent the last twenty years developing computer models, models that generally lent themselves to business modeling and forecasting.  I have done business planning, and stock market simulation, using Monte Carlo simulation, linear programming, best case, worst case, most likely case, scenario comparison, sensitivity analysis, etc.  My undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with a concentration in "Decision Science" and my graduate degree is a Masters of Business Administration during which I did a great deal of work in quantitative analysis.  So when I tell you I am in expert in this field that statement comes with a significant amount of third party credibility, and real world experience.  When I make the following statements, I am not theorizing, hypothesizing or repeating what I read somewhere.  Rather I am telling you how a seasoned professional with twenty plus years of experience in the field is assessing the situation.

Recently, the Obama administration put forward their ten year assessment of where their budget for the upcoming year will, if unchanged take the country.  Their numbers differ by about twenty percent over the period in question (about ten years) from the numbers the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came up with, when they analyzed the budget and forecast put forward by the administration.  Other than the size of the numbers involved and the ghastly deficits produced by this budget there is nothing particularly significant about the fact that the two models differ.  In fact, in a ten year projection relevant to natural systems such as markets a 20% difference is actually quite close and that makes the results that much more chilling (but the effects of a $20 Trillion national debt are the subject of future posts)

So to save you the four plus years of college and the many years of learning the trade there are some basic rules about modeling and simulation that will help you understand the point of this post:

1) Natural systems - markets, weather, etc. are far more difficult to model than synthetic systems (such as assembly lines or traffic patterns)

2) The greater the level of detail required of the model the less accurate the results are going to be.  In other words if you want to know if the economy is going to grow or shrink in 2010, that is far easier to predict than by precisely how much that in turn is far easier to predict that if a particular stock is going to go up or down and that is easier to know than how much a stock will go up or down.

3) Any model has a limited number of inputs that each drives the model in  a certain direction and among those inputs are some assumptions that the modeler makes each one of which has a different degree of impact on the results.  The amount of sensitivity can have significant impact on the model results even when the modeler makes seemingly modest adjustments to only one or two assumptions.

4) Lastly- anyone, no matter how much education or experience who tells you that they know precisely what will happen in the future, by a certain amount, because a model they built tells them so, is wrong, misapplying the tools, or lying.  If by chance they happen to be right, it is simply luck, not skill.

With that said, I want to change your focus from the budget to global warming.  If the budget guys can't predict within 20% of each other what the economy will look like in the next ten years.  And through tax policy, monetary policy, law making and regulatory policy they control many of the inputs.  Common sense should tell you the degree to which some quasi-meteorologist is going to be right.  Particularly when you consider that they are using essentially the same tools and mathematical techniques to forecast global warming over the next 50-100-200 years as are being used by the economist inthe administration.  I can tell you with 100% certainty that when someone says, “The median temperature of the earth will increase by 2 degrees Celsius by the year 2080 and that the increase will have effects A B or C" they are wrong, period. 

 

The earth may heat by that amount or more or less.  The affect may be A B or C or it may be K L or M.  When the weather changes (and it always changes, after all what makes you think the weather is the same now as it was 200 years ago?) will it be because the output of the sun changed, the orbit of the earth changed, the magnetosphere of the earth changed (think it's constant? Just look at the shifting patterns of the northern lights), the reflectivity of the changes of the earth changed over time. (due to deforestation) or that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere went up?   The likelihood is that it was due to an interplay between all of these factors.  I am not saying that things won't change.  I am not saying that man couldn't be better stewards of the riches that we have been granted.

The point is, that the interplay of these factors is too complex for the weatherman to predict with any clarity what the weather will be a month from now much less with any precision, hell even tomorrows forecast has +/- swing of 4-8 degrees.  People forecasting 10-20-50-100-200 years from now, give me a break!  Modeling and simulation give you a best guess.  The snakeoil salesmen selling global warming never disclose the "guess" portion of the analysis, they state it as gospel and expect people to change based upon their guess. 

I just thought that during a period when the limitations of modeling were on display for all to see (administration/CBO) that it would be illustrative to hold up the admitted margin of error between the CBO and administration numbers and compare them to the infallibility being presented on global warming.  Since both sets of numbers are being built by people in the administration with an agenda, why are they right on global warming and wrong on the budget?  Or is it the other way around?

Money Laundering by the Criminals Who Are Stealing Our Children’s Future

When John Gotti laundered $10 of millions of dollars, it’s considered the crime of the century.  When Hillary Clinton does it, it’s considered just another day at the office.  I am at a loss, I don’t even know what to call it, but “we” in the form of Hillary Clinton just promised $900 Million to Hamas to rebuild their “country” after the Israeli’s destroyed it.  Wow, where to start…

First thing to think about when attempting to put this in perspective, the United States has no money. When you are running a $1.75 Trillion deficit, by definition you not only, have spent all of your money, you’ve spent a GREAT deal of the banks money as well.  We are borrowing the money from China.  Therefore, but for the laundering, China is giving/borrowing $900 Million to Hamas.  If they were to do this directly, we’d likely have a problem with this.  Why? The only reason I can come up with is we wouldn’t be getting to “dip our beak” in the transaction.  The problem here is that when gangsters use this term they are expecting to make a profit.  When our government takes this tact, they are talking about paying more interest.  At this point I’d like to turn the government over to the mafia, at least then we’d make a profit.

Second thing to think about, as discussed in previous posts, since this is all money spent in deficit, it is debt piled on non-voting, unborn generations.  This means that the next million babies born, in addition to the $43,333 they are already in debt the moment they are born, are an additional $900 dollars in debt.  We as their parent are guardians ought to at least be allowed to ask what they are getting for their money.  It turns out even more debt.  Not only do we never pay down the debt, so interest is always piled on interest.  In addition, WE FUND BOTH SIDES, with money borrowed from the Chinese.  So we pile on debt to buy Israel arms, so that they can destroy Hamas towns, so that we can borrow more money to rebuild those towns, so that Israel can in turn destroy them with money we borrowed from the Chinese.  Is it only me, or does anyone else see that the only people who are losing in this war are the American taxpayers?

Third thing to think about, there are about 1.5 million Lebanese.  This works out to about $700 per person for every man woman and child.  Aren’t there 1.5 Million American’s who could use $700, I don’t know, for a week’s unemployment, for economic stimulus, for a weekend vacation?  Seems to me my future unborn grandchild has a better claim on it than the gangsters in government and the gangsters in the Middle East.

I’ve got an idea.  Stop funding Israel, stop funding any Lebanese: the government, Hamas, Hezbollah none of them.  Stop borrowing money from the Chinese in order to do it and stop the criminal insanity of screwing the American tax payer, who in this deal are getting it coming and going.

What Happened to That America Dad?

I am “Old School”. In a previous era I may have been considered macho. I prefer combat sports (boxing and mixed martial arts) to team sports (baseball and basketball). I prefer outdoor activities (rock climbing, whitewater rafting and camping) to video games. I prefer competition to cooperation, and may the best man win. All too often today, macho self-confidence is confused with “asshole”, “arrogant”, or “pig-headed” particularly when it entails any interface with the gentler gender. I believe that in this era of feminized, emasculated, gender-neutral, neutered, politically-correct, “my right to not be offended, trumps your freedom of speech” era, many men who would otherwise voice their opinions have chosen instead to be quiet and pine for a better yesterday. Yet, straight shooters who opt to solve problems rather than wring their hands over them, is exactly what we need.

One method of compensation I have adopted is to collect movies of a John Wayne, Chuck Norris variety. I prefer a simple life where problems can be dealt with head on. The other night, my family was deciding on a movie to watch, and I suggested, that because my son was studying American history and WWII that we watch Patton. The monologue at the beginning is famous and parts bear repeating. “Americans traditionally love to fight…” “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser…” Within five minutes, of the beginning of the movie, my son turned to me with wonder and admiration in his voice and asked, “Dad, what happened to that America”? I suddenly got tears in my eyes, I hadn’t realized how far off the path we had gotten. My response was as accurate as it was politically incorrect, “Son, the last two generations in power have pissed away that America and I fear that if my generation doesn’t do something to reverse the slide, there won’t be anyone who remembers what was once noble and admired about cowboys and firemen and soldiers”.

It has become common in business literature and B School classes to deride the “charismatic leader”. To portray the team as paramount and the lone wolf as dangerous, this in the face of all of the facts. Some things to consider, Steve Jobs has saved Apple not once but twice. Microsoft has gone nowhere since Bill Gates backed away from his day to day responsibilities. When Dell got into trouble several years ago, the first thing they did was bring Michael Dell back. In Organizational Behavior they stress the fact that group decisions are often better than what an individual leader will come up with. This is after discussing “sub-optimization” and “group think” and failing to discuss at all, the time cost associated with group dynamics. Give me a decisive, informed, engaged, ethical visionary to a group anytime.

It is interesting to note the difference between Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address and Barak Obama’s. Both inherited an America on the ropes. In each case unemployment was high and getting higher. Arguably in Reagan’s case the scenario was worse, interest rates were MUCH higher, and inflation was higher. I don’t know for sure, but is suspect in Reagan’s first thirty days he never claimed that they were in the worst economy since the Great Depression and I suspect he never used the terms "catastrophic", "crisis" or any other similar panty-waste, hand-wringing, pussy whipped, "I feel your pain", BS for what he saw, as a job that needed doing with an outcome measured in the quality of people's lives, NOT in how many poll percentage points a certain stance was worth. What we need in America today is more Patton’s and fewer Powell’s, more Apple‘s and fewer Lehman Brothers, more leadership and fewer focus groups.

Sins of Omission, What the Politicians Aren’t Saying

Recently the government passed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (The stimulus bill) catchy title eh?  The projected cost on it’s face is $780 Billion dollars.  The way it was sold to the American taxpayer is that it would save or create 3.6 Million jobs.  If this much money is at stake and this many people’s lives are at stake shouldn’t someone ask some questions?  After all, if you assume there are 300 Million people in the United States, which works out to $2600 for every man woman and child.  Since there are six people in my household, I think I should be able to ask what I am getting for my $15,600. At the same time, that works out to $216,666 per job created or saved.  Shouldn’t we ask how the government accounts for a job saved?  A job created, that seems relatively easy to account for, a job saved, that seems “squishier”.  Finally, wasn’t there a cheaper method of saving or creating these jobs?

First of all, what’s in it for me.  After all, I am employed, gotten as much education as I can, worked hard, played by the rules, not taken on too much debt (though my wife would argue that last point) why should the government take $15,600 from my family and give it to people who aren’t employed, haven’t worked on their education, don’t work hard, haven’t played by the rules, have taken on too much debt.  Moreover, if the government takes this money from me to rescue these people this time, what’s to stop them from repeating this bad behavior in the future?  Why won’t the government take another $15,600 from me ten years from now when the next bubble bursts and why should I be paying for other people’s bad behavior.  Ben Bernanke used the metaphor that if you neighbor’s house is on fire you should help put it out.  This doesn’t begin to pass the smell test.  First of all, I should help my neighbor, but the government shouldn’t come to my house in the middle of the night, hold a gun to my head and force me to help my neighbor all the while telling me, “thank you for volunteering”.  Second, my neighbor has been quietly filling his basement with gasoline, and piling dry brush against his house for the last several years, where is his responsibility?  Finally, as I not only am forced to help put out the current fire, and rebuild my neighbor a new house, who is going to take the matches out of his hands so that there is no next time?

Despite the absurd fact that we could just grant $216,666 to the least employed and poorest 3.6 million amongst us and that the net effect would be take them off of the unemployment rolls for 3-5 years and immediately stimulate the economy as they spent the money and that if there was some requirement for them to pay down their mortgage it would help the banks, and this would largely solve the economic crisis.  This is one of the reasons that fiscal conservatives have a problem, not that it would work, but because the government isn’t taking this tact.  In fact, the approved method is to dole the funds out over a protracted length of time, to projects that various special interest deem worthy, not in an effort to fix the economy, rather in an effort to shore up power and reward political patrons.  Rather than being efficient and effective, instead we are left with ineffective, slow and designed for any number of things except efficiently fixing the economy.

Lastly, I hate being lied to and I hate even more that either my fellow countrymen don’t know or don’t care that they are being lied to.  That the government lies, is nothing new, that they aren’t taking time to craft credible lies has me more than just frustrated.  If the government spends a dollar today for a service that in turn creates a job, someone is employed today that otherwise might not be.  But doesn’t that person need a job tomorrow?  If there is no market basis for the job that has been created and the government is the only customer that will ever require that job, haven’t we simply permanently expanded government?  Can anyone really envision a time when President Obama, or his successor, will ever say, “unemployment is down to 2.5% and since we artificially created 3.6 million jobs in 2009 now we are going to eliminate those jobs to prevent inflation and shrink the size of government?”  So, while the cover story is plausible “we want to save or create jobs” the net result is a permanent expansion of government such that a large portion of the $780 Billion will have to become a permanent part of the federal budget to continue to pay for the jobs created by the government that the marketplace doesn’t need.  Yet, no politician is saying this…sins of omission I guess.

The Immorality of (certain) Christians

Catchy title eh?  If I ever run for political office, this is the article my opponent will try to hang me with, but as you read it I want you to think about the logic of the article, not how it made you, as a Christian feel.

For the last 2000+ years, Christians as a religious class have believed that eventually the world will “end”.   Our shared belief that world will be perfected and that Christ will reign for 1000 years is interesting in itself, what happens after 1000 years?  Nevertheless, the details are window dressing.  The fact is, we believe the world will “end” but it is unclear what that means.  The planet will be destroyed? All life will be destroyed? Only human life will be destroyed?  All resources will be exhausted and we will move on?  Is the end limited to earth? Does the solar system end? Does the galaxy end? Does the universe end?  These are all interesting points to ponder but the answers drive some unhealthy behavior in the here and now.

The fact that Christians believe the world will end is nothing particularly unique to Christians and in fact, this is one belief that we share with the most atheist scientist.  They also believe that all life, human or otherwise will eventually be extinguished on earth.  They are more specific on the method (sun exhausts it’s fuel and goes nova, the earth collides with an asteroid of sufficient size, humans have a nuclear war of sufficient magnitude to create a nuclear winter, etc.)  But they are vague on the timeline, anywhere from next year to billions of years.  There is evidence that many Christians all the way back to Paul, have believed that the earth will end during their lifetime.  Therein lies the problem.

In 1 Cor 7 particularly verse 29 it is clear that Paul believes that Christians shouldn’t marry because time is short and they should be about the work.  The logic here is that the end is coming within their lifetime.  Most of us would agree, Jehovah’s Witnesses notwithstanding that the end of the world not only didn’t occur during Paul’s lifetime it hasn’t occurred to this point.  But if you believe that the end of the world will occur during your lifetime that drives certain behaviors.  What if none of the Paul era Christians, believing his misguided teachings, had married or procreated, because the end was imminent?

There is nothing specific within Christ’s teachings, Paul’s writing’s notwithstanding, that leads one to believe that the end of the world is inevitable within one’s lifetime.  Christ in fact was purposefully vague…no man knows…I come as a thief in the night…Despite that fact, history is replete with various sects and followings that were convinced the end was near. 

Earlier in the article when I mentioned “…resources will be exhausted…” You may have thought, oh this is going to be one of those rants…You were partially right.  I have written before my belief that the only ethical rate of usage of ANY resource is the rate at which the planet can renew that resource.  If one believes the end of the world is imminent (within the span of their lifetime) then it really doesn’t matter the rate of usage.  In no meaningful way are any of the earth’s resources that threatened.  However, all Christians in all of history have been wrong when they believed that the earth would end in their lifetime.  If you share that belief, what are the odds that you are right?  Isn’t it much more likely that the earth will continue beyond your lifetime and for generations after that?  If we take that view, should we be better stewards of the endowment of resources we have been blessed with? 

Let’s agree that it is, just as likely that the earth, and mankind with it, will continue for another 2000 years as it is, that the earth will end in our lifetime.   In such a scenario, we should base our fishing of tuna, our taking of timber, our consumption of petroleum at no more than the earth can produce.  If we adopt this idea as a the only sustainable, ethical manner in which reflect our stewardship, then the future Christian, 2000 years from now, will have just as much tuna, timber, coal and oil available to them as we do.  Isn’t that the only truly ethical way to treat our fellow (yet unborn) man?