Does Active Investing Work in Theory?

We know active investing almost always doesn't work in practice. The vast majority of professional money managers underperform their respective index over meaningful periods of time. Let that sink in. Compared to what we could easily do on our own through indexing, most of the people we pay very large sums to invest our money give us back less after they do their job and take their fee. For those few that do, we say they earn alpha--return in excess of the market for the same level of risk taken. 

As a side note realize something. Your Uncle Fred with all the great stock picks or your friend who just quit his job to start day trading and who has actually has been making money trading stocks, bonds, options, or whatever HAS NOT been taking the same level of risk as any index. Those two happen to be winners in a likely random pool of many people taking on tremendously more risk than they realize. If 10,000 people all flip coins ten times in a row, some of them almost certainly will get ten heads in a row (singularly by itself a 1 in 1,024 chance). 

However, I am focused on professionals here. Guys and gals who dress sharp, use all the right jargon, are actually highly intelligent and reasonable, and who most of the time lose money for their clients. Perhaps their clients are buying something else than returns [paging Robin Hanson--investing professionally isn't about making money]. Highly likely in many cases. It feels good to deal with these pros. Plus they can in fact help investors stay disciplined--better to make 5% versus the benchmark's 6% over 10 years than to bail out when the market declines and earn only 1% over that same 10 years. Fortunately for EMH and unfortunately for this theory, this affect has been shrinking to recently be nearly nothing.

So, while active management doesn't work in practice, does it work in theory? Start with the assumption of a manager that can consistently and reliably earn 1% alpha. When her benchmark is up 6%, she is up 7% on average. Why does she need your money? 

I can think of two likely reasons:

1. She could want to use it to reduce her own risk. 
2. She could have more opportunity than she can herself realize.

Notice that these are not altruistic motivations. The first is fairly unfavorable for the client--you are giving her money not for your benefit but for hers. She uses the additional funds to smooth out the volatility in her own income. When you pay a management fee to her, you are directly subsidizing her income. And just the use of the funds themselves is an indirect subsidy allowing her to invest more broadly. All of this might be justified if the second reason holds.

In the second she only would invest your money once she has invested all of her own money including all the money she can borrow at less than the total return of the investment, which is the market return plus alpha (6% plus the 1% in this case). Theoretically and in practice she will charge you a small fee to cover transaction cost plus a little profit to her to let you participate in her investing endeavors. Yet as we saw in the first reason she should probably be paying you as you are giving her a benefit of lower risk in the form of a smoother income stream.

Essentially this is an arbitrage which we know is going to have a limited capacity. Even if she is in that elite company of professionals who can outperform the market, her last idea (say the last stock her analysis says to buy) will be her worst idea and only be at best just as good as the market itself. It seems very likely by the time she gets to your money, we are firmly in reason-one (personal risk reduction) territory. 

This is quite damning for professional money management--in theory. What might save it and asset managers like myself who do in fact invest client money with money managers? 

First, we must admit just how challenging it is to find professionals who can outperform the market. Second, we must consider that the first reason above, income-smoothing risk reduction, might actually have a win-win aspect to it. Yes, she does enjoy less risk by using your money, but she doesn't get this for free. In fact she is probably risk averse enough that the second reason doesn't hold firmly.

Rather than fully lever all of her available resources--put her risk at ludicrous speed--she would likely prefer giving you most all of the risk of her performance and collect a steady fee for doing so. She is giving up the potential for return upside so that she has only very little downside risk. This flips the concern from being a pure doesn't-work-in-theory problem to being a pure principal-agent problem. sigh We can't catch a break. Now we have to worry that she isn't incentivized properly to continue to do what we hope she can do--outperform the market at the same level of risk. But at least we partially rescued active management in theory.

As bad as this is (in theory), this is in public market active management. The same forces are at play plaguing private markets like private equity and private debt. At least public markets are not opaque, very hard to benchmark, illiquid, et al.

Breaking Professions Down Into Three Essential Roles

I think one can categorize most professions into a small number of distinct roles--let's explore this idea and arbitrarily limit the number of roles to three in each case. It is my contention that few of the people practicing these professions are good at more than one role, and many are not very good at any of the roles. Consider:

• Lawyers: navigator, firefighter, bodyguard
• Financial advisors: tour guide, travel agent, psychologist
• Medical doctors: band-aids, antibiotics, placebo
• College professors: inspirational speaker, revealer of truth (model explainer), advancer of truth (researcher)
• Elementary school teachers: babysitter, basic skills tutor, etiquette shaper
• Catholic priests: moral consigliere, charity executive director, art museum curator

Libertarian Party 2020 Presidential Run - A Postmortem

As the 2020 election comes to a close, it is hard not to be disappointed as a Libertarian. As a libertarian, there is much room for optimism as many libertarian/classical liberal issues carried the day. Namely, movement toward ending the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, data privacy, etc. advanced nicely across the U.S. 

Here are the recent historic totals of Libertarian candidate votes for president:

1996    485,759        Harry Browne/Jo Jorgensen

2000    384,431        Harry Browne/Art Olivier

2004    397,265        Michael Badnarik/Richard Campagna

2008    523,713        Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root

2012    1,275,923     Gary Johnson/Jim Gray

2016    4,489,233     Gary Johnson/William Weld

2020    1,705,638+   Jo Jorgensen/Spike Cohen

My first thought was frustration at the Jorgensen campaign performance. But a friend pointed out that the mainstream media largely shut her out (even by Libertarian standards) giving her virtually no interview time or press otherwise. The latest "most important election of our lifetime" along with its highly divisive nature (largely Trump's doing but not entirely) gave little reason for alternatives to the duopoly. This combined with the COVID world was a very unfortunate combination for an outsider looking to gain recognition. 

So this setback might just be a fluke. Still, we need ideas on how to generate brand awareness and garner votes. A partial list of ideas (definitely a work in process):

• Get rid of purity tests - The infighting of no-true-Scotsman has to be limited to early primary candidate selection. Once we have a candidate, rally behind them. This doesn't mean we cannot criticize, but know what stage of the game you are in. This also helps broaden the tent. Be a directional libertarian rather than a destination libertarian.
• Focus on uncompetitive states - perhaps never leave California or perhaps more appropriately Texas or just both of those two important states. Imagine building a strong base in demographically and electorally important areas. The Free State Movement envisioned flocking to a small state to dominate politics there, New Hampshire emerging as the destination. Rather than focusing on winning a small state's electoral votes, this would be a strategy of focusing on winning hearts and minds to reshape the policy debate.
• Articulate stances in better sound bites - Help the voters know in the simplest terms why they are taking the leap to support, advocate, and vote Libertarian. A platform of less government is not enough. Specifics are crucial here, but more importantly we need to highlight solutions rather than what sounds to many like retreat into the darkness. A great example is Corey DeAngelis' straightforward and impactful message on school choice/education reform: "fund students (families) instead of institutions" and "let the money follow the child".
• Stop sounding like extremists - This dovetails with the prior idea. “End the Fed”, “Taxation is Theft”, et al. are not salient. Find a way to be against war without sounding like a 60s hippie—pacifism is right but it doesn’t sell. You can’t win support by telling people they are awful. You have to sell the message of hope and progress.
• Look the part - Quit going for shock value. You need to look like a candidate out of central casting. No nicknames on the ballot (e.g., Spike). No taxation is theft hats. The target new voter does not want to elect someone from Comic-Con. 
• Focus on a few key, pivotal issues that resonate in the current election - Might I suggest The Big Five?
• Get more exposure in mainstream channels - We have to bring the message to a much broader audience. We are certainly still in the brand awareness stage of marketing. Where is the Free To Choose of the modern era? Perot built a voter base from primetime segments he paid for and starred in. How about a libertarian town hall? How about starting this now and developing some multi-year momentum? 

These are just some ideas. We need lots more. 

Of course I'm not the only one thinking about this (this short video summarizes the current debate).

What Explains Country Variation in COVID Deaths?

I see a lot of vague or implied speculation on why there are such large differences in COVID-19 death rates (et al.) among various countries and regions. But many of these have internal tensions once we think a little deeply about the arguments being hinted at. Biases are leading to a lot of lies of omission if not just outright bad reasoning.

Why is Sweden different than Finland? What explains Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea versus France, Italy, and Spain? Germany versus Belgium? USA NE versus Texas versus Florida versus USA Midwest?

Here is a partial list of the usual and some unusual suspects:

• General health in the population
• Partial immunity including from prior coronavirus exposures
• Climate including ability to comfortably be outdoors and in open-air environments (definitely relative to when the virus struck)
• Prior and continued use of various drugs and treatments
• Proportion of at-risk people especially elderly
• Quality of procedures for protecting the vulnerable
• Quality of testing
• Quality of tracing
• Population density (within cities and otherwise relative to where people actually live; e.g., excluding most of Canada when measuring for Canada)
• Government NPIs including lockdowns and other policies but not test and/or trace
• Degree of movement within and among various communities (city to city, within a city, cross sociodemographic, in and out of country, et al.)
• Strain(s) of C-19 virus affecting country and timing of the infection

I suspect that the error term in any formal analysis might prove to contain all the variation. Remember, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist."

The Forrest Gump Diet: A few simple rules for a better diet

Most dieting plans are nonsense. And most dieting is not about losing weight--it is about signaling that one would like to lose weight, is involved in a struggle, and would like sympathy. If people really wanted to lose weight, they would. 

Diets come in a thousand varieties, but it is clear that while each might work for a while for some people, they fail (or people fail them) as often as they work. That we know so very little about this highly desired realm of knowledge, it is a big economic paradox. My guess is that it is highly dependent on individual circumstances (extreme heterogeneity) and these are both governed by external environmental factors including cultural influences as well as genetic factors. As such, one size fits more than one might not be true. And yet I do think some guiding principles can be derived that can greatly help us on our journey:

1. Eat when you are hungry. (Note that this pushes back against intermittent fasting.) 
2. Eat slower. You are not in a speed contest. 
3. Eat less. You are not in a volume contest. This can most easily be achieved by simply not ever completely finishing what you have been served.
4. Eat less of the things that you want to eat. It is very likely that your desire is to eat more of the things that are not as good for you.
5. Eat more of the things that are not as desirable to you. This is the converse of the prior point.
6. Eat a greater variety. This likely helps with the gut microbiome, and it makes life more interesting. That said, some things may just not be right for your body, and that is fine.
7. Eat less processed foods and prepackaged foods. This one helps with #s 2, 3, and 4 by making food less convenient especially food that is generally nutritionally poorer for you.
8. Look to make good choices at the margin, but diet over weeks and months not hours and days. No one ever starved to death by missing a single meal, and no one ever became obese by indulging oneself one time. 
• The first key is to avoid temptation by avoiding bad situations. 
• The second key is to routinely seek to make a slightly better choice at each opportunity. 
• The final key is to be able to look back over weeks and months to see if you have generally been making good choices and improving choices. While this might entail the need to keep a journal, which is contrary to the spirit of this list of keeping things simple, evaluations over longer periods of time are essential to understanding if you’re making progress.

P.S. This is the diet that worked for me. I lost 20 pounds and it definitely improved some aspects of my health. Had I wanted to lose another 20 pounds, I would more devoutly follow it, but I want other things in life more. At least I'm honest with myself.

The Age of Fear

We live in an era characterized by fear as a dominating narrative and influence. The beginning of this era can be formally dated to September 11, 2001, but it began developing years prior. It continued and strengthened with the Great Recession. The fear of inequality drove both the Tea Party and Occupy movements. No proposed public policy solution escapes this phenomenon.  The Patriot Act, Sarbanes Oxley, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, Trump's immigration actions and policies, are but some of the most notable examples. The Fed along with the macroeconomics profession and finance upper echelons has so feared inflation that we regularly get stagnant and slow recoveries.

At each turn we increasingly choose safety and security over the obvious risk and potential opportunity. Insurance in all forms is overvalued and desired especially at the expense of someone else. Bastiat's apt observation that "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else" has evolved into the state as the fictitious entity whereby everyone's risk is absorbed and destroyed at the expense of no one.

Now COVID-19 dominates our decision making. And the opportunists are always there to fulfill their portion of the bootleggers and Baptists story. 

Tyler Cowen has seen this developing for some time. We are not the little engine that could. Where are the people not just chanting but demanding that "the show MUST go on"? 

I am not arguing that fear and risk should be ignored. And it is not lost on me that our growing wealth and well being has dramatically changed the risk calculus for society--this is a good thing. But all risk analysis must be properly constructed, weighted, and continually reconsidered. Otherwise, costly errors will occur and compound.

As always, the future belongs to those willing and able to take and bear risk.

If You Are Up To Your Neck in Piss, and ...

... I'm about to throw a bucket of snot in your face, would you duck? In other words, who are you going to vote for/against for president?

The title and lead in for this post is from something my grandpa used to ask me often when I was young. He was full of pithy little sayings, questions, and aphorisms that were his way of teaching a lesson or making a point. He was a down-to-earth person with a keen ability to see through bullshit. Perhaps years on the road in his profession as a long-haul truck driver gave him this perspective. Incidentally, my one-time non de plume for this blog, Fonzy Shazam, is based partially on his CB handle, "Shazam". 

Answering the question of this post has a bit of question begging to it as it is not at all clear that you should vote. Your vote has no chance of affecting the outcome of the election. NONE. So I am approaching this from two directions:

1. Your vote will signal ever so slightly support for a candidate. As we'll see, this will have a lot more value for some than others.
2. We could consider this from the standpoint of voting as if your vote would determine the outcome.

As a libertarian I approach this from a decidedly different view than many, but I believe the trend toward independent thinking is undeniably growing. Team R and Team D are less and less appealing for a growing number of Americans. 

Libertarians are not uniformly behind their own candidate, which should be expected from open-minded thinkers. To this end the Soho Forum recently held a three-way debate considering who libertarians should vote for. It is well worth a listen. 

In fact there are two different elections going on for the presidency this year. This has been the trend, but I think (hope) it is at a critical inflection point. Trump and Biden are trying to see who gets naming rights to the bulldozer that will continue to run you over. Jorgensen is unfortunately not in contention to win that "prize". Instead she is proclaiming a message that there is another way--trying to earn enough support that libertarians can no longer be ignored (e.g., getting onto the debate stage despite the rigged system) and letting the uniformed know there has been a group here for a long, long time steadfastly supporting the principles the duopoly works against until they reluctantly must support. 

Now, on to the show . . . Rating the Three 2020 U.S. Presidential Contenders

I will try to be as concrete as I can on this evaluating the candidates along several critical dimensions. 

1) COVID pandemic: I think we have to start with the issue of the year since it is such an important issue relating directly to what we expect a state and its leaders to "solve". It is a 9/11-type moment in magnitude and reshaping of priorities. That does not imply there is very much the president can actually do about it, but there was a good deal in the actual case of 9/11 and the current case of the pandemic. I am working on another post with my advice for humans and their leaders in the upcoming next pandemic--yeah, I know; audacious post. It should be no surprise that my advice is largely for government to get out of the way. Therefore, I think the libertarian philosophy would best set an environment conducive for least harm in the event of a pandemic. Trump obviously can be evaluated directly since he was president during the pandemic. He failed this test doubling down rather than changing strategies. He did not stand up to (drain) the swamp as the FDA, CDC, et al. thwarted progress and solutions. He was on the wrong side of testing showing no understanding of how critical it is. He shifted in the wind reacting to democrats rather than charting a course of sensible policy and leadership. Whether you support these policies or not, he reflexively closed borders in a clumsy, late, and haphazard method, and he waffled on lockdowns sending very mixed messages. He politicized it and provoked divisiveness. In other words he Trumped it up. Biden on the other hand was . . . silent. He didn't have a definitive, detailed plan until well after most of the worst had passed, and what we do hear from him now is not good--a simple rehashing of failed generalities and banalities. 

Verdict: Jorgensen wins by default as her natural position on decentralization and free markets best positions the country in the event of pandemics. Trump edges Biden on policy as his base's position of opening up is better suited for where we are now in this pandemic. However, Biden is the better pick once we consider the standpoint of general public opinion on opening up and moving forward from here. Trump supporters already think the pandemic worry is overblown, and a Biden victory allows Biden supporters to agree.

Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

2) The Big Five: [spoiler alert: Jorgensen is much^10 better on all five issues than either Trump or Biden. She opposes and will fight to end the drug war, she will work for free markets in education, she will strongly support immigration expansion, she will be vastly better on taxation and war. So let me just evaluate the two others.]

Drug Prohibition - Most of all these dimensions are a competition for last place between Trump and Biden. This is no exception. Trump's behavior and policies and appointments have been a combination of don't care about it and please the base. This is not progress or hope for the future. Biden and Harris' histories on the drug war are atrocious. But just as Obama entered office opposed to gay marriage and then "evolved" on the issue, Harris has changed on marijuana. For what its worth the democrats' rhetoric is better than republicans. I want good, just policies, and beggars can't be choosers. Biden>Trump

Education - This one isn't close. Trump is much better than Biden. The better chance of meaningful education reform and support for local reform is under a Trump administration rather than a government school union/bureaucracy Biden administration. Trump>Biden

Immigration - This one is close, to many people's probably surprise, in a race to the bottom sense. Biden is not a strong immigration supporter. Trump is awful on immigration, but the equation is Trump hates immigration therefore Biden opposes hating immigration. Categorize this as trade below being issues that are no longer Biden priorities once Trump is out of office. Still, Biden gives us a chance to stop the bleeding. Biden>Trump

Taxes - Trump's base wants lower taxes which is totally unrealistic and inconsistent with the spending levels of the Trump presidency--presumably supported by the base. However, the sentiment of low taxes lends support for small government, which is good. Much better are the tax reforms that Trump signed into law such as a higher standard deduction and lower corporate rates (an issue Obama supported and couldn't get accomplished). Biden's tax instincts are not good--he wants to use taxes as a political tool--and his base's sentiment is downright scary. His actual plan is not progress as it has objectively bad public policy. Trump>Biden

War - I truly think Trump accidentally could be the meaningfully better candidate on this issue. His base holds him back. It is an accident because it is only his selfish version of America First that causes him to dislike American engagement abroad. However, he would still like to have every possible dollar spent growing the military and by extension the military-war-making-industrial complex. Biden believes with wide application America can and should guide the policies and actions of foreign nations and peoples, and he is willing to use force if necessary--with a low threshold for necessary. There are two facets at play here: who would reduce the risk of war more and who would reduce the incidence of war more. On the first point I believe it is a tie in general with Biden improving the tail risk (very low chance of a highly disastrous war). Similarly a dangerous new Cold War with China is less likely under Biden. On the second point I believe Trump gives us a chance to bring troops home and reduce engagements by virtue of his desires and the antiwar movement on the left that always goes into hibernation when a democrat is in office. This is a close one. When in doubt, reduce existential risk. Biden>Trump

Verdict: Jorgensen is the clear winner here as I stated before. Trump edges Biden since his wins were meaningfully different and magnitude matters.

Jorgensen>>>>Trump>Biden 

3) Court Appointments: Jorgensen would appoint judges who understand the Constitution and respect the limits of government power. Trump would seem to be much better than Biden, but we shouldn't seek liberal judges or conservative judges. We should seek judges who have consistent and good reasoning. Such judge candidates can be found with support on the left and the right. I do believe that Trump's nominated judges will come from a pool that is more aligned with those of Jorgensen. 

Verdict: This issue is overrated in importance. I myself have been guilt of this quite often. The judiciary largely goes where the zeitgeist leads. 

Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

4) Trade: As mentioned above, don't be too quick to assume an optimistic future for trade under a Biden presidency. He has generally not been good on this issue and the democrats/progressives have always been worse than republicans/conservatives--current clown show not withstanding. Biden's core base is allergic to trade. He and democrats currently are supporters of it only because Trump is against it and only to the extent they can score anti-Trump points. Ironically, Jorgensen would be the pro-manufacturing job candidate as her policies would grow our economy much more than either of the other two.

Verdict: The long sweep of history is in favor of free trade--popularly by poll and, more importantly, actually by behavior. Only one candidate in this race understands that and works to strengthen it.

Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

5) Regulation: I have no doubt that Jorgensen is the best on this issue. Her surrounding advisors and appointments would greatly advance the cause of shrinking government. I keep hearing that Trump is clearly better than is Biden. I do believe that, but . . . just how good is he really? Not so great it turns out. I continue to make downward adjustments to my priors on this one. And you don't have to look far to see problems.

Verdict: A Jorgensen administration would have a chance to significantly curtail the regulatory burden. Trump is beholden to interests that push against regulation more so than is Biden.

Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

6) Executive Orders: This is a mixed bag as I would expect a Jorgensen presidency would accomplish a lot by executive order, a practice I otherwise greatly oppose. However, I expect she would tend to respect the power and its actual constitutional limits. For the other two I err on the side of assuming more malpractice from Biden than Trump with Obama and the first four years of Trump as limited evidence. 

Verdict: The use and abuse of executive orders is a barometer on how much inappropriate power the administration is engaging in overall.

Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

7) Sanctity of Personal Choice: There may be no other issue for which Jorgensen distinguishes herself from the other two than this one. It is her core. To believe Trump champions this is to fall for the sham rather than looking more deeply into the actual behavior and action. But sadly Biden is even worse. His position is that government knows best. Technocrats can and should guide the economy and other public policy. Trump's penchant for industrial policy narrows the gap in this race to the bottom, but as low as he goes, he simply will find Biden there waiting for him.

Verdict: Libertarians don't make good, that is to say electable, candidates largely because they are such deep believers in the idea that government is not the solution. But I am grading on how well each candidate scores on the issue not on how their position affects their electability.

Jorgensen>Trump>Biden

8) The American Image (home and abroad): This is a very important issue, but it is widely misunderstood. When I see the protesters in Hong Kong waving American flags and signing the U.S. national anthem, I see the image of America as a shining city on a hill. People often confuse the concept of the American image abroad as meaning we must submit to the will of other nations' governments or we must forcefully exert our will on others. Likewise, people often confuse the image at home as meaning we must surrender our personal, moral autonomy or all be nationalistic xenophobes. In truth the idea is that we should have pride and hopefulness for our nation as a defender of virtuous principles, and we should project to the world the best possible example of what free markets and free minds can accomplish. We should champion the rights of minorities and the opportunity for all to be the best they can be with those limits being constantly elevated to higher potentials. Trump has tarnished the image abroad by not being a constructive or trustworthy partner with other nations' leaders. He has tarnished the image at home by not leading us toward peaceful resolutions of the conflict between the police state and those who have been its victims. I don't believe Biden is much better, but it wouldn't take a lot to improve our situation in both cases. And I do believe Biden would give the peaceful protesters epistemic cover to distance themselves from the violent protesters and other criminals. This includes many state and local politicians who have been to cowardly or incapable to lead.

Verdict: The image needs improvement, and it will not be made better through divisiveness and control. See the next item for more.

Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

9) Persuasion versus Demonization: Don't fall victim to the low-level thinking that is easily swayed by pleasantry (or normalcy) over content. Just because Trump is gruff, rude, and unbecoming doesn't make him wrong (or right). Both major party candidates are looking to have their way with you. It probably shouldn't factor in that one will buy you dinner first while the other says, "Just get in the van." Note how Trump in a lame duck term and possibly facing more impeachment threat has pluses and minuses relative to Biden who will have a “mandate from the American people” and a desire to make his mark, God help us. As for Jorgensen, she is of an ideological core that holds persuasion in high exultation. The nonaggression principle doesn't just mean you don't hit people to get your way. It also means you need to win hearts and minds to advance the truth.

Verdict: Biden calls people names, but Trump is good at it. Both encourage hostility. 

Jorgensen>Biden>Trump

10) Federal Reserve Appointments: This is the issue the Libertarian Party is weakest on--perhaps the only significant weakness. My hope is it is more rhetoric than ideology. End The Fed is a power banner message but an empty policy. I agree that in a much-closer-to-perfect world we would have free markets in money. But we cannot get there with simplistic destruction like I think we actually could when it comes to say the Department of Agriculture among so many examples. I don't think she would in fact end the Fed. I think she might bring meaningful reform and openness if not some deregulation to move duties out of its domain. Trump and Biden are nearly the same in this regard as most appointments here are out of the macroeconomic professional class (as good or bad as that group is on average).

Verdict: I fear a radical appointment from Jorgensen. 

Biden=Trump>Jorgensen

Weighing all of the above and anything left out, consider the difficulty each candidate would face in getting their agenda executed. If they require legislative action, then it is less likely the bad things they would do actually get accomplished. As always their rhetoric is much, much greater than their capabilities or true desires. For example, if Trump had his way he would spend all of his time and effort playing golf and giving speeches (and tweeting). He doesn't care about you. And neither does Biden. 

Overall Verdict: Don't waste your vote. Voting for one of the current failures is a waste of your time and a waste of an opportunity to affect change. 

Jorgensen is the clear winner. A vote for her will not elect her. But neither will a vote for Trump or Biden. However, a vote for her strikes another blow against the two parties, and on the margin that matters a lot. One more drop of water in the ocean for Trump or Biden changes nothing. If I vote as if the vote will determine the outcome, my answer is the same. If you make me vote for Trump or Biden in the real world election where I cannot affect the outcome, I would vote for Biden as I prefer the signal of change. If you make me vote for Trump or Biden in a hypothetical where my vote does determine the outcome, I would vote for . . . if it is gun to my head, I might just say "open fire", but otherwise I reluctantly vote for Trump with the hope that the choice causes significant improving change within the Democratic Party or a chance for libertarians to gain a large new group of supporters (left and right).

P.S. This analysis is independent of ways in which the candidates might benefit me personally (as any meaningful analysis like this should be). For example, Biden would likely be good for my personal tax situation by removing the SALT cap, good for my home value and quality of life by subsidizing higher education including the university I live right next to, and good for my job by making taxes more complex which as an investment professional provides me job security. 

P.P.S. If Biden turns out to be mentally unfit for office, much of this become moot. 

P.P.P.S. Sumner has his own list.

P.P.P.P.S. Some asides: 

Thankfully, it isn’t Sanders. 

Seriously, he is the embodiment of playing with quality-of-life fire. 

Michael Huemer offers a critique of Trump from the conservative point of view. 

I recently summarized the thing I most like and the thing I most dislike about the Trump presidency as such: I most like that it has greatly accelerated the demise of the two-party system in America. I most dislike that it fosters and strengthens the fear and loathing of "the other" in all its many, hideous connotations. Notice that I am referring to the Trump presidency rather than Trump himself. To arrive at these I am using a comparative lens. While I like the tax policy and judicial appointments, these would have largely been very similar if not better sold in a different Republican administration. I detest the separation of families, deportations, and killing of many, many foreigners, but these were the case in the Obama administration as well. One must always ask as compared to what. Is the two-party prison in which we dwell really just giving us a “decision” between the bully you know and the bully you’ve forgotten?

Alternative post title: One of these things is not like the other thing, one of these things just doesn’t belong…

Life Is A Negative Lottery

Being awaken by a phone call in the night is almost certainly a bad news event. At the least it is a wrong number that has disturbed your sleep. Unless you are the rare individual up for a Noble Prize, there are many dreadful bad scenarios about to play out.*

This is indicative of life in general where bad news typically comes as quick, acute shocks and good news develops slowly. One could say that life is constantly forcing us to essentially write (i.e., sell) put options. While insurance sometimes is available to mitigate these risks, to more fully counteract this exposure we should be prudently buying call options. 

Briefly, a put option is an agreement whereby the owner has the right (not the obligation) to sell something at a predetermined price usually on or before a specified date. By writing or selling a put option one takes on the obligation to buy at the price the owner can sell at. Think of it this way: If you sell me a put option on a barrel of oil that expires in one month, I can exercise this right any time in the next month** to sell a barrel of oil to you at the agreed-to price (let's say $40)--making you buy it from me at $40. If I don't currently own a barrel of oil, I simply go on the open market, buy it at the current price, and then sell it to you at $40. The lower the price, the better it is for the owner (me in this scenario) and the worse it is for the writer (seller, you). 

A call option is just the opposite in terms of the obligation--it is the right to buy at a specified price whereby the writer (seller) has the obligation to sell at that price. Imagine having bought a one-year call option on 100 shares of Tesla stock a year ago at the then current market price. On July 22, 2019 TSLA was going for about $255/share. By July 17, 2020 it was priced at about $1,500/share. Suppose you bought this option (right to buy at $255) for a cost of $5,000, and consider that the value of the call option right now would be about $125,000. That's a great outcome for the option owner and an awful outcome for the option writer (seller). 

Here are some examples in life of put options where we are the unfortunate, forced writers (sellers) and potential call options where we can be the prudent buyers. 

Puts: 

• Flat tire, car wreck, . . .
• Stomach bug, a cancer diagnosis, . . .
• House fire, termites, . . .
• Tripping on the sidewalk, bumping one's head, . . . 
• Tornado, flood, . . .
• [this list could go on and on]...

Calls:

• Nurturing good relationships and broad networks
• Maintaining a diversified investment portfolio added to regularly with constant market exposure--long-term compounding is the call option (outsized upside) aspect of this
• Putting a small but meaningful amount of money invested in esoteric opportunities like Bitcoin, a creative person's far-out idea/business, . . .
• Embracing a willingness to try new things and keep all options on the table (including the option to walk away)--for example, just a slight geographic expansion in one's willingness to relocate can have a large impact on their employment options
• Learning diverse skills--good for career options, building networks, and knowing something that randomly comes in handy for the right time/right place
• Not burning bridges; rather err on the side of putting oneself "out there"
• Buying risk when others are risk averse and in increasing proportion to that aversion
• Playing the lottery? Maybe, but...***

Find ways to disproportionately gain when things go well. Admittedly this is difficult as the opportunities are fleeting, rare, and easily outnumbered by fakes. Still, it is a very good way to improve one's holistic life portfolio. Perhaps the bottom line is when faced with two roads, take the one less traveled when the downside of each is close and the upside of the less traveled is high even if unlikely. 

*We don't even notify people of the Shazam Prize this way, or any way quite yet--coming soon.

**Technically this is an American option. A European option allows the transaction to only take place at the point of contract expiration. Effectively they are nearly identical in capital markets since one can always replicate the American option using a combination of European options or selling the European option to someone else.

***In most cases playing the lottery does not qualify under the prudent consideration--sometimes the expected value is actually positive, but the chances of a significant win are still mindbogglingly small. Still, $5 every once in a while (can you live up to that limit?) is a pleasurable escape from reality. My advice is simply to soak in the fantasy of what winning would be like considering also the downsides (change of lifestyle, lost friends, inability to trust many people, etc.). Perhaps to keep oneself in check, you should deliberately NOT play the lottery and accumulate those unspent funds in a separate account looking to its growth as a proud joy.

What Explains The Low Death Rate of COVID-19?

Perhaps that title has you scratching your head, or perhaps it has you filled with indignant rage. In any case your first question should be: low in comparison to what? 

There is good evidence about how low the risk is for some (young especially but middle-aged and otherwise healthy in general) and how high it is for others including the very old. 

What I want to do here is put down my current assumptions about what is driving the death rate from COVID-19. These are not just subject to change, but I plan to revise my thinking (whether or not I get a chance to formally update this post or make a similar future post). I invite the reader to do the same--putting down one's thoughts in precise numbers is a very good exercise for cutting through shallow thinking.

Let's start with the assumption that everyone who gets COVID-19 will die from it and everyone will eventually get it. Let's limit this analysis to the United States. Formally stated:

probability(Death) * probability(Infection) = 100% * 100% = 100%

We know those two probabilities are not true (at least not yet!). So what is mitigating against each? Below are my thoughts on the factors reducing each including the amount they reduce the probability. Keep in mind these are for the average case. Obviously there would be greatly differing answers for various subgroups, and the answers would vary greatly over various periods such as March versus July of this year. Also note that I am simplifying the math by assuming the factors are mutually exclusive, which assumes that a factor is assigned responsibility (the associated percentage) when it is the dominant factor (e.g., While a therapy and general healthiness might help to save a given patient's life, if it was in fact the patient's own T cell immunity that was the most important factor, T cell immunity would in that case be assigned as the decisive factor.).

Limiting factors on p(Death):

1. General healthiness = 50%--which, again, is to say that general healthiness reduces the death rate by 50%.
2. Therapies (not including a vaccine) = 15%
3. T cell immunity = 15%
4. Virus weakening over time to be less potent = 10%
5. Other natural immunity = 9.5%
6. Residual (i.e., an infection does result in death) = 0.5%

(Note: I have not included a vaccine since one does not yet exist.)

Limiting factors on p(Infection):

1. Good hygiene (active resistance to introducing infection) = 20%
2. Personal preventing factors (natural resistance to infection) = 20%
3. Social distancing (voluntary & intentional as a change from baseline normal behavior) = 20%
4. Natural physical isolation = 15%
5. Virus mutating to become more/less contagious = 10%
6. Government-imposed lockdowns = 5%
7. Residual (i.e., one does become infected) = 10%

(Note: The virus mutating to become more contagious could mitigate infection if it meant a faster burnout before 100% population infection. The virus mutating to become less contagious could mitigate if it meant that it changed the baseline for the other factors such that they were now more effective.)

The product of the two residuals gives us the population death rate. 

Residual(death) * Residual(infection) = 0.5% * 10% = 0.05%

This implies I am predicting 0.05% of the U.S. population or about 165,000 people will die directly from the virus. 

The ultimate accuracy of this calculation is not in any way my aim here. Rather I want to be constructive and precise about what I believe is actually driving the pandemic outcome. So it is the list of factors, which I very well may need to revise to at least add some or clarify existing, and the percentage share contribution I assign to each.

Notice that I believe lockdowns and their ilk, which could be construed broadly as involuntary, coerced social distancing, are responsible for a very small decrease in infection rates. However, I believe they have a very large economic and human cost (reduced happiness, reduced liberty, reduced agency, reduced dignity, reduced wealth, reduced health otherwise, et al.). 

Updated (7/25/20): I am seeing more and more evidence that the IFR may be lower than my estimate of 0.5%. If so and if the death level remains where it is today (about 150,000) growing less and less, then that implies the infection rate is higher. For example, at 150,000 deaths and an IFR of 0.5%, infections would be about 30,000,000. If the IFR is 0.25%, then infections would be about 60,000,000 or about 18% of the U.S. population. As for where I am wrong in the IFR, I have no guess--even though it is a factor of 50% perhaps (0.5% should be 0.25%), MAGNITUDE MATTERS! Any single factor is in that case just slightly off to get that new residual result. As for the infection rate, I can make a meaningful guess (and so can you disagreeing with mine for sure). I would guess social distancing explains a lower amount (e.g., 20% becomes 10% or so).

Despite or Because

I would like to introduce a new tagline "Despite or Because"--a method of deeper-level thinking.

Specifically, analysis attains sophistication when it is distinguishing between causation and correlation and answering the question: "Is [this result] in spite of or because of [that]?".

The example du jour is COVID-19.

As we stand today a lot remains to be seen including if our efforts will prove successful. Assuming success, we would like to know if the successful flattening of the curve and much below forecast CFR was in fact because of the federal, state, and local governments' lockdown and shelter-in-place orders or despite them?

I'm not just asking if they had no effect. Did they actually impair the battle against the virus? There are three ways I could see the extreme efforts leading to a net harm setting aside the very important social loss of wealth and way of life not to mention that an economy on a strong footing is better able to withstand and respond to a major threat.

• By putting at risk people into high-dose exposures
• By preventing helpfully-quicker herd immunity
• By disallowing the virus to mutate into a milder strand (this ope is very speculative on my part and I might be very off base here)

Or did those efforts have no meaningful effect period? All of it is interesting and very hard to ask in mixed company much less get open-minded thinking on. 

Sweden, South Korea, Taiwan, and perhaps certain states and cities in the U.S. might provide the counter examples as natural experiments we would need to answer this question to some degree of satisfaction eventually. 

Choose Your Own Adventure - Voter Edition

Choose one of the following ideological menu items by candidate:

Welcome to big-government democracy. Democracy is better than the rest, but the strong-state version has big shortcomings that are widely underappreciated. This is not an argument against voting. Let's assume that your vote counts; in fact, let's assume it is the only vote that does. If we assume a strong, powerful government that will be called upon to play a role in most affairs, we are doomed to a world filled with disappointment. This is true even for you, the sole voter. Surely this, a small sampling of each candidate's views, has conflicts with your own preferences. If not, let me present you with a longer list to certainly reveal disagreement.

Beyond you there is the rest of us. If we can find someone for each of the four candidates whose interests align at least in the strongly opposes and strongly supports positions, we will therefore have the ingredients for at least three disappointed people. But the problem is deeper than that. Each issue above is but a category unto itself filled with a myriad of nuanced issues. I would imagine the three candidates who strongly support government involvement in education have important differences in how they would effectuate that desire.

It should be clear from this alone that the will of the people is a silly myth. Voting doesn't count in two fundamental ways: (1) in any typical election you can be reasonably certain your vote will not determine the outcome, and (2) even if your vote did determine the outcome, you could be reasonably certain that outcome would be disappointing.

If all you do is vote, the best you can hope for is a political climate that is conducive to the changes you want and resistant to the changes you oppose. In that sense it is like standing in an open field as a storm approaches hoping that lightning does not strike you.

Rather than just vote, I recommend thoughtful advocacy, approachable engagement (pick your battles but be prepared and respectful enough to kindly offer your disagreements), a willingness and ability to change your mind, but also a fundamental resistance to the power and growth of the state. The more we ask the government to do, the more we demand to be disappointed. 

City Intelligence - Knowing What I Don't Know

There are many aspects to this (things to do, how to get around, what to look for, what to avoid, etc.). In this case I am trying to solve the problem I have when visiting a new city and I want a place to eat. 

There are obviously different dining experiences I am looking for at various times. Many times this problem is solved by the benefit of branding (e.g., McDonald's and Panera Bread are the same everywhere--don't give me no Royale with Cheese counter examples). Still other times a binding constraint "solves" the problem (e.g., I am hungry NOW and this place is good enough and very close). 

But what about those times when I am going for a nice weekend date with my wife out of town or travelling with friends to a football game and need a good meal the night before or on a business trip with a colleague and/or client? Perhaps a matching process I will call "Goldilocks" could be the solution. 

Basically what I am envisioning is a big-data solution that will take my prior experiences and my general preferences and combine them with similar cohorts to develop a suggestion algorithm. I know others have and are trying this, but I have yet to come across anything close to being as robust and easy to use as I desire. Perhaps simplifying the input dimensions and ranking options is the key to being accurate in prediction, reliably useful, and fast. 

The process would start with a few questions and then followup after with the same questions to build and refine calibration:

• What type of dinning experience are you wanting: more formal than average or more casual than average?
• Overall for what you desired was this restaurant too formal, too casual, or just right?
• Are you looking for: a lively more festive place or a quiet more intimate place?
• Was the restaurant too loud, too quiet, or just right?

Some additional questions would be asked after the experience to further enhance the database:

• How did the food's taste and presentation meet your expectations: better, worse, or just right?
• How did the service meet your expectations: better, worse, or just right?
• How did the value for the price paid meet your expectations: better, worse, or just right?
• How would you rate this restaurant overall: excellent, just right, or poor?

The goal would be to suggest restaurants that were just right. Why not always hope to exceed expectations? Because expectations should change such that just right is, well, just right.

What Are You Afraid Of?

Partial list of public policy based significantly on fear. Read into it what you will about how well or poorly fear fits as a justification for the policies. I am simply contending that fear is a significant driver. 

• Trade Protectionism (tariffs, et al.) – fear of losing economic competitiveness
• Gun Control – fear of violence
• Drug Prohibition – fear of self-destructive behavior
• Immigration Restrictions – fear of others
• Age-Based Welfare Programs such as Social Security and Medicare (that’s right, everyone collecting SS and using Medicare is on welfare) – fear of insufficient future preparedness
• Need-Based Welfare Programs such as SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, et al. – fear of a poverty trap
• Zoning – fear of change to the familiar
• Criminal Justice Punishments – fear of bad actors repeating and fear of bad actors not suffering 
• Campaign Finance Limitations – fear of wealtharchy
• Military Growth and Expansion – fear of succumbing to the might of others

Take This Job And Make Me Love It

A few short thoughts on work.

Time On The Clock:

While it is commonly discussed that employees today in many occupations get lots of time to take care of personal business as well as engage in leisure activities while “on the clock”, it is much less discussed how much time “off the clock” they spend engaged in work. The Animal Spirits Podcast (Everybody's Busy (EP.119)) brought this up recently. For many of us after hours and even being on vacation isn’t anywhere close to as disconnected as it used to be—the mobile phone and email has changed all of that. Of course being at work isn’t as dedicated as it used to be either, and the mobile phone has helped change that too. But perhaps the more things change the more they don’t. I assume this was not the norm. What about work golf--in bygone eras was leisure time more consumed by work functions? Or is that an example of leisure time on the job?

What Would You Do For A 10% Pay Cut?

Would you do it for a Klondike Bar? Seriously, while we commonly dream of wonderful jobs with super pay, perhaps we should think about a more realistic trade off. What new job would you trade in your current job for even though it paid in total compensation 10% less? It has to be a real type of job, not Reading-Comic-Books-in-Your-Pajamas Engineer, but it doesn’t have to be actually on offer. The idea is still to fantasize about pay out of proportion to the work. Think about it both with and without a cost-of-loving adjustment. Something in NYC or SAN Francisco might be on my list with the COLA, but there is almost no way something would be without it. Remember that a COLA is not entirely a housing cost adjustment—so maybe those places are still out. Teaching comes to mind for me. Writing does too. Running if not owning a small business might fit the bill. I would just have to forfeit the ownership upside so maybe no. 

Should We All Have Agents?

Thinking about pay, almost nobody likes asking for a pay raise. Jeffrey Tucker has some great advice along these lines. Let’s think about another solution: agents to do it for us. An astute thinker will immediately consider how unions were suppressed to play this role and how inconsistent it is for me to advocate such. Rest assured I am not. This is not about collective action. I am thinking that for business professionals what if all pay negotiations on the employee side were done by agents? 

One big obstacle would be the convoluted employment law structure we have created. Set that aside for the moment. Also, just consider this for certain high-skilled professionals. 

The advantages include less stress for both employees and supervisors, better relations (potentially) between employee and employer as now the agent bears some responsibility for the pay/work arrangement, and more efficient pay arrangements as an agent might be able to better negotiate for pay to match actual value added and an agent might be able to more openly explore options without the risk of burning bridges. 

My Plan for a Much Better College Football

Now that a season is behind us, let's dream of a better world. In this case I am limiting the thought experiment to the competitive structure of the college football game leaving aside the ever-important and (thankfully) increasingly popular discussions of allowing players to more fairly benefit financially from their contributions.

The three key features I would envision for the highest level of college football are:

1. Create a true Power 5 - an elite 60-team top division of football comprised of FIVE 12-team conferences
2. Continue the 12-game regular season - standardize 8 conference games and a maximum of 2 non-conference opponents outside of Power 5
3. Crown a champion using an 8-team playoff  - conference title game winners get automatic playoff berth; 3 at large playoff teams determined by CFP committee (see below)

The CFP committee would be comprised of 25 members chosen by the conferences (each conference gets 5 members). The committee members' individual votes would be secret but the discussions in committee would be eventually fully released to the public after the season and playoff concluded. There would be no abstentions or exiting of the room when a member's affiliated school was discussed or any other charades to pretend there isn't bias. Rather, biases would be out in the open for all to examine and take into account. 

In regards to the establishment of a Power 5, we have to consider who is in and who is out. There are currently 130 FBS football teams (the highest level in college football). It is clear this is too many if we mean to group teams competitively. Just about any early-September match up reveals this outside of the handful of games designed to be competitive. Much of conference play itself reflects Have vs. Have Not. 

I would suggest a system where by teams bid to own a seat in the Power 5. The process might be something like the highest 60 bidders would pay the 60th highest bid amount plus 10% of their own bid amount into the pool. The bottom 70 teams would receive out of the pool 50% of their bid amount. Essentially, we would want to elicit from teams good information about how much they value football and how valuable football is to them. The remainder of the pool would be returned to the winning bidders in proportion to their bid size.

For example, say Texas is the top bidder at $200 million, Washington is the 60th bidder at $60 million, Kansas is the 61st bidder at one dollar less than $60 million, and Akron is the 130th bidder at $15 million. In that case Texas pays in $80 million ($60mil plus 10% of $200mil), Washington pays in $66 million, Kansas receives out $30 million (50% of ~$60mil bid), and Akron receives out $7.5 million.

Teams would be able to sell their seat with 50% of the sale price going to the selling team and the remaining 50% equally distributed to the other 59 seat-owning teams. Again, we want to know who should be in the Power 5 on an on-going basis and have a good incentive system to do so. Perhaps this is too capitalistic for American sports, which have always had a strong socialistic tendency as opposed to European sports where relegation rules soccer and revenue sharing and spending limits are less prevalent. But were dreamin' here . . .

A comment on the playoff to determine a champion every season: There exists a tension between a judgment-based approach (AP poll, BCS, CFP committee) and a merit-based approach (computer polls, conference champions feeding playoff). We can have a certain process of crowning a champion or a certain outcome of who is crowned. These two goals cannot both be realized in all cases. Usually there is a tradeoff between them. If we don't clearly define it ex ante, the ultimate criteria people want to use is fluid and subject to biases and inconsistencies. If we do clearly define the criteria out front, we tie our hands. Either approach has a degree of feature and bug. Remember before you condemn any outcome (actual or hypothetical) that we are dealing with sample sizes of 13 just to get into the playoff if we keep a 12-game season plus conference title game. For only the two teams in the championship game of an 8-team playoff do we even get to a 16-iteration test. We NEVER know as much about how good teams actually are as we think we do. In fact one could argue that in today's college football we know less than that implies given that so many games are nonsense gimmes against gravely inferior opponents. Because of this the only system I think we can justify is a structured conference feeder to a multi-team playoff. We can't possibly know who the best team is or even who the best teams are. The best we can do is define the process of earning a title and hope (with confidence) it matches up for who the best teams are most of the time.

Another Newspaper Makes Its Inability to Turn a Profit an Asset

I was recently asked my opinion on the announcement of the Salt Lake Tribune being granted approval to become a nonprofit by the IRS. Specifically, the question was "What do you think of this model for newspapers?"

My quick answer:

For newspapers it is a lost cause—like all you can drink water for someone drowning in a river. Newspapers are a dead medium. Journalism is potentially a different story.

This is an old idea as indicated in the story. I think Tampa [Bay Times] went this route about 10 years ago. The Poynter Institute has advocated this for longer than that. On the one hand I like it from the standpoint of independence; however, I don’t think pragmatically it can be sustainable. It is just too expensive to fund journalism without advertising. And it doesn’t sound like they have any intention of giving up advertising.

On the other hand I don’t like it because I don’t think we should have a tax system that plays favorites (non-profit versus for-profit).

Here is a little more coverage from Nieman Lab. Unlike previous versions, this move to non-profit status is somehow more completely nonprofit. I am not quite clear if there is a material difference. I do find the appeal for charitable donations interesting in a kinda gross sort of way. Remember that every time you grant one entity tax-favored status, you increase the burden on all other tax-paying entities. Undoubtedly, many find this to be just fine.

In the religion of journalism, newspapers are a metaphorical holy land. There is a great sense that without them we cannot have credible news. Within this belief is a zealotry proclaiming local newspapers as the glue binding local society together. This like so many things in religion is not based on fact.

Our access to vacuous gossip and shallow conjecture is greater now than ever--we just don't have to pay so dearly for it and wait for it to be hand delivered to our doorstep. Newspapers like most of "professional" journalism have always delivered an array of facts that deserve more scrutiny and a biased narrative. That bias comes in one of three varieties: intentional slant to protect a powerful interest, unintentional slant repeating mistaken conventional wisdom, or simple ignorance introducing the ailment knowing enough to be dangerous.

I'm not saying non-professional journalism is better in any of these regards. I'm just pointing out that the only difference by and large is that being a professional really just meant you could (in some cases still can) get paid for it.

On The Cusp

In my experience some of the greatest happiness is found on the cusp of new plateaus. 

These are pictures of my kids in the Lufthansa lounge of Houston International Airport from our vacation in the summer of 2018. We were on our way to New York City and Washington, D.C. This was their first time in an airport luxury lounge. 

I’m glad my kids don’t feel entitled to that treatment. And I am glad they aren’t so used to that luxury that they can’t find the enjoyment in it. They felt like they were, at least for that moment, “big time”. 

One way to help others feel loved and important is simply to find ways to give them the feeling of being "big time". I am thinking in particular people who are in a position to really appreciate it meaning it, whatever "it" may be, is out of the ordinary for them. 

It's hard to appreciate what we see every day. I want to do more to feel and appreciate the amazement of the world around me. I want to be amazed and I want to help other people be amazed. The downside of progress is that a world more beautiful than the one we just left eventually becomes banal. There is an ever-present tension between reaching new heights and the last ratchet up not being enough. Once luxury becomes ordinary, there is much less if any room for more excitement--the thrill is gone. One way to recapture the thrill is to increase the luxury. But I’m not sure that’s the best choice. 

The best choice from the moral or ethical consideration might rather be to bring that same luxury to someone else. Rather than try to capture the joy all to myself, I should find joy in seeing someone else experience the same first thrill that I had experienced. And of course this is more of a gift when it is not one's own kids who are receiving the new-found joys--this is just my example. This is the virtue and the selfish pleasure in sharing, and I’m sure I don't do enough of it. I am not entirely to blame because the world is not quite effectively set up to enable that sharing. There are too many institutions and norms and attitudes that serve as obstacles to the sharing I describe. 

A new goal for myself is to try to do more to increase my sharing. This is not limited to sharing stuff, although that is usually easiest, but it also includes experiences. Some of this will be charity, but a larger portion will just be finding ways to expand opportunities and extend courtesies. And make no mistake; this is all apart from the very important question of how to add meaning to peoples' lives. Generally I think the answer here is simply to get out of their way. Help them by not helping. Let them do as they want as long as it is peaceful. If there is something for you to do, discover it with them not for them. Trust and respect their decisions.

Not All That Glitters . . .

What does it take to be rich? 

Consider this thought experiment:

Imagine an island where the trade winds and the sea currents effectively prevent any ships from reaching it. On this island is a tiny mountain of gold about 10-feet high and 10-feet wide at its base. The value of this gold at today’s price of $1,500/troy ounce is about $6.89 billion.  But it is the 1800s, and this island is completely uninhabited and never discovered. Is this island rich?

Now suppose a big storm causes a ship to go off course and wreck into the island. There are 30 survivors of the shipwreck cast away on the island. The island has a minimal amount of resources to sustain these shipwrecked survivors. They live for a few years and then sadly perish having not been found. Before their deaths, are the shipwreck survivors rich?

Now suppose that modern air travel has revealed this island's existence. The shipwreck is discovered decades after its occurrence, and no one since the wreck has come upon the island. Although all of the survivors have a long died, the direct descendants of the survivors (some of them had children before having left on the final voyage) are tracked down and happen to be a limited number of people--about 1,000. It is determined that the shipwreck survivors were the first to stake claim on the island and are thus the rightful owners. By inheritance the 1,000 descendants are equal owners of the island and all its possessions. Are these descendants now rich?

On Stowaways and Hostages

Consider the following hypothetical situations and associated questions. Some time in the 1800s . . .

• A captain of a ship discovers a young boy (perhaps 9 years old) has stowed away on the ship once it is far out to sea. He will consume resources and be a distraction. Should dangerous events unfold such as bad weather, he will be an added liability. What duty of care does the captain have to the child? Can he force him to work on the ship—to what degree? Must he make him comfortable—to what degree? Can he put him in a lifeboat with small rations and send him adrift where he will likely suffer and quite possibly die before rescue? Can he ethically toss him overboard where he will certainly perish? What duty does the captain owe the boy?
• Same thought experiment but now assume the boy was accidentally trapped on the ship while in port through no fault of anyone in particular. It was simply and definitively an innocent mistake. Consider the same questions. 
• Same thought experiment but now assume the boy was accidentally trapped on the ship at port through the direct and certain fault of the captain. The captain was negligent by any reasonable measure. Consider the same questions. 
• Same thought experiment but now assume the boy was deliberately kidnapped by the captain and brought aboard for the purpose of working for the captain. Once the captain tires of the boy or has no further use of him, consider the same questions as before. 
• Same thought experiment but now assume the boy is the captain’s child, was deliberately and willingly brought aboard, and the child’s mother is deceased. Consider the same questions as before.