A rose by any other name...

Partial list of things as they really are (these are not all original to me):

• Universities are hedge funds that run research labs and have football teams. 
• Fast food companies are real estate firms with kitchens. 
• Democracies are insurance companies with armies. 
• Public (government) schools are unions that run day care centers. 
• Police departments are unions that run protection rackets. 
• Banks are time-travel machines for assets that tax uncertainty. 
• Home Ownership is tax-sheltered/favored investment masquerading as industrious virtue. 
• Public libraries are intellectual social status symbols with warehouses. 
• Churches are mutual-aid societies that offer moral guidance and tribal solidarity. 

The Time of Biden

Now that all the attempts at election stealing are over I feel compelled to put down in writing some predictions about Biden's presidency. Call it political fatigue from the 400 years of the Trump Presidency, but it is hard for me to muster much energy to do this. Still, here goes . . .

Optimism:

There are two kinds of optimism in the case of Biden--relative and absolute. The relative is in regard to the Trump alternative and perhaps the Biden of politics past. The absolute is more genuine if not also more wishful. 

Trade - This one is quite positive even though it is strongly of the relative variety. Biden was never great on trade and many times poor. Still this has changed as he shifts in the political winds. He both wants/needs to be not Trump and the political base is different for Democrats today than it was when he first ran for president over three decades ago. See my Five Tribes theory for background, but Labor is not the Democratic lock that it was in the past. Just a reset to pre-2018 (actual policy) and pre-2016 (rhetoric) would be a great improvement. 

Immigration - There is a strong chance that Biden will be very good on immigration. The development of Democrats getting better on immigration has been building for some time having only accelerated under Trump. So in this case we have relative and absolute improvement opportunities. 

Drug Policy - My optimism is tempered here, but it is present in an absolute sense. At the very least we should get a more hands-off, non-escalating war on drugs policy. This is a BIG improvement from what we would have expected from a 1990s Biden. My baseline expectation is eventual of decriminalization/legalization of marijuana within the next few years.  

Presidential Prestige - I am optimistic that the tone and style of the office will now be back to a civilized place--very much a relative optimism. The office of the U.S. President should be occupied by a person easily described as a gentleman or lady. Trump never fit this description, and his final days were the icing on the top. Yes, I want that same office to be greatly diminished in terms of power and worship. My hope was Trump would deliver the diminishment without going Game of Thrones. Largely my fear of getting the reverse was realized. 

Pessimism:

Unlike the optimism analysis, the pessimism comes basically only in the absolute variety. It is also the areas I tend to be most confident, unfortunately. 

Judicial Appointments - This one is not as pessimistic as one might assume. I don't want judges from the right or the left--that is a silly concept. I want judges that think critically and consistently demonstrating good application of the Law. Certainly I expect Biden's typical nominee will be less desirable than was the typical Trump nominee from my perspective. However, the best judges are impartial and well reasoned, and those include very many Biden will nominate. 

Regulation - The Trump administration was flat out good on regulation compared to any recent president (probably including Reagan!). He didn't as much shrink, though, as he reduced or stopped the growth of the regulatory state. Biden will reverse this trend. There is one area where Trump was certainly bad and Biden will likely continue this just in a different flavor--industrial policy/meddling with individual firms and industries. 

Taxes - Many people are rightfully worried about this for mostly wrong reasons. They don't want their own tax rates to go up. Ignoring the fiscal hypocrisy of this given the spending policies these same people typically demand, it is not a major problem that individual income tax rates (especially at the high end) are likely to increase. What people should be worried about is corporate tax rates increasing and to a lesser degree capital gains rates increasing. These are both much more destructive forms of taxes as they are taxing the creation of resources rather than the use of resources. Additionally, the restoration of the SALT deduction and the reduction in the standard deduction are also bad potential outcomes of coming tax policy.

War - I am hopeful that this ends up being an area like others mentioned where Biden today is different than he has been over the last 40 years. Despite this hope, you'll notice in which category I have placed it. 

Woke Politics and Policies - Think of this item as the inverse of Trump's nationalism. The risks are similar including divisive policies and rhetoric as well as censorship and ostracization. 

Spending - Your first thought should be, "Pessimistic on spending? Have you seen 2020?" True, but in only that limited and aberrational case is the relative comparison optimistic for Biden. The ratchet works in one direction generally, and even the possibility of a republican midterm sweep doesn't leave me optimistic.

Presidential Power & Authority - Here is the other side of presidential prestige from above. Every president in the last 20+ years has looked at the prior administrations' advancement of executive orders and general authority and said simply, "Hold my beer". If we only had another branch of government designed to be the strongest branch and willing to hold presidents accountable and within the bounds of their legal authority . . . 

Overall: 

The Biden years will hopefully be a time of surprise at how good some things are, not so bad other things are, and tolerably bad the balance is. This is how I now view the Clinton presidency. All of it is quite relative of course. Hope aside, I am more optimistic than I would have expected being faced with a Biden administration. Still the pessimistic angles are acute and meaningful. 

P.S. What about COVID-19 and the pandemic? While I expect a lot of theater to emerge and a rewriting of some history in favor of the current winners, the substantive part of this large issue is basically settled. In this way it doesn't matter much who won this election. Most of the decisions to be made are in the same incapable hands of FDA and other government officials along with the capable hands of private firms, organizations, and individuals. And in many ways the die is cast. The trajectory of the virus is set--declining regardless of what comes next but with a trajectory that very much can change depending on policy and actions taken. This is true and basically the same under Biden or Trump and even without vaccines. Vaccines are just a wonderful accelerator of the progress against the virus, which very much means fewer people suffering and dying. 

I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Let You Take This Anymore!

Partial list of difficult, unsavory (to the third-party at least), or troubling situations that third parties commonly attempt to help or "correct" but end up simply harming the people in the situation: 

• sex work
• organ donation
• child labor
• drug addiction and misuse
• pay-day lending
• immigrant smuggling
• sudden, high prices in the midst of emergencies - anti-price gouging laws
• high cost of housing - rent control
• low-productivity worker earnings - minimum wages

Simply trying to correct the situation by enacting prohibitions or strict limitations does not address the true problems, almost always causes significantly more harm than good, and tramples on the freedom and dignity of those the prohibition ostensibly aims to help.

Reading Between the MSM Lines - Partial List

Follow the money. If you want to know something about the credibility of a source, look into what they are actually getting paid to do. For example:

• Fox News gets paid to shout scary ideas at old people.
• MSNBC gets paid to say snarky comments that make their friends giggle.
• CNN gets paid to pretentiously spout conjectures that sound important.
• CNBC gets paid to use buzzwords and pretend noise is signal to make viewers feel smart.
• ABC, CBS, & NBC news all get paid by trying to resemble what their viewers remember traditional network news looked like.

Turn off the news. It makes you dumber.

Partial List of Current Practices Future Humans Will Detest as Immoral and Indefensible

I've speculated on this before, as have others. As we sit anxiously awaiting a new year so as to put the current one behind us, this thinking is on my mind. None of these are specific to this year, but I could write and probably will write soon on my hope that many things about this year will someday (hopefully soon but unfortunately not soon enough) be thought of as abhorrent or at least a very, very poor use of cost/benefit analysis.

Here is the short but important list:

• Abortion
• Immigration restrictions (especially for those seeking to escape poverty or tyranny)
• Trade restrictions (to a lesser degree)
• Tolerance for people living (anywhere) involuntarily in a condition of (meaning without a reasonable ability to escape) extreme poverty (coupled with no acceptance for ignorance as to the solution for extreme poverty--we know how to fix this--free markets and free minds)
• Living conditions of the institutionalized elderly
• The death penalty

Short note on abortion (perhaps the most controversial item on the list): Nearly all of the arguments in favor of abortion today sound to me very similar to those arguments made contemporarily to and in apologetic memory of slavery.

There Should Be A Law!

Partial list of areas where there might be a market failure and I might support government intervention:

• Masks and social/physical distancing rules in a pandemic - I much prefer persuasion in the marketplace of ideas backed by good and plentiful information. That said, in a very serious health crisis a government-enforced policy might keep the peace and prevent very costly experimentation from defectors like a business not complying. Bringing this to the news of the moment--I generally do not think SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 qualifies. A failure on the part of government (and others) to even properly try the persuasion avenue does not then necessitate the force avenue. Further, compliance with practices consistent with most all of the nonpharmaceutical interventions has been remarkably high and widespread as well as ahead of the mandated institution of the NPIs. This is a point the advocates of force ignore until they wish to defend against the accusation that the economic and other costs have come as a result of forced NPIs. Then they are quick to point out that "it is the virus, not the lockdown". Careful thinkers realize it is both and the latter makes matters on net much worse.
• Zoning - but not in the way most people think. This one really is more of a government failure that perhaps needs collective agreement. Zoning way too typically becomes NIMBYism protecting vested current interests at the expense of potential and less powerful interests. Basically we may need higher-order (federal) laws preventing localities from encroaching in private property rights.
• Certain, limited cases of patents - Here is my prior thinking on this subject.

There are at least two problems with most cases of the discovery of market failure:

1. That you're overlooking some critical factor that negates the market failure condition. There is something else going on here; there are needs being satisfied along an unexplored dimension.
2. The market failure does exist but will be short-lived and thus insignificant. Short-lived might be in the eye of the beholder, true enough, but this is definitely an area where a longer than average point of view is needed (near-far mode if you will). 

[Updated 12/1/2020 adding to the partial list]

• Garbage collection
• Subsidies for under-produced goods (e.g., vaccines, General healthcare, education)
• General city planning such as road layout and utilities, etc.

It is best to think of these as coordination problems where a central actor can potentially lower transaction costs. The word potential here is doing a lot of work. Just because government theoretically can solve a problem doesn’t mean government in any way, shape, or form will solve that problem in a desirable manner. And note also that just because government might be desired to be a participant in the solution it doesn’t mean they have to provide the solution. Funding it can be a much better role for government to play with private actors actually doing the operational work. School vouchers are perhaps the best example of this, but garbage collection among many others fits as well.

Clutch Your Pearls

 

Partial list of false extreme problems government should not be attempting to “solve”:

• Gender pay gaps
• Income inequality (rather than consumption inequality which can be a real problem that government might play a helpful role in reducing)
• Regional discord, violence, and tensions abroad (this is false in that it is never so straightforward as right vs. wrong, good vs. evil)
• OPP - other people’s patriotism or lack thereof
• Overpopulation
• Student debt and higher-education financing
• Business lending in general and in crises like the COVID pandemic (SBA, Fed backstops of direct lending, et al.)
• Illegal immigration (crime risk) (economic affects)
• Tobacco use, alcohol consumption, sugar composition of food, gun ownership, use of currently illicit drugs, et al. as public health issues
• Food deserts
• Jobs lost to automation

P.S. This clip (and the entire movie) is an allegory for my view on this subject.

My Futile Desire For People To See The Truth

I strive for epistemic humility, and my practice is to consider the confidence with which I hold various beliefs. As such I truly don't hold strongly many views and am quite willing to change my mind. Once I have done the work, though, I am willing to hold a view strongly. And I love to hate conventional wisdom.

Hence, this partial list of things about which conventional wisdom is wrong and about which I very much want people to understand the actual truth. 

The formula for when conventional wisdom is held in error is a seductive, persuasive narrative coupled with readily accessible, salient anecdotes that are not indicative of the broader evidence because that broader evidence is largely obscured.

The following are all beliefs that I hold quite confidently after years of study, analysis, and thought (listed in no particular order). Note that I am still learning about these, questioning my priors, and remain willing to change my mind. It is just that the probability I assign to being wrong for these is now quite low.

• The general causes of and problems in the Great Recession as well as the housing crisis before, during, and after the Great Recession.
• The labeling asset prices as being "bubbles" (e.g., tulip mania, dotcom tech, housing markets--see above, et al.) is neither useful nor helpful. The term is loose, vague, and indeterminate. A classic case of seeming to say something, but being so obscure as to be unfalsifiable. It is the modern financial economics equivalent of blaming disease on the imbalance of humors.
• The current and historical lack of parity in college football and other sports—my first great example of things not being what is so commonly believed in the conventional wisdom. Big firms like regulation and so do big sports programs. The NCAA benefits the blue bloods at the expense of the lesser schools.
• The cause and nature of the Great Depression and the subsequent recovery (it wasn’t WWII).
• The cause and nature of long-term economic progress as told by McCloskey, et al.; the true nature of economic inequality (consumption versus income); how good things actually are and how much they have actually improved.
• The shallow and near emptiness of news journalism and that watching and reading the main-stream media is a form of entertainment done at the expense of one’s intellect.
• The immorality of conducting and impossibility of 'winning' the drug war. One can extend this to all prohibitions on victimless crimes, activities and trades done by consenting adults that are labeled crimes not because of a violation of anyone's property or personal rights but because society has deemed it taboo, immoral, or otherwise contemptible (e.g., organ sales, prostitution, price gouging, etc.). 
• The harm and unintended consequences of price controls in all there guises: minimum wages, rent controls, anti-price gouging laws, restrictions on compensating college athletes, et al.
• The injustices that exist and persist in the world, how good it could be in terms of justice and wealth for all of us, and the multiplicative benefits of free markets and free minds.
• The economics especially and general state of the science concerning environmental policy.
• The policy responses to the COVID pandemic.

I should probably take a cue from Bryan Caplan and call “Impasse” more often. It would give my head a chance to recover from its battle with the wall. 

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).

List of Ambivalence

 Partial list of things I am ambivalent about:

• Chick-fil-e’s Sunday Policy -- I am disappointed from the point of view as a customer; I am very much in support of their ability to choose to do this and I am impressed by the choice.
• The Trump Presidency -- not Trump himself, who I find quite objectionable. There are just some things to like and some things to very much dislike. I had the same appraisal of Obama, Bush, Clinton, . . . 
• Deplatforming by social media, other tech companies, and financial processing firms/networks -- It is certainly within their rights in almost all cases, but I am fairly sure it is not good ethically or pragmatically in all but the most isolated cases.
• Hunting -- I am not sure it is always morally objectionable, but it is often enough. 
• The National Anthem before sporting events -- Notice how we don’t see this practiced at high brow events like the philharmonic, etc.
• Separating activities, clubs, etc. by boys and girls and by men and women (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Men’s Grill, Lady’s Auxillary, etc.) -- Is this socially healthy? Is it logical? I think in some cases it certainly is, but there is a slippery slope. 
• Roundabouts (aka, circle, traffic circle, road circle, rotary, rotunda, and island) -- These are unfairly criticized in many cases, but they are also irresponsibly used and often inappropriately built.

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."

In Case of Pandemic Break Glass

Here is a message to future generations for when they find themselves in the next pandemic. This is subject to change, but you would already know that if you had started reading the list.

These are the rules and guidelines I would suggest for the next pandemic: 

(Yes, there is redundancy and overlap in this list. That is a feature not a bug.)

1) Be Willing To Change - Adaptation >>> plans. Your plan is great as a starting point. Grey board beats white board. But an eraser and a willingness to use it is best. Your plan will not entirely survive first contact with the virus. This is as ironclad of a law as you'll get in this realm.

2) Protect The Vulnerable - How is this not obvious? Well, it seems it very much wasn't this time around. And know this: you cannot always predict who the vulnerable will be. 

3) Practice Good and Improving Hygiene - Tighten up. Here is an example of where general pushback against conventional wisdom reverses and we need to speedily go in the other direction--side with conventional wisdom of being more hygienic during a pandemic. We have been getting cleaner and cleaner as a society. As we've gotten richer, we have gotten less tolerant of risk in general and health risk specifically. This long-term trend has an unintended consequence: we over protect--especially children. "Rub some dirt on it" is an exaggeration, but it has some truth. We should pushback generally against the tide of puritanical cleanliness. We need exposure to germs. But in the face of an acute and new health threat, this reverses. Then is no time to develop hardiness--at least not until we know a lot more about what we're up against. Hand shaking shouldn't be abandoned per se, but the norm should probably be to quickly pause the practice when a health risk arises.

4) Test, Test, Test, and Test Some More - Each of these links have unique, subtle points along the general line of the importance of testing. Yes, there is redundancy, but that is the point I'm trying to hit you over the head with. At the hope of repeating myself, testing is a key ingredient to knowledge in a pandemic. Here is the idea by analogy: You're suddenly in a pandemic . . . oh, no problem, we know how to pandemic, bro. No, you certainly do not. Each one has different features and each time the environment has changed (economically, normatively, politically, etc.). Image I put you in a large, completely dark room and told you there are dangerous things in the room and you need to escape. I hand you a dim flashlight as your only tool. It works sparingly requiring you to flip it on and off repeatedly to get some light. Not ideal but you would be quite foolish to toss the flashlight to the side and grope around blindly instead.

5) Don't Believe In or Rely On Magic - ..... masks, hand washing, existing drugs with non-obvious potential for help, experimental drugs, ventilators, et al. may help. None are perfect cures or magic bullets. Many ideas will have very large costs that may in fact greatly outweigh the benefits. Try lots of stuff (see #7 below), but don't rely on any one thing or set of things. And don't latch on to that first idea and refuse to let go (see #1 above)

6) Invest in Options Including the Value of Delay - "Flattening the curve" evolved into a constant moving of goalposts in order to justify desired policies. This was a combination of the wrong way to interpret #1 above and the exact problem #5 above and #8 below are opposed to. But the idea had immediate traction because it had a very plausible initial value--delaying even the inevitable can make the inevitable more manageable if not largely reduced in magnitude. Every month after March brought new developments in treatment and most likely a lower severity in the disease itself via natural mutation. But delay isn't costless (see the links in #5 above). Though options require premiums, they are still vastly undervalued. Testing and isolating and distancing (see #3 and #4 above) create options. And don't just do something, stand there actually can be an option-preserving strategy. 

7) Experiment (Let 1,000,000 Flowers Bloom) - Let people take risks. This is both a principled position as well as a pragmatic one. We need ideas from the most unlikely of places. We need discovery.

8) Don't Attempt To Centrally Plan - It never works well for general problems and it is downright disastrous in a fluid, developing emergency. The knowledge problem is most applicable and important in dynamic, high volatility, low confidence environments. For central planning to succeed even in theory the unknowns must be minimal and the variance must be low. Simple is better. Fewer cooks in the kitchen (i.e., Congress and lobbyists and the alphabet soup of agencies and a politically myopic U.S. President and risk-averse though power-happy governors ...) would prevent entangled messes that do little to help, too much to harm, and a lot to hurt. The bureaucracy is the nature of the state. Leveraging government in times of crisis maximizes its every shortcoming, hindrance, and corruption. 

9) Trust The Market - Allow prices to adjust (don't worry about 'price gouging'; rather embrace it). Allow profits. For God's sake if there is ever a time when you want to reward risk takers and resource providers, it is in a time of dire crisis. See below for more on why you don't need to worry about people taking advantage. People want to help. There are many avenues for social and normative guidance. Man desires not just to be loved but to be lovely--let him! Do not let your personal envy or hypothetical fears prevent those standing ready to help.

10) Trust People - Lord of the Flies was wrong. People respond to incentives and information. If you give them good and updating versions of both, you can expect good and improving results. If for no other reason than their personal self-interest, people will tend to make sensible and safe decisions. In fact they are very likely to be overly risk averse. 

11) Question Authority - Challenge the motives and knowledge of every solution provider in direct proportion to how confident or authoritative they claim to be.

12) Communicate, Communicate, Communicate (honestly and don't censor) - Lies undermine productive efforts and credibility.  Censoring prevents much needed experimentation and fosters distrust. If restricting dangerous activities including potential superspreader events is desired, say so. Give guidance and elevation and promotion to good advisors. Be open to and have a high tolerance for new ideas, debates and debatable positions, and mistakes. There will be mistakes. It is not how you prevent them as much as it is how you adapt to them once they occur. Because adaptation >>> plans . . .

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.

Well, We're Movin' On Up

What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca Cola, too. A coke is a coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the cokes are the same and all the cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.  –Andy Warhol

Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort. [...] [T]he capitalist process, not by coincidence but by virtue of its mechanism, progressively raises the standard of life of the masses.  –Joseph Schumpeter*

Partial list of goods and services that the Forbes 400 cannot have a better version of today than can the middle class in the U.S.—measured by quality, effectiveness, or status:

• Mobile phones
• Umbrellas
• Personal computers
• Toilet paper (notice how it required a pandemic and government intervention to make this temporarily drop off the list)
• Cloud storage
• Fast food and fast casual
• Casual clothing
• Payment processing
• Individual consumer-level tools (but not tool collections)
• Basic plumbing
• Video and music entertainment content
• Online shopping (especially important in quarantines)
• Corrective eye surgery such as LASIK
• Small package shipping speed
• Email
• All but the most exotic of beverages from bottled water to soft drinks to tea to coffee to beer to wine to liquor
• ... I could go on and on, but Qwern already has done so for me...

This shouldn't be surprising given that I am, as most of us so fortunately are, richer than Rockefeller. 

Related question: As a proportion of all goods and services available, are there more or fewer things like this today than there were 50, 100, 500, 1000, etc. years ago? I would submit that there are considerably more even with all the abundance and variety that we enjoy today. In the past the inequality separation between the super rich and the middle class (or closest approximation) was vastly larger. Add to that the fact that movement between classes was virtually impossible. It is telling that only in a modern fairy tale are lyrics like this conceivable. Today we enjoy the hockey stick of human progress.

Understanding what is going on here takes more nuance than the typical person allows. Russ Roberts has a good, short video series that explores this nuance. 

*The paper at this link, Manifesto for a Humane True Libertarianism by Deirdre McCloskey, is well worth reading. It is where I most recently read the Schumpeter quote.

Partial List of Wisdom From Classic TV

"Just the facts ma’am" - Removing emotions and focusing on facts is critical when gathering initial information; like in researching this to relearn that he never actually said it.

"What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis?" - Question authority, question received wisdom, question those who would sell you a bill of goods.

Father Knows Best - There is wisdom to be learned from one's elders, but also (as the show's ironic title continually demonstrated) the elders are always learning too as they very often do not have all the answers (especially in this case the father who didn't always know best).

"Nip it in the bud!" - Overzealous policing is best controlled by judicious, thoughtful leadership and a soft touch.

"Kiss my grits!" - Stand up for your rights and your point of view.

"Hey, Alex" - Wisdom and beauty come in surprising packages.

"Gilligan!" - Money and an impossible amount of stuff is no match for The Ultimate Resource.

"Heyyyy" - Sometimes it is best to say little, be cool, and walk away. Also, it is both desirable to be able to and to avoid jumping the shark.

Things That Can Both Be True - Mind-Blowing Partial List

Beware of false contradictions. It can be the case that:

• One is against the drug war (wants to completely legalize all drugs) and is against the use of most currently illicit drugs.
• One believes that prostitution should be legalized and that prostitution is morally wrong and culturally damaging.
• One finds many of the actions and policies of the Trump administration have been bad and many of the actions and policies of the Obama administration ON THE SAME ISSUES were bad. 
• One wants the best for low-wage workers and one is against the minimum wage. 
• One desires a strong, vibrant job market and one views jobs as an economic cost rather than a benefit. 
• One believes the government-commanded lockdowns were absolutely bad policies and voluntary social distancing is absolutely good behavior in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
• One thinks the United States of America is a great country and the U.S. government with the support of the people of the United States has done many very wrong things. 
• One believes a highly successful person worked very hard while being very smart and they benefited greatly from luck. 
• One sees college education is very valuable to college graduates and it is not the best option for a very large percentage of college attendees.
• One thinks college education is valuable to society and society would be better off with a lot less college education.
• One strongly supports freedom of speech and strongly disagrees with the specific speech that freedom of speech is protecting.

Updated to add:

• One believes that the use of fossil fuels meaningfully contributes to a negative effect on climate change and that the use of fossil fuels has been a wonderfully positive thing for humanity and the Earth.

Partial List of Meaningless, Vague Phrases

I like foreign films. 

I am listening to the experts.

I want to work for a non profit. 

I support worthy causes. 

Failure is not an option. 

The cost going forward doesn't matter because if we retreat now, we will give up everything we have fought for up to this point. 

The team had the "momentum". 

I support sustainability.

This is no time to panic. 

My country right or wrong.

It is what it is.

Rules are rules.

Those who have been successful should give back to society.

We are prepared to do whatever it takes.

I buy American-made goods. 

This time is different. 

We've been here before. 

We should listen to the science. 

If it saves just one life...

Partial List of The Best Ways to Die

Perhaps apropos in a time of pandemic. Meant not to discourage or disparage. We all will do this eventually.

• As a martyr
• In a noble sacrifice
• For a crime one didn’t commit
• By plunging into a black hole
• In vain fighting for a great cause
• During a peaceful sleep after a life well lived

Partial List of Reasons I Can’t Take You Seriously

...(i.e., you can’t have it both ways.)

• You were giving Trump credit (completely dismissive) as the economy was very good 2017-2019, but completely dismissive (strongly blaming Trump) as the economy fell into depression-level problems in 2020. [related]
• You gave Obama credit (didn’t recognize a connection or basically denied it was the case) as the economy recovered following the Great Recession, but refuse to give Trump credit (basically attribute to Trump) as the economy is quite strong for the first three years of Trump’s presidency. 
• You were pro (anti) war under Obama but are the opposite under Trump.
• You were fine with (up in arms about) Obama’s trips such as Hawaii and Michelle’s trip to Spain but are the opposite about Trump’s such as Mar-a-Lago. 
• You were nonchalant (worried) about Obama’s extensions of executive power but the opposite about Trump’s. 
• You were a strong supporter (opponent) of free trade but reversed positions when Trump came into office.
• You want to severely limit and control immigration (guns) based on a few tragic examples but you do not want to do so for guns (immigration).
• You identified and were upset with (lived in denial about) the corruption in the Obama administration but you deny (identify and are upset with) the corruption in the Trump administration.