The Real Lesson of Hanukkah...

Everyone knows the miracle of the Hanukkah story was that even though the Maccabees only had enough lantern oil to last for 1 night it ended up lasting for 8 nights. But when we look at that story with a critical eye... Isn't the real lesson of Hanukkah simply: "Always manage expectations and a little 'secret hoarding' when times are good will look like a miracle in bad times"? Damn, I'm cynical. Forgive me.

Up all night again with the "curse" of endless invention..."NIGHTYSHADE" IDEA

MY "NIGHTYSHADE" IDEA: I can't stop inventing! It's almost a curse!!! When I get a new idea I try to stay focused on my other urgent tasks but I'm invariably compelled to eventually explore the new stuff sufficiently before I can move on to the "real work" of follow-through and execution. Check out my newest idea (so damn ripe for infomercials) and tell me what you think. http://corpania.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/NightyShade.34681151.jpg ________________________________________ Dan Abrams' idea for "NightyShade" aka "SleeperShade", "LightBlocker" or "NightAwning" (domains registered) Problem: When trying to sleep you should block out all light to enable proper circadian rhythms. Sunlight and your sleep partner's reading/TV habits can disrupt you. But the old solution of eyeshades/blindfolds/sleep-masks can feel uncomfortable. Even worse, when you roll around in your sleep, they can slip and choke you. SOLUTION:  Easy-to-install, vented "shade" for your upper torso and head blocking out all light enabling you to fall asleep while your partner is up. • Inexpensively constructed with a wire frame & fabric (with breakaway buttons) draped over to block out all light. • Alternatively, it could be rigidly constructed with a hinged "flip-top". • The vent could be equiped with a fan for healthy air flow. This would have the added benefit of "white noise" (masking sounds). • The vent could be connected to a tube that affixes to your air conditioner or heater for efficient cooling/heating to your personal taste (rather than cooling the entire room). Two people rarely have the exact same preferences for optimal temperature when sleeping. ________________________________________ NOTE: I wish I had $1mil in disposable cash so I could seriously explore the viability of at least my top 20 inventions/venture/ideas (e.g. doing "prior art searches", filing "patent applications", making prototypes, developing sales/marketing materials for potential business partners etc.). Ok, back to working on my film "The Knew-it-all". The short film version is in post and I gotta write the feature script well before I start schmoozing at film festivals. Hope you're well. Good Karma to you. Warm Regards, Dan Abrams

Ecosystem Economics (or Why American Real Estate Prices will Stagnate for a Long Time)

I saw that corporate profits are at an all-time high but we all know that Americans are still feeling economic hardship. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/corporate-profits-q3-2010-_n_787573.html In the following blog post I will argue for why I think Real Estate Prices in America will fall or at least stagnate for a long time (maybe a decade or more). For a more substantial economics-based explanation of the underlying data check out this link: http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/stagnant-wages-and-the-financial-bubble/ and here's superhero Elizabeth Warren explaining more in a lecture on youtube...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A I say - Think of a company whose earnings are flat for decades but the stock price(market capitalization) keeps rising anyway (i.e. the P/E ratio increases). Inevitably, it has to crash because over time there has to be some reasonable relationship between earnings and stock price(market cap). Note - Just because it falls a lot doesn't mean it can't fall further, especially if the "fundamentals" (earnings etc.) still don't reasonably support the price. Think of an ecosystem. (e.g. Little fish feed on algae. Medium size fish feed on little fish. Big fish feed on medium sized fish etc.)  Now I say something that is obvious but crucial - "if the little fish aren't significantly increasing in number and they aren't significantly increasing in size then that necessarily will eventually limit the number & size of the medium & big fish too." Given the following: 1) U.S. Population size/rate is actually stagnating. (currently less than 1% per year, from 3.7 births per woman in the late 1950s to 2.06 now which is virtually right a the "replacement fertility rate") http://www.census.gov/popest/national/NA-EST2009-01.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html and there is no reason yet to believe the public is or will be substantially interested in increasing immigration (which could compensate for Americans' low birth rate).  2) Real wages have been virtually flat for the past three decades. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195/ http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/vicious-cycle-stagnant-wages http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1 From the link: "I'm happy many more women are in the workforce. But if the real driver of household wage growth is simply that households are working more hours, then that isn't exactly wage growth. "I want to make more money so I doubled my shifts" isn't really the same statement as "they are paying me more money." Winship points out male wages have increased around 8% over a 35 year period, for an annual growth rate of 0.23%." I say - Let's really appreciate those numbers.  I rhetorically ask - If wages are increasing at less than 1% then how can Real Estate Prices for all (except the high end) increase greater than 1%? And if Real Estate Prices have exceeded 1% for a long time and credit is, necessarily and rightfully, contracting to more reasonable standards then mustn't Real Estate Prices similarly fall to correspondingly reasonable standards (relative to wages)? 3) Wages are everything here because nothing else can make up for its historically slow growth. Nothing, including investments. Even when the stock market goes up it doesn't significantly help most Americans because the bottom 90% of Americans own less than 10% of mutual funds, stocks & bonds. The top 1% own half of all those securities. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-only-05-of-americas-stocks-and-bonds-3 CONCLUSION: Real Estate Prices will fall further or at least stagnate for a long time until wages come closer in line with reasonable ratios by historical standards.  Just as a stock price has to have a reasonable relationship with its earnings so must Real Estate Prices have a reasonable relationship with wages. QED. SECOND CONCLUSION: These depressed/stagnated wages will have to result in economically hurting the upper class (unless they can surpass that limit with international profits). But international profits in this regard are mitigated against by trade imbalances. (Which I plan to explain in more detail in a subsequent post). My libertarian friends who still pitifully defend "supply side economics", despite overwhelming contrary evidence over the past two decades, must now divert attention to "monetary policy/unstable dollar/inflation" issues. They stick to this conveniently modified dogma even though the dollar hasn't fluctuated massively (by historical & relative standards) enough to be serious evidence that they could possibly be correct. So they'll keep changing the rules of measurement & calibration so that they can hold to their now thoroughly disproved premise that "trickle-down economics works". • http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_economy_of_the_2010_electi.html • http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/ • http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/manage_economy.html • http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/26/us-gdp-growth-under-different-presidencies/ • http://zfacts.com/p/318.html • http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm FINAL NOTES: Remember Henry Ford's ideas: a) "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." b) "Pay employees enough so they can afford to buy the product." c) PJ O'Rourke loves to say "My wealth doesn't create your poverty". I say - The wealthy should start worrying more about the flat wages for most Americas. I'm arguing that the poor's poverty does indeed hurt the wealthy's wealth.  Relative wealth should be virtually meaningless to you unless you'd rather be a Pharaoh in ancient egypt rather than your current station in life (with antibiotics, cable tv, internet, air conditioning etc.). Keeping others' wages low isn't wise. *Notwithstanding the recent scientific research revealing the intuitively perverse psychology of happiness. "Happiness is Earning More than Our Friends" http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchHighlights/societyMediaAndScience/layardhappy.aspx Not all the research is entirely discouraging, though... http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk//economics/papers/dp0604.pdf MY FINAL CONCLUSION ON THIS MATTER: We should all work towards paying Americans substantially more. RESEARCH LINKS: • http://extremeinequality.org/?page_id=9 • http://extremeinequality.org/?page_id=10

Republicans Shifting Definition of "Socialism"

For any debate to be productive there must be fixed definitions of words. The words may even have incorrect definitions but so long as they are unchanging the debate can move forward without deliberate confusion as to the meaning of each side's arguments. "Socialism" is a word often used in modern political debates. But its deliberately shifting definitions help Republicans and increase confusion. The libertarian REASON.COM has a similar commentary on this issue. http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/05/are-we-all-socialists-now And the liberal Princeton economist Alan Binder make his case, too. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751241072091037.html Once and for all let's get a single working definition. • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism • http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism • http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism All of these definitions include state/government ownership of all means of production. Using this correct definition of "Socialism" then I confidently state I am against it (and Obama is against it). HOWEVER... That is not the popular definition of "Socialism" as most Republicans use it. They use the word "Socialism" to mean any redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Any welfare or unemployment insurance is socialism to the GOP. Any form of Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security is socialism to the Republicans. Using their broader definition then I confidently state that the overwhelming majority of Americans are "socialists" (myself included). Most Americans don't want to abolish those government programs. It's not even close. Anyone who argues against the existence of all of those programs can't get elected in over 75% of the country. So the Republicans inveigh against democrats by using the pejorative connotation of the word "Socialism" because it still conjures images of Soviet-style dread in listeners minds. But when it comes to actual policy they know it would be political suicide to propose cutting those very popular government programs. I can't wait for a substantial percentage of  journalists with integrity to really challenge the libertarian purists by demanding a list of the programs they want to cut and by how much. I'm predicting today (Tuesday, November 9th, 2010) that one of two things will happen by the end of the 2012 elections: 1) Republicans as a whole will betray their "tea party/libertarian" base and propose no substantive cuts (instead tactically planning to simply stall/prevent Obama's agenda and then claim his lack of success augers well for a Republican return to total power) ...OR... 2) Republicans will substantially split between the "corporatists" who are politically savvy enough to avoid fighting popular programs and the "tea party libertarians" who will infuriate the public which will lead to a landslide for democrats further buttressing Obama's power (and clear reelection). We'll see

Why Can't Scientists & Inventors Claim Credit for Human Progress?

Here is a quick burst of ideas I plan to explore in greater depth someday... Explain to me why scientists & inventors can't lay claim to the lion's share of credit for the improvements to life in the past 100 years. I believe in Capitalism but not in "Unfettered Free Markets". Show me the UFM that supposedly created a "net benefit" to humanity without scientists & inventors. Conversely, show me how China's protectionist rules have been a "net detriment" to itself. Why do people who claim "Unfettered Free Markets have created the greatest wealth compared to any other system..." get a free-pass such that they get to coast on correlation without proving causality? FINALLY...Trade Deficits do matter when your currency becomes devalued because you end up paying a greater and greater share of your country's wealth for a smaller and smaller net benefit that was created by another country.

Idea: "DVR-Snips" for Hulu.com

Just had another random idea: Hulu.com and all the websites that offer TV episodes online should make up for the frustrating fact that incongruously-synced air schedules often make DVRs trim off the last minute or so of shows (including a sitcom's "tag" i.e. the last scene during the credits). These "DVR-End Snips" should be available for quick viewing online. You wouldn't need a "DVR-Open Snip" for missed openings because you could simply just watch the beginning of the show. NOTE: Yes, you can add minutes to the tail of recording times but not if they compete with other shows you want to record. BTW - Networks will also want to implement this because it highlights the fallibility of DVRs (which are not particularly favored by networks because they enable skipping of commercials).

More Features Facebook Should Implement

More Features Facebook Should Implement: 1) "Freeze Comments" - Enables the original poster and/or the wall-owner to temporarily (or permanently) prevent further comments. This would "put it to bed" so attention can be paid to other continuing discussions. 2) "Selective Posting Permissions" - The wall-owner could determine the posting capabilities for any and all friends. For example: • "All can comment but not post" • "John Doe can post text but not links" • "Alumni Group may not post at all" • "Heather Smith has a 48 hour hold on posting". 3) "Selective Feed/Alerts" - For example: the default could be to unsubscribe to all wall posts except for friends in designated groups. But then include nearly all "invites" except ignore invites from Jethro McGulicutty. And also include posts with any of the following keywords "puppies", "Obama", "ninjas" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm". CAVEAT: I can't be sure if I am the first originator of those ideas. Please alert me if I'm not. In any event, I hope they are enacted.

Vote Lance Enderle over Mike Rogers

When you vote it comes down to a choice. How will you decide who gets your vote?   • Some people just go by gut. If they like the guy they vote for him.   • Others simply go by how things are going right now. If times are good then they vote for the party in power. If times are bad then they vote for the other party.   I urge you to go at least a bit deeper than that.   I'd like you to get a fair understanding of each side's plans of action. And all actions have consequences.   Some of those consequences can cost you your money, job or worse.   Mike Rogers is bad for most Michiganders. Here are the first 4 big reasons:   1) ECONOMICS: Republican Mike Rogers still endorses the same exact failed Bush economic policies that got us into the worst recession in American history. Also, Rogers was against the Democratic actions that have created over 3 million jobs according to the non-partisan official CBO report (August 2010).   2) RAPE VICTIMS FORCED TO CARRY RAPISTS' OFFSPRING: Republican Mike Rogers is so extreme on abortion that he wants women who are the victims of rape to be forced to give birth to their rapist's offspring. I can't imagine the injustice of police detaining & supervising rape victims for 9 months until their rapists' spawn are born. Yet that is the necessary consequence of Mike Rogers' position.   3) OIL DRILLING: Republican Mike Rogers still wants to allow oil drilling in the Great Lakes. Even after the two oil spills in Louisiana this year. Incomprehensibly, somehow even after the oil spill in the Kalamazoo river, Mike Rogers wants to expand oil drilling.   Before the Louisiana oil spills, do you think there were residents there who voted for oil-loving Republicans thinking that an oil spill could never happen?   Once the oil spill started ruining their land and businesses do you think they wished they could go back in time and vote for someone with a better understanding about environmental dangers?   4) TAXES: Republican Mike Rogers desires a deceptive "Flat Tax". It's undeniable arithmetic that, assuming the same level of government services (cops, teachers, roads etc.), Rogers wants to raise taxes on everyone else in order to massively cut taxes for multi-millionaires & billionaires. This despite the fact that most of the wealthy are OK paying their share of taxes and aren't out there protesting that they even want further tax cuts.   Some Perspective; Highest Tax Rate under Presidents… Dwight Eisenhower(R) – 91% Richard Nixon(R) – 70% Ronald Reagan(R)   – 50% Bill Clinton(D) – 39.6% George Bush(R)  – 38.6% Now – 35% Barack Obama's proposal – 39.6% (but only for those who make more than $250,000 per year). The reason for this is to reduce the national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars. And yet Republicans are deceiving the American public by falsely claiming this tax rate is "Socialism". FACT: Obama is proposing tax rates that are less than they were during Reagan.   Conclusion: Mike Rogers is one of the extreme Republicans who has slipped under the radar for too long.

I deserve some credit for the "poker boom", seriously.

I just read The Economist's July 8th, 2010 article about poker... http://www.economist.com/node/16507710 and it stirred up some old bitterness that I feel the need to address. So I'm writing this blog post as an attempt at catharsis. I'm conflicted because I'm deliberately going against the sage advice of Lynda Obst (which I've reverentially quoted many times to friends and mentees) - "Never let them know that you know that they screwed you. (i.e. alerting evil-doers makes them avoid doing business with you in the future for fear of retribution --- and this town is too small to make enemies. so let them think you're a chump)." Nevertheless, I'm compelled to set the record straight here. Forgive me for the following blatant self-promotion --- No joke: I should be mentioned for my significant role in the poker boom. I produced the WSOP TV show in 2000 (when Chris Ferguson beat TJ Cloutier) for ROSSTV (aka RIVR MEDIA) that aired on The Discovery Channel. I was the first producer of any poker on TV to put "running statistics" graphics to show which player was in the lead on each street (which made watching the gameplay much more understandable to beginners). I also included card graphics which were tantamount to hole-card cameras. Somebody uploaded the final hand of my WSOP show here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbV7Bgy0r7A NOTE: I was also the Post Producer/Writer of the first season of the World Poker Tour and co-developed that show's design with WPT Founder Steve Lipscomb (substantially based on my WSOP show). For corroboration on any of this... Go ahead and check with Chris Ferguson and/or Steve Lipscomb and/or read "Positively Fifth Street" written by James McManus (who placed 5th that year) and/or find a copy of the 31st Annual WSOP (2000) and see for yourself. Here's my conjecture for why I'm forgotten so often when people write the history of the poker boom... ESPN dropped the WSOP after 1998 due to the fact that their comparatively unwatchable shows led to poor ratings. Steve Lipscomb produced the WSOP in 1999 for the Discovery Channel and it got decent enough ratings that Discovery wanted it again in 2000 (so Lipscomb found me to produce it). My WSOP show did so well that ESPN came to their senses and started producing the event for TV again (largely using my show design). Consequently, ESPN doesn't own the rights to the 1999 & 2000 WSOPs so those shows never got rerun after ESPN regained the the rights to the event. ---- Yeah, I'm more than a bit bitter about not getting the credit I deserve. ;-) This particular emotional sore hasn't sufficiently healed for me since things like this ("getting ripped off" and "not getting credit for my work") have happened so many times in my life (as my close friends must be sick of hearing about). While I know I should humbly "count my blessings" since I'm otherwise pretty damn spoiled (my well-off parents have substantially supported me in myriad ways in various endeavors), it still deeply offends me when I think about my "bad luck" with "cruel fate". Better to let sleeping dogs lie and move on with life. Ok, that should be enough for this post. Now I should be more able to focus on making my current ventures succeed. Good karma to you. P.S. Regular readers of this blog know that I normally attempt to write something that can help the reader/society. But this one was pretty self-indulgent and unnecessary. Please forgive me.

Sell Oil at $77 (from my May 17, 2010 advice to Buy Oil at $71)

On May 17th, 2010, I recommended buying Oil at $71 a barrel. http://corpania.blogspot.com/2010/05/at-71-oil-is-cheap.html Now that it's over $77, I'm recommending you take your profit and be happy. NOTE - I still think BP stock is a bargain in the low 30s (P/E ratio around 5). They've got plenty of cash coming in for the foreseeable future. And remember that Exxon's actual payout for the Valdez spill was a small fraction of the headline-grabbing fines & court ordered awards and that took two decades! Finally, now that BP has promised to escrow $20 billion my guess is that they don't end up paying much more than that. The low price now reflects the market's most dire assessment of BP's future.

I Solved it! The "Jews vs. Muslims" Conflict in Israel...

I Solved it! The "Jews vs. Muslims" Conflict in Israel... After reading 4 whole articles on the subject (wow!) I think I got it all figured out. • Beinart's now famous May (June?) 2010 essay in the New York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/ • Beinart vs. Goldberg in 05/18/10 article in The Atlantic and its part II follow-up http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/goldblog-vs-peter-beinart-part-i/56914/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/goldblog-vs-peter-beinart-part-ii/56934/ • Goldberg's 06/11/10 article in The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/06/netanyahus-dilemma/58052/ In my assessment, the two biggest obstacles that prevent a "peace deal" between the Muslims and Jews in Israel are: 1) The current preponderance of power on the Muslim side's leaders are so hostile to Israel that no negotiation is possible (because the extreme Muslims, namely Hamas & Hezbollah et al., insist on ultimately eradicating the Jews with no possible compromise.) 2) Israel's very existence as a "Jewish State", however historically justified or potentially necessary in the future, is inherently predisposed to favoritism ("Apartheid" if we use the Islamic side's derogatory term) for example Muslims in the Gaza have their travel & imports severely restricted - in May 2010 "no jam, chocolate, or notebooks". And such favoritism is fundamentally antithetical to Western ideals of pluralism & democracy. For the rational people in the international community clearly the extreme Muslim side is worse (if only because most Jews, even most Jews in power in Israel don't want all the Muslims eradicated). But there's a clear "double-standard" in that the world holds Israel up to contemporary Western standards and expects little from the Muslim world (as evidenced by the tolerated racism & virtual "ethnic cleansing" of Jews in all Arab & officially Muslim countries). Nevertheless, let's not forget that a perpetually pure "Jewish State" is anti-pluralistic and intolerant by definition, which runs contrary to Western values. "Aha!" you exclaim, "But Israel allows some Muslims to vote and even some get elected to the Knesset". And that's a valid counter-argument to Muslim propaganda claims of complete "Apartheid" in Israel. But then the fundamental question becomes "Would Israel ever allow Muslims to be elected as the majority and thus would Israel ever allow Muslims to control Israel?" --- And so, non-rhetorically, I earnestly ask you, dear reader who generally supports Israel - "Would you be OK with a future where Muslims get legally elected to the majority in the Knesset?" - If you would ever be OK with a legally-elected Muslim majority in the Knesset then you truly believe in Democracy and the crucial concept of accepting the will of the people even if it is entirely against your own views. Then the question becomes "Given that commitment to Democracy, what is an acceptable course of action to prevent a Muslim majority?" And later we can explore that resulting question's ramifications in its branch of the "future permutation tree". - If, however, you would never be OK with a legally-elected Muslim majority of the Knesset then you don't truly believe in Democracy. Instead your priority would clearly be on a Jewish state over a Democracy where the universally fair & rational argument for that is very delicate to say the least. If you are against racism and apartheid then you can't be for a perpetually Jewish state unless you think Judaism will become the dominant religion (which no one believes). Note - Saying you're only OK with a Muslim minority in the Knesset isn't a morally coherent compromise any more than Iran saying it is pluralistic & tolerant because it has one Jew in its 290-person parliament. N.B. - Just because someone believes in a theoretical future where Muslims could be elected to the majority of the Knesset doesn't necessarily mean that such a person must therefore accept that today's (often extreme) Muslims should be allowed to control the Knesset. In any event, self-preservation is the prime & supreme right of all people. Israel certainly need not allow the circumstances of its own destruction. This must be practically considered in all potential branches of the future permutation tree. So what are all the possible paths (branches of the future permutations tree) that would end the Muslim-Jewish conflict to the satisfaction of Jews in Israel? 1) Convince the majority of Muslims that Jews shouldn't be eradicated so that if Muslims indeed ever did come to power in Israel it would be an acceptable outcome. = (MY FAVORITE BRANCH OF THE FUTURE PERMUTATIONS TREE) 2) Find enough of the extreme Muslims (who seek to eradicate Jews) and either kill or imprison or expel those Muslims so that the rational, peaceful Muslims become the majority. = (THE SECOND MOST DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE BRANCH OF THE "FPT") 3) Eradicate all non-Jews (killing them, imprisoning them and/or expelling them) so that only Jews remain in Israel. = (THE MOST DANGEROUS AND LIKELY COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE BRANCH OF THE "FPT") 4) Convince the world that Jews in Israel deserve a perpetual, universal exception to the Western values of pluralism & Democracy and consequently institute everlasting apartheid = (EVEN IF THIS WERE DESIRABLE OR POSSIBLE IT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR RACISTS & SEPARATISTS IN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY). NOTE - For each one of those outcomes there is an opposite viewpoint potentially espoused by extreme Muslims that would eradicate Jews in Israel. So be careful which path you prefer because the reverse could be argued or actually happen. FINALLY - The only other option is continued conflict. However, that may not currently be the worst possible path for Jews in Israel. This particular argument isn't very popular but it's crucial. Maybe now isn't the right time because extreme Muslims are too powerful & popular. Maybe after a few more decades of conflict more rational, peaceful Muslims will come to power and be fair negotiators for peace with Jews in Israel. So if that's the branch of the FPT (i.e. the current path) Israel is on ("conflict until Muslims have peaceful leaders"), then shouldn't we do what we can to facilitate and expedite the ascension of the rational & peaceful Muslims to positions of power in their communities? How can we do that? If you were a non-extreme Muslim what would you respond to or what would convince you that Jews in Israel are OK? In short, I keep returning to my decade-old "strategy" for Israel... Step 1: Stop building settlements and just try to "hold" the status quo for a while. Step 2: Earn credibility by magnanimously aiding/supporting Muslim Palestinians in highly-visible ways while explicitly not asking for anything in return (especially building hospitals & secular schools which could simply start with math & science only, no history or politics, so Muslim parents would appreciate them but wouldn't fear propaganda.) Step 3: After a long time of steps 1 & 2, Israel publicly offering an overly-generous deal to the Palestinians and making any acceptance conditional upon highly visible promises of peace/unity and official pronouncements against violent & extreme Muslims such as Hamas, Hezbollah etc. (to divide & conquer). Then if the Palestinians don't take the deal the international community would be more likely to get on Israel's side. Repeat steps 1 & 2 and then 3 until progress is made. I know some substantial portion of Muslims really want to annihilate all Jews/Israelis and nobody will ever change their minds. But it all comes down to the "rational middle". Don't ever give rational people a fair reason to want to kill you. (Maybe take a look at the last 6 points of my somewhat related post: http://corpania.blogspot.com/2008/01/there-is-no-existential-threat-to.html ) This is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. So maybe using the word "Solved" in the headline was a bit too strong. Forgive my grandiose hype, yet again. ;-) Be well and good karma to you.

I'm so cynical that I recommend buying BP stock

In a just world, companies that claim the catastrophic possibilities of their actions are so extremely rare would then be required to "make a market" for insuring against such terrible events. My example: DanCorp says that drilling for diamonds under the LA water supply is very safe. So safe that it claims the chances of any harm to the public are 1 in a Million. Based on that assessment the permits would be authorized provided that DanCorp allow anyone, everyone to buy unlimited insurance FROM DANCORP at that same 1 to a Million ratio (as soon as insurance stopped being sold by DanCorp permission would be revoked). So if the water is ultimately spoiled by DanCorp's actions then DanCorp must pay a million times whatever insurance amount was bought. Maybe in the interest of practicality there could be a 50% or even 10x difference to allow for a "spread" (so maybe if it says the odds are 1 in a Million it only has to insure at a 1 to 100,000 payoff ratio). If something like this were done then BP (or Haliburton or any other company potentially jeopardizing the public) would have to either: a) Be accurate in their assessments and only take judicious risks - IDEAL! b) Be overly conservative in their assessments of risks (so as to arbitrage the insurance risk ratio) but then have a much less persuasive case to the permit-granting authorities. ------------------------------------------- But all of that is moot concerning my cynical headline recommendation to:  buy BP stock at 36.52 (as of Tuesday, June 1st, 2010). http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/bp.html http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ABP Why do I write that? Because we don't live in a just world and I'm skeptical about the likelihood of the necessary progressive change our world needs. At a price of 36.52 , BP is trading at under 6 times earnings (whereas P/E ratios of 15 are historically stable). Nobody thinks the world will get off oil in the next 30 years (let alone the next 10). Consequently, BP stock is just so undervalued right now that I would buy it. And yes, I still believe we should get off fossil fuels ASAP and switch to renewable energy like Solar & Wind immediately. Check out my own solar ventures... www.RandyHallSolar.com & www.Prontia.com

Arguing Over Directions When We Desire Different Destinations

How can we argue about leaders or even directions when we desire different destinations? Here's the analogy: All of the voters are in a bus and we're deciding on a bus driver. We can look primarily at candidates' bus driving experience etc. if both have the same directions and destination in mind. Then if we don't get there, it's really easy to determine the driver's efficacy. Either we got there or didn't. Either we got closer or not. But that is never the most fundamental issue because the directions are always different (e.g. small government vs. big government, cutting taxes vs. cutting deficits etc.). If one driver wants to take the road on the left and the other driver will drive the road on the right then the difference between drivers themselves (assuming both are at least minimally competent) is secondary to the intended path. If prosperity is North East of us and of the two roads, one heads East and other West then, intuitively ceteris paribus, it's wiser to head East. But if the road East actually leads off a cliff and the road West eventually winds towards the North-East destination then it's wiser to head West. However, the intended path must first be a function of the desired destination. What if we can't find consensus on the destination? Shouldn't we first ensure the public debate focuses on the destination? Shouldn't we first at least attempt to resolve the most fundamental question from which all subsequent questions & answers depend? I want our leaders to articulate their ideal but viable visions of the future. I think there is comparatively little value in them doing so in abstract terms (as they often do). More practically, they should outline measurable, "falsifiable" goals with all of their conceivably attendant ramifications. Necessarily, these goals will have some new "losers" despite their projected overwhelming "winners". It is my contention that if this were done to American presidents starting in the 20th century that the Democrats would get substantially better scores than Republicans. It seems to me that despite the recent, over-hyped attention given to Tea Party activists, Americans have, over time, evolved towards a belief system where the desired "destination" is more in line with the Democrats. Consequently, Democrats' paths have been more effective in leading closer to that shared destination. And as expected, Democratic office-holders have been more effective in driving that road. Just my opinion. P.S. I was inspired to write this after re-reading an infuriatingly specious column in Fortune magazine (from February 11, 2009) that claimed: "It's inarguably true that in the very short-term, the New Deal did not fix the economy. Roosevelt's programs were first passed in 1933 but economists generally agree that the Great Depression did not end until 1939, when the country began preparing for World War II. Unemployment rates, which reached as high as 25%, took several years to recover and did not get below 9% until 1940." MY INARGUABLE REPLY: So the New Deal had to completely "fix" the economy for it to be good? As it even states in that very same paragraph, unemployment was cut in half and but somehow the writer thinks that shouldn't be seen as a good result. MY BIG OBVIOUS POINT: Moving closer to the desired destination should be seen as good! (e.g. Obama's first moves in Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, & Reducing Nuclear in the world). BTW - I dare Tea Party Activists, Libertarians and Right-wing conservatives to describe their desired destinations and specifically outline their preferred visions for the future. (q.v. Rand Paul's theories on civil rights). If they do (ceteris paribus) then the Democrats will have a very good year in 2010.

"Universal Value" & Price the Dollar to "Years of Sustenance" Standard

For years, I've been opining about what I call "Universal Value" which I think is one of the most fundamental aspect of economics. This idea runs contrary to free-market purists who think "the market as a whole can never be wrong" and that "crashes should not be avoided with regulation". (Maybe you should skim my February 10, 2009 post or my December 25, 2006 post for previous allusions to what I hope to explain here). So this post may only be a tiny bit interesting to those who are excited by monetary policy (the poor bastards). Here's my first attempt at articulating my idea to re-attach the dollar to a new "standard". Problem: Possible Rampant Inflation - devaluing American currency and thus our investments & assets. (q.v. countless examples of third-world countries where people carry wheelbarrows full of local cash to the market to pay for a few meager groceries). Many of you already know that I think tying currency to gold or any other shiny metal, regardless of its scarcity, is fundamentally absurd despite that history/tradition. Gold-standards are/will be worthless once people stop placing such an extreme premium on that yellow shiny element. So tying a currency to gold is systemically just as precarious, if not more so, than one that is "untied" or freely subject to the market. So here's my solution (which may or may not be original or effective): STEP #1: The government can create an ultra "bundle of goods" (which others have recommended) which... (here's "my" twist) are a function of a human's needs for a given year. This ultra bundle of goods would include: - shelter/safety for one year - nutritious food for one year - clothing for one year - minimal medical treatments - entertainment/education for one year - utilities Then the government could find locations in the US where it would be most economical to establish such housing (e.g. Wyoming, Texas or other wide-open but less-populous areas). I would think there would be overwhelming interest from communities across the country (especially depressed areas like Detroit, Cleveland etc.) seeking government funds to create these communities. NOTE - I'm not saying we put all of these in one segregated area. I'm saying the opposite of that. I would want there to be such communities in virtually every zipcode. Once you figured out the cost of this extraordinary "ultra bundle of goods" on a per year basis (dividing the cost of building & sustaining it by the number of years it will last) you would get the cost of a "Year of Sustenance" (YoS). Here's my first rough budget: - shelter for one year (e.g. a private trailer or apartment in a safe, unpolluted area) = $3k - nutritious food for one year (e.g. 2000 calories per day of assorted MREs) = $2k - clothing & goods for one year (e.g. those sufficient for the climate of that location) = $1k - minimal medical treatments (e.g. set by international human rights standards) = $1k - entertainment/education for one year (e.g. computer with access to the internet and/or DVDs & TV) = $1k - utilities (e.g. clean water/plumbing and solar electricity) = $2k GRAND TOTAL = $10,000 per year (but this could easily be "scaled-up" to nicer standards - e.g. "a house with a yard and fresh food" - for more money) STEP #2: The government actually builds/buys millions of these minimal housing/sustenance communities with their accordant amenities. They then make them available to the public for rent. Hopefully, not just as "the projects" for low-income people. (Social services / charity implication: the homeless, victims of domestic violence, parolees etc. could be given temporary access to these communities). STEP #3: The government then prices the dollar relative to the cost of "one year of sustenance". Thus, in this example, one dollar would be worth 0.01% of a "YoS". - $100 would be worth 1% of a "YoS". - $20,000 would be worth 2 "YoS". And one million dollars would be worth 100 "YoS". STEP #4: The US would then be required to have "YoS" built/ready for all the dollars in circulation. This is akin to casinos being required to have cash for every chip in play. The US could get sufficient "YoS" ready by at least 3 ways: a) actually building & supplying them - q.v. the WPA which helped America emerge from the Great Depression. b) buying them from real-estate developers desperate to fill up their oversupply of space or manufacturers with fallow factories. c) getting legal commitments from established companies which make those items based on mutually-agreed-upon exchange rates (e.g. Apple agrees to build 10 million laptops or Wall-mart agrees to feed 10 million people for year in exchange for 1 million acres of specified public land --- should it ever have to come to that). CONCLUSION: By requiring the US to have "YoS" built/ready, the dollar could never drop below the floor of 1/10,000th of what it costs to survive (albeit austerely) for one year. Assuming life-expectancy is 80 years, $800k would enable you live for a lifetime. Building up a next egg of cash/U.S. bonds worth $400k would guarantee you a 40-year retirement instead of possible death if markets or inflation destroys your investment. Now compare my idea to third-world currencies where inflation has been so rampant that they printed "100 trillion" dollar notes. At least with my idea there is a floor preventing further damage. The living at "YoS-level" certainly ain't desirable for most Americans in 2010 but it ain't supposed to be. It's just a floor. Otherwise, properly regulated markets can determine the swings. I know there are countless implications to this idea but I wanted to get this first draft posted. It's a work in progress. And I further note that it could be fundamentally flawed and impossible (but I currently just don't see how that's so). Stay tuned for further exploration of this topic. Good karma to you.

At $71, Oil is cheap

Checking the price of oil today (Monday, May 17, 2010) at 4:30pm EST on - http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ showing NYMEX Crude is at $70.57 per barrel which seems very cheap to me. It seems like people are panicking (due to Greece et al.) that there will be a global depression (which is one of the few things that could substantially drop the price of oil). It's also possible that Big Oil is trying to keep the price down to counter any potential economic arguments to get off fossil fuels as a result of the giant BP spill. It's tougher to argue that renewable energy is "price competitive" when oil gets really cheap whereas the case for Solar & Wind is extremely compelling when oil gets to where it will trend for the foreseeable future (namely $70 - $90 a barrel as I've been saying for years, and massively more compelling when oil gets above $140 as it conceivably could). So BUY OIL at cheaper than $73 and sell it before it hits $85 or so (don't get too greedy). I guess if I had to put a "stop-loss" it would be at $64. And yes, I'm aware that following my most recent oil trade recommendation would have lost money (when I said, on March 29 2010, when oil was at $82.36 that it was "a little high" and that I recommended you sell when it drops to $78 and cut your losses if it goes to $85 - which it then did. Consequently I should have had the confidence to say it will eventually drop well below $82.36 which is has since done. Hindsight is 20/20). So overall, my predictions about oil have been pretty darn accurate. We'll see how good this one is.

Mind Blown by Godel and Now I challenge him!

My roommate in college recommended a book called "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" but I never read it. He was then and is now a brilliant guy with whom I have enjoyed debating many philosophical issues. I just recently started reading about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and my mind was blown! As is my tendency, when I encounter an intellectually stimulating idea it does one of three things to me: 1) fits perfectly with my existing paradigm and thus is elegantly integrated into my belief system (which immediately makes me quite happy) 2) disproves and replaces something in my existing paradigm and thus is integrated into my belief system albeit initially uncomfortably (which eventually makes me happy) 3) challenges but doesn't disprove something in my existing paradigm and thus requires my active rumination until it is integrated or discarded (either of which leaves me a bit intellectually-emotionally conflicted for a while). Now I'm pretty savvy about math (Mensa member, Stuy grad, 750 math SAT) but currently I simply do not have the education to understand advanced math (number theory etc.). *So my mega-math-savvy friends need to help me out here, please.* Nevertheless, I am about to challenge one of the most established ideas in the Philosophy of Mathematics. (My ignorance & hubris are explained at the end of this post.) Godel claims - "There exist statements that are true but not provable". Which, intuitively to most people, sounds like bullcrap. He gives mathematical examples of logical statements that are true every time you test them but "unprovable" in that there are an infinite number of tests and thus no definitive way to "test them all" which leads to his conclusion that such a statement is "true but not provable". I argue that what is at issue is a misunderstanding of language (semantics). It seems to be a misunderstanding of the concept of "infinity". Of course infinity is infinite. Of course you can't make a closed set of rules about infinity. That would be like saying "there are a limited number of ideas to be thought of" because, of course, every idea could be integrated into a newer, bigger idea just as you can always add the number 1 to any number to make a bigger number. More to the point, Godel seems to think something "having been true every time it was tested" is exactly equal to "is and will always be true". I don't think that is universally useful and, more importantly, I draw a valuable distinction. As such, I think there should be "True1" which would be the most pure definition of truth and there should be "True2" which could have a lower burden. It's the difference between saying a "True2" statement like: this convict will kill you because "he has been proven to be a murderer before and thus will necessarily continue to kill" (which may or may not be true in the future) and saying getting guillotined will kill you because "separating your brain from your heart & lungs will prevent the oxygen from getting to your brain". Now this is not to say that a "True1" statement need be an un-disprovable tautology. If you could prove that a disembodied head could survive (q.v. the jars in "Futurama") then that would disprove the statement that "getting guillotined will kill you". I strongly believe in the concept of falsifiability being necessary in intellectual discourse. Therefore, I choose to define the most useful version of the word "true" (i.e. "True1") in this way: "that which is consistent with reality and also is provable for every case". In this way there is no such paradox nor anything counter intuitive (which I, by no means, think should be a requirement). Consequently, I would rewrite Godel's logical statements such that they communicated the difference between what I call "True2" which is "having proven to be entirely consistent with reality but with no fundamental proof for why it should always be the case" (which is like finding even nearly infinite correlations but still no causality) and the substantially higher burden of 'truth' which I call "True1" that is defined as "having proven to be entirely consistent with reality AND ALSO coherent with a fundamental proof for why it must always be consistent with reality". Ultimately this issue intertwines with some of my grander thoughts on human decision-making and intellectual progress. While I don't have the following all worked out just yet, here are some things to consider: a) Any statement can be infinitely questioned down to fundamental issues that are virtually unponderable. The fun example is the child who has a seemingly infinite series of "Why" questions. At some point the parent just has to say "Because I said so. Now eat your dinner.". Similarly, in all human interaction, there is a heuristic of "we gotta move on" otherwise you would be paralyzed at every moment, paranoid and asking whether you can trust even the most basic of elements of life. b) For any philosophy to be useful it must recognize the "we gotta move on" dynamic. However, I am not arguing that everyone needs to have the same threshold because I, of course, appreciate the benefits of specialization & division-of-labor. c) For any productive debate, the most fundamental ground rules must be enforced. Some of my favorite rules:  • Terms must be defined and consistent.  • Evidence must be given priority over theory.  • Predictions proven to be true must be give priority over retro-actively created theories of how/why things happened before.  • "Goal Posts" defining who "won" must be set early on and be immovable unless by mutual consent.  • Sophistry (e.g. Schopenhauer's 38 Ways to Win an Argument) must be discouraged and seen as a sign of weakness (because someone who knows he is right need not use such specious techniques). This all plays into my idea for www.wiki-debate.com / www.DebateSherpa.com where I plan to eventually "connect the echo-chambers". d) Humans each have their own algorithm for decision-making and these are by no means 100% universal and consistent. But I believe there is a flow-chart to be made of how people integrate new information into their belief systems. I think there is a general triage of questions with their own subroutines:    1- Is this for me? Do I recognize this as relevant to me in any way?    2- Is this urgent? ("Look out!")    3- Is this important? ("Fire!")    4- Is this interesting?    5- Is this true? (crucial sub-routine for determining this is: Authority? Track record? Bias? Impact for acceptance? Coherence with other accepted views? Future benefit?) e) This post is already too long otherwise I'd go into detail of how I generally prefer to engage & challenge ideas when I am probably, relatively speaking, too ignorant to do so rather than read in-depth research that I fear will "track" my thinking into unoriginal paths. Since I value creativity & originality so highly I often risk embarrassment with my ignorance & hubris. DAN'S GENERIC DISCLAIMER: I'm not entirely sure everything I wrote here is correct or even if everything here is original. If you find identical or even similar thoughts elsewhere please alert me to them (especially if they disprove my assertions). Thank you.

My solution to the "Incalculable Derivatives" Accounting Problem!

I just solved the "Incalculable Derivatives" Accounting Problem! When a well-known, well-respected "Whale" (Casino term for a big gambler) shows up in Vegas he often gets to gamble on credit extended by the Casino. But there is a maximum he can bet on credit before the casino will demand a wire-transfer payment. The casino decides what amount the whale is good for on-credit and beyond that it's no more Mr.Nice Guy. If only Wall Street were so wise! Here's my solution - Government/SEC should mandate that ALL future derivatives have a "maximum value". e.g. a Call Option could then be a right to buy a given security at a certain strike price (as normal) but the change would be that the right can be exercised no more than X amount "in the money" (where X is an extremely big number). So Google stock is trading at $550 a share and this extreme derivative call option (for a single share) has a strike price of $10,000 with an expiration date of 3 months from now. Because it is so "out of the money" it trades for $0.01 and some bank is selling millions of these options because it's so utterly sure Google won't rise above it. Without my idea, if Google goes to $20,000 per share just before expiration then each option that the bank sold for $0.01 it will now have to pay out at $10,000. Consequently, if the bank sold millions it would be "on the hook" for tens of billions in losses. But with my idea, X could be "ten thousand times the original price of the derivative". So any investment in a derivative could get a 10,000 ROI but no more. In that specific Google hypothetical example the X number is "10,000" which is multiplied by the price "$0.01" which would equal $100. So when the option was exercised the strike price would "reset" to $100 less than the current price (which would then be $19,900). For over 99.999% of derivatives, well over 99.999% of the time, this wouldn't make a difference to either party (buyer or seller) because X would be such an extremely big number. And for when the markets go crazy, there is a maximum loss/gain that would limit absurd swings that serve no value to the economy. Consequently, all future "toxic assets" would have a known upside & downside for much more effective accounting! When one bank wants to write uncovered calls (or any "naked" derivatives) it would have to list publicly (to the rest of the market) what its maximum downside pay-out would be. Then we wouldn't have the problem of "incalculable derivatives". And hopefully, that would lead to more judicious investing.

"Three Languages" Parable

Little Analogy for those who appreciate my pedantic (maybe arrogant & unoriginal) and grandiose attempts at profundity... A child is born (you don't know where) and learns his mother tongue. It is comforting to speak. Ingrained. Familiar. The child grows up. Meanwhile, that language has its opposite. None of the second language's words mean anything to that person. The second language is confusing and frustrating to engage for that person. Consequently, that person has a cultural aversion to speakers of that second language. Over time that cultural aversion leads to miscommunication & conflicts which lead to wars which lead to centuries-long blood feuds. A third language is subsequently developed. At first it doesn't seem to conflict with any of the other languages. Worldwide, smart people are attracted to this third language for its reliability & functionality. Virtually regardless of background, smart people foster unprecedented cooperation using this third language (especially compared to other languages' explicit hostility towards & exclusion of rival languages). This third language's cooperation leads to accelerating progress and invention. Even those who don't speak this wonderful, new third language enjoy its fruits. Eventually, this third language is seen as a threat by the speakers of the first two languages. These anxious speakers seek to restrict & ban elements and use of this third language despite its benefits. But the undeniably better-educated speakers of the third language have mounting evidence and continual innovation on their side. So their numbers grow. They convincingly argue that when different people (raised in different lands with different languages) seek to communicate with each other they should agree to use the language that most effectively benefits all involved. Why should everyone learn the first language or the second when neither has any universally recognized advantage? Just the opposite; speakers of the first hate the second language and vice-versa. Whereas both sides at least appreciate the benefits of the third. So why not have everyone focus on that third language? *Here's the potentially telegraphed "punchline"... Is this third language English? Or is it Science? Aren't the first two languages analogous to any two of the world's "Big 4 Religions"? Therefore, I hope we all agree to focus on the third language (science) first and where it can't speak we thus tolerate the divisive, exclusionary languages to exist. That is my attempt at a more poetic version of my clumsy "science is gold sand and religion is fools gold rocks" theory (where I argue that we should fill our heads with sand and if there are empty spaces we can then fill it with rocks as opposed to first filling our heads with rocks thus precluding space for more-valuable sand).

Oil Prediction: (last was May 12, 2009)

I know it's been almost a year since I made a follow-up to my last oil prediction (May 12, 2009). It was then I recommended you get out of Oil ETFs altogether (because of my distaste for ETFs in Oil which seem to be inefficient and not sufficiently correlated with oil prices). I continue to stand by my old oil prediction - from May 12, 2009 and also August 10, 2008 - that: "Oil prices "should" be $70 - $90 per barrel until the next major breakthroughs in solar/alternative energy or the coming evolution/revolution in our government's energy policy." However Monday, March 29th at 1:45pm EST - Nymex Crude Future is trading at 82.36 which seems a little high to me. I know the US Dollar is relatively weak and there are myriad reasons for a price to move. However, if I was a trader I would short it and get out  at around $78 for a quick profit (I would "cut my losses" if it went to $85). Just want to be "on the record" if I'm right and humble myself if I'm wrong. We'll see.

Didactic Wonk-Screed on Insurance

Before anyone debates health care reform with me they need to know the following: How Insurance Works Insurance is basically gambling which is a subject I know a lot about (seriously - please watch my rough video mock-up of a lesson on "Fundamental Gambling Theory" because it provides a crucial foundation to understand the tricky concept of insurance). As simply as I can explain it, an insurance company: 1) Assesses the likelihood of payout for a claim "1/X" 2) Multiplies that by the size of the claim(payout) "Y" to result in the "True Odds" cost 3) Calculates its operating costs "OC" & profit margin "PM" which together are divided by the number of insured "Z" to result in the "Business Costs" "Premiums" are checks insured customers ("policyholders") pay their insurance company. In equation form: Premiums = "True Odds" + "Business Costs" or, in detail, the premiums = ((1/X) * Y) + (OC + PM)/Z For example: Let's say I am an insurance company that only insures Americans against death by shark attack. The number of people who get killed by sharks in a given month is, let's say, 1 in 300 million (let's say about 12 American deaths per year). That likelihood is "1/X" according to my formula. And the payout for that claim (to the estate of the victim) is, let's say, three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) which would be "Y" in my formula. Further, let's assume initially I'm insuring every American against shark attack (so 300 million insured would be the "Z" according to my formula). So, in any given month I should expect to pay one claim for $3 million. But for my insurance company to survive I need to take in more in premiums than I pay out in claims. How much should my insurance company charge to each of my policyholders, per month, as a "True Odds" bet (initially assuming no overhead costs and no profit)? It's easy, simply multiply (1/300million) by ($3 million) and you get = 1 penny! So if all 300 million Americans signed up for my shark attack death insurance policy I would take in 300 million times one penny = $3 million and I'd have to pay out, on average, $3 million to the estate of, on average, one policyholder per month who dies by shark attack. But since I am running a business I have overhead costs and profit to make. And no company insures all Americans. So I can be simplistic and calculate all of my operating costs (employees, advertising, taxes, overhead as well as dealing with fraud etc. = which is "OC" in my formula) and add my profit margin ("PM") for my investors-shareholders and then divide that sum by the number of insured (which is "Z") to get the premium I must charge my policyholders. Consequently, I have to charge considerably more than one penny per month. How can I, the insurance company, extract greater profit as a business? a) I can charge higher insurance premiums. b) I can try to exclusively get people to sign-up who have a relatively low chance of death by shark attack (e.g. maybe the elderly in Colorado). That way I can take in money (in premiums) from people who are not likely have to have claims (no payout). c) I can try to reject as applicants for my policy those who are at greater risk for shark attack death (e.g. maybe scuba divers or people who vacation in shark infested waters). This way I can similarly limit the number of claims I have to pay out. d) I can somehow attempt to reduce the number of shark attack deaths for a lower cost relative to the number of claims it reduces (e.g. maybe by sponsoring "shark education" in resort hotels or maybe my hiring people to kill the sharks). e) I can wisely invest the insurance premiums that policyholders pay me to earn such a good ROI that I profit more between payouts. f)  I can create efficiencies in my business thus reducing "OC" and enabling greater profits ("PM"). g) or I can immorally & illegally attempt to getaway with not paying out the $3 million to each of the estates of legitimate policyholders who die by shark attack. My disgusting rationale might be that I can stall & hinder through the courts enough legitimate policyholders that I owe claims to such that some give up or some lose due to my great lawyers. If my stalling tactics & lawyers cost less than the payouts I legitimately owe then my disgusting scheme "works" in increasing profit. Now map that entire shark insurance analogy to the health care debate. For each possible sickness or emergency or other situation that requires medical care there is some likelihood of it happening (remember "1/X" from my formula?) and there is some estimated cost of a claim (payout = "Y") which results in the "True Odds" costs. In order to reduce premiums (i.e. contain "health care costs") we can do most everything that an insurance company can do to increase profits ("a" through "f" but hopefully not "g") and also we can reduce the profit margins (note that I consider "deca-millionaire" executive salaries to be de facto profit margins). SIDE NOTE: Please review arguments (and counter-arguments) that explain the true costs of action compared to inaction. Consider everything the non-partisan CBO (the necessary and recognized "referee" in all American policy debates related to economics) considered when it made its (conservatively-estimating) projections. Personally, I think the debate should first focus on those "True Odds". Someone please show me the website that calculates the "True Odds" premiums for every malady/injury/etc. and allows a user to create simulations of what things would/should cost if they only covered Disease "A" and "B" but not "C" . Alternatively this website should allow the user to "set a price" which will result in a limited collection of medical care services that would be covered for that price. I guess it could be a bit similar to those "Progressive Insurance" advertisements' offer to "Name Your Price" and they'll "build a policy to fit your budget". Then we can see what it costs to, for example, cover car accidents vs. chronic diseases (e.g. genetically-caused Crohn's or environmentally-caused Type 2 Diabetes) and thus people can identify & quantify what "rationing" they'd be comfortable with. Once we reach some sort of consensus on the "True Odds" we can then address (triage) the other factors that go into the price of premiums. Obama & the Democrats in congress just instituted a massive change in American Health Care (Insurance) based on fairly rosy forecasts in contrast to the unmitigated disaster the GOP predicted if it went through. We will see the future make one side more right than the other.

Ideas for Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com

Further Developed Ideas for Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com By Dan Abrams   First Draft "Executive Summary"   RAISON D'ETRE: Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com will enable users to engage in global debates that actually connect the "echo chambers" and definitively resolve specious arguments so that those debates can be more productive.   FEATURES:   1) Anyone can establish himself/herself as a "Debate Sherpa"; this is someone who frames a given debate and provides succinct overviews of that debate's relevant points with links to credible sources.   2) Users can be introduced to the site by a Debate Sherpa they know or they can search for Debate Sherpas that have particular interests, beliefs or bona-fides.   3) Every page can be referenced and linked-to by anyone else. In this way any Debate Sherpa preaching to his choir can be effectively challenged by any other Debate Sherpa.   4) Every argument (web page) can be searched for its "back links" to supporting arguments/links AND ALSO to its counter arguments (both on the site and on other sites). In this way users can see  "what the other side is thinking" from its perspective. This is in stark contrast to current discourse vulnerable to intellectually poisoning by a disingenuously framed debate that includes straw men, misrepresents opposition and excludes valid counter-arguments.   5) Every URL/link referenced in a debate can be searched for its "back links" to supporting arguments AND ALSO to its counter arguments (both on the site and on other sites). In this way users can search the site to see if a given argument (posted elsewhere on the web) has a counter-argument.   6) By requiring undeletable pages there can be no fraudulent "rewriting of history". Rewritten pages can be featured on old (subsequently disavowed) pages but nothing is ever erased. This permanence may (hopefully) discourage the "trolls" and "flame throwers" so toxic to productive debate while simultaneously encouraging more thoughtful arguments. Let the million+ other blogs be where people spew their first drafts. Wiki-Debate.com will be where they come to craft their final drafts and seek definitive arguments from others.   7) Popular Debate Sherpas can gain followings and enable subscriptions to their debates. Popular arguments can be referenced and thus popularize effective Debate Sherpas. Even effective debaters (pundits, talk show hosts etc.) not yet on Wiki-Debate.com can still be utilized in productive debates and thus encourage further adoption by their respective fans.   8) By precluding anonymity and requiring a higher level of authentication, Wiki-Debate.com will encourage accountability and further discourage the "trolls" and "flame throwers".   9) By enabling our own "Wiki-Debate.com's Producitve Debate Code" there will be more accountability and thus necessarily more corrections and less tolerance of specious and previously discredited arguments.       First Draft "Mission Statement" / Market Need   The Problem that this Venture Seeks to Address: Productive debates are rare but should be popular.   All too often, important debates are made toxic by Machiavellian pundits, politicians and powerbrokers. They cynically win short-term political points with a facile-minded audience by using old, specious arguments (or blatant lies) that others have repeatedly, objectively disproven using unassailable evidence and logic.   Other websites have sought to address this problem with varying degrees of success. One set is the "fact-checking" sites that respond to quotes made by prominent players in a debate. They do research and come up with their evidence for why they deem a quote to be true or false. The big sites in this set include: - www.Politifact.com - www.FactCheck.org - www.MediaMatters.org - www.snopes.com - www.truthorfiction.com - (every political party and office tends to have their own "fact check" site)   But none of them provide a fair and overarching framework for debates to be organized. Another set of sites specifically seeks to address this problem. The main sites in this set include: - www.DebateMaps.com - debatepedia.idebate.org - www.createdebate.com However none is particularly intuitive or well organized. Debatepedia seems to suffer from particularly simplistic paradigms that assume there are only two sides to an argument.   The debate sites and all "fact check" sites have a fairly stark lack of "universal accountability" in that the user is supposed to just trust them. When they choose to provide sources with external links as validation this seems to work out fine. However "universal accountability" is crucial, and by that term I mean a method for inclusion of all possible counter-arguments and evidence.   Consequently, the same debates tend to happen in every corner of the internet and unfortunately these corners tend to be "echo chambers" of like-minded zealots. False information that, if true, would buttress their arguments gets easily spread which further toxifies public discourse.   There is currently no integration of the opposing sites. There is currently no consistent, reliable, efficient way to ensure all points of view are directly addressed so that bogus arguments can be more easily dismissed. Let's stop having the same B.S. debates and make some progress. Wiki-Debate.com will be that solution. Goal of this Venture: Promote "Productive Debate" of important issues.  (see acronym "OHELOALT")             Defined as:            • Open-minded                                     • Honest                                     • Evidence-based                                     • Logical                                     • Organized                                     • Accountable                                     • Lasting                                     • Thorough             There is reasoning behind that particular order of priorities which I'd be             happy to explain to you later.   Foundation:   One of the most important first steps in a productive debate is the elimination of misunderstandings. The most useless debates are those between two sides that actually agree but didn't first effectively attempt to understand each other.   It is useful, not to mention inspiring, to hold the foundational belief that, in any debate, "When each side knows everything the other side knows and both sides adhere to logic and reason then there will be the greatest chance at agreement". In so doing, the only possibilities for a lack of consensus must then be based on differing priorities. I have a consequential belief that priorities themselves can (and eventually must) be reviewed with equal rigor resulting in more commonly-accepted priorities. In that way, we may begin with as much "common ground" and agreed-upon "first principles" as possible. Then our debates will be most productive.   MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME…