| About 30 months go, from my Febuary 7th, 2007 email (some of my friends can, please, check their in box from my Optevi.com email address)... Google Debate Trees" or "Once and For All"- Using flow-charts/permutation trees, users can have wiki/blog style debates that are visually navigable. Each branch can be infinitely extended and relinked to other branches with appropriate foot-noting. For each split there can be infinite responses appropriately ranked with page-rank or, better yet, with ULCs/bundles. Enable a chance at "settling" the well-worn parts of debates by crushing, "once and for all", demonstrably false arguments and letting the debate continue where there isn't consensus. These "debate trees" could be infinitely personalized to exclude/include according to preferences. --- On Wed, 2/7/07, Daniel Abrams <(XXXXXXXXXX)@optevi.com> wrote:
|
CAVEAT! I'm an amateur philosopher and idea-generator. I am NOT an investment professional. Don't take any of my advice before consulting with an attorney and also a duly licensed authority on finance. Seriously, this my personal blog of random ideas only for entertainment purposes. Don't be an idiot.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
"Debate Trees" settling debates "Once and For All"
Monday, June 08, 2009
My Defense of Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" Quote
| You know that Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, is being criticized as "racist" by the right wing pundits, in particular for this quote of hers: SOTOMAYOR: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Here's my defense, one that I haven't yet heard on TV nor yet read in the blogosphere: 1) Admittedly, if Sotomayor had said something like "Even a foolish Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than any wise white man." then that, on some level, would indeed be racist. But she didn't say that. 2) And if Sotomayor had said something like "Every wise Latina woman reaches better conclusions than every wise white man." then that too, on some level, would indeed be racist. But she didn't say that either. 3) Surely it is not racist to say that a wise Latina woman would reach better conclusions than an average white man. On the contrary, to say the opposite would be racist. Only a racist fool would think an average white man would reach better conclusions than a wise Latina woman. 4) Conclusion: Upon reviewing what she actually said one must realize she is saying a fairly obvious statement - wise people make better conclusions than people who aren't defined as wise. It is the racist right wing pundits who missed the important semantic distinction she drew between a WISE Latina woman and a white man. Missing that distinction says more about the critical pundits' own racism. BTW - Don't forget that she even diplomatically hedged her statement (TWICE). 1) She "would hope" - She did not categorically insist it was indeed true and... 2) She hoped "more often than not" - acknowledging that in some instances the opposite was true (i.e. sometimes a white man reaches better conclusions than a wise Latina woman). Consequently - This quote is very tame when you really understand it. You may now remember that I not only went to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor but I also was in the RC/East Quad. Consequently, I do have my liberal indoctrination to live with. Forgive me, my dear conservative friends. |
Saturday, May 30, 2009
"Graduation Authentication Links" Proposal for Linkedin/Facebook/MySpace
| Here is my proposal for Linkedin/Facebook/Myspace to gain market share with a new business/product..."INFRASTRUCTURE for GRADUATION AUTHENTICATION LINKS" THE NEED: With social networks (Linkedin, Facebook, MySpace) accelerating in popularity and utility in the business world, legitimate alumni of prestigious universities need authentication and bogus alumni need to be exposed. We only want legitimate alumni to be able to claim credit for graduating our alma mater. Liars hurt our reputation. THE SOLUTION FOR THE COLLEGE: There is a crucial role college alumni associations can inexpensively play to address this growing problem. Add an "Graduation Authentication Link" page to the their alumni websites. It could work like Linkedin.com's "View My Profile" buttons. <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/optevi" ><img src="http://www.linkedin.com/img/webpromo/btn_viewmy_160x33.gif" width="160" height="33" border="0" alt="View Dan Abrams's profile on LinkedIn"></a> (once you're signed in you can see all the graphic "badges" they make available) http://www.linkedin.com/profile?promoteProfile=&trk=mypro_badges THE SOCIAL NETWORK'S ROLE: 1) Provide the technical infrastructure to enable this feature. 2) Sell this service/software as a turnkey solution for colleges to customize/tailor with their own logos & graphics. Pricing as low as $2k plus a $1 per user/per year would be extremely attractive to colleges. There could be discounts/economies of scale for mega-large universities (like the University of Michigan) and still bring in thousands of dollars per college multiplied by over a thousand colleges and you get millions in revenue for negligible cost. 3) This also provides a seamless transition/influx of new customers to their own service. It's like Microsoft's Windows encouraging MSOFFICE. THE SYSTEM'S ACTION PLAN: 1) One the system is in place, Active/"Dues-Paying" members of the a given college's alumni association are sent an email inviting them to participate in the "Graduation Authentication" system. Interested members "opt in". 2) That list of opt-ins is put into a simple database (provided by social network vendor) and random passwords are generated for those people. Emails with password-links are sent to those opt-in members inviting them to update their "Graduation Authentication Page" with very limited & optional information (upload a photo, city of residence and maybe even links to that member's pages on other social networks, liked Linkedin/Facebook/Myspace) and of course they can change their password. I strongly urge that these pages NOT include contact information (for fear of nefarious marketers scraping data for undesirable purposes). 3) Those members who have now signed up get to include personalized "Graduation Authentication Links" on their own social network pages and job application emails. 4) People hiring (maybe especially those who are not alumni) can click on those links to see the limited, public pages of members and thus authenticate the graduation of the applicant (who is a legitimate, dues-paying member of the their alumni association). THE BENEFITS FOR COLLEGES: A) Encourages alumni to join (and pay dues to) their alumni association in order to get this benefit. B) Continuously drives traffic to alumni association websites (from people clicking on the G.A.L.s to check on the validity of degree claims). C) Most importantly, you are now providing a valuable service to give credit only where credit is due. Valid graduates get proof and liars are discouraged from claiming those college using this service as the institution from where they got their degree. D) Since some version of this kind of service is inevitable, why not be the first to implement it and get credit for being a pioneer? (to the best of my knowledge I came up with this idea but it's entirely possible there is/was/will be "simultaneous creation" or maybe you've already been thinking about this for years). NOTE - I pitched this to the president of the University of Michigan Alumni Association over a year ago (early 2008). ALSO NOTE (OTHER POSSIBLE MARKETS) - This service could similarly be sold to professional certification organizations, unions, trade associations or any group with selective membership where authentication would be appreciated. |
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tiered-Length Hinges for Easy Assembly
| I had a little brainstorm while assembling a folding bookshelf that was to be connected by hinges (like a multi-paned free-standing wall screen/divider with 3 hinges along each intersection). My idea is so utterly obvious that I can't imagine I'm the first person to come up with it. So if it already exists it should really be everywhere (especially because it's so simple I can't imagine it could get good patent-protection). NOTE: The pins were already welded to one side of the hinge which were L-shaped (one side to interface on top of the other side). It was very unlike how you might imagine a regular door hinge with 4 or so intermeshing sections that you would put together and subsequently put the pin in after (which also would solve the problem). PROBLEM: If all of the hinges & pins are exactly the same length (as they were in my bookshelf) then lining them all up to insert simultaneously is surprisingly difficult. When you line up the first hinge you can't quite put it in until you line-up the second and the third exactly at precisely the same moment. It's easy to miss one where the first two hinges set up fine but the third misses entirely necessitating another try. Very frustrating. HERE'S "MY" SOLUTION: Tiered-Length Hinges. If the first hinge's pin was substantially longer than the the second (which in turn would be longer than the third) then you could slightly slide the first hinge's pin in and then guide in the second hinge's pin and then guide in the third. Though maybe there's some minor incidental cost for non-standardization. Sketch it out if my non-visual description is too confusing. You'll see my solution works. Of course, the old and utterly basic way of having the pin inserted separately works too. But that wasn't how they designed my bookshelf. "My" idea for tiered-length hinges is just another meme I hope will enter the zeitgeist and make the world a little bit better. |
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Important follow-up on oil prices (oil ETFs are bad)
When last I commented about the price of oil (December 31, 2008) I reiterated that I had predicted (on December 2, 2008 when oil was at $47 per barrel and DIG was at $27.91) that oil prices would go up. http://corpania.blogspot.com/2008/12/dans-end-of-year-2008-report-on-oil.html http://corpania.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html And if you look at the closing price of oil today (May 12, 2009) I was, yet again, indeed correct in my prediction. http://bloomberg.com/energy/ NYMEX CRUDE: $58.69 Your ROI, had you followed my advice, would have been nearly a 25% profit (versus the S&P500 going from 848.81 on 12/2/08 to 908.35 on 05/12/09 for a 7% profit). HOWEVER...I regret advocating investing in ETFs like DIG (the price of which today is only $29.24 for only a a 4.7% profit) but I'm glad I didn't recommend USO (whose price has actually fallen in the same time period). Apparently these ETFs (DIG,USL & especially USO), that explicitly attempt to highly correlate with the price of oil, are at varying levels inherently flawed. Do yourself a favor an read one of these commentaries: http://peakstocks.com/is-the-uso-a-piece-of-junk http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/why-this-oil-fund-usl-is-the-pick-of-the-bunch/12437 CONSEQUENTLY, my recommendation is to get out of any oil ETFs now. I also predict that oil prices per barrel don't have much higher to jump and could potentially fall. (Though I still stand by my previous prediction 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). So I also recommend you get out of oil altogether. I think there are better investments out there. As always, I could be wrong. We shall see. Still, my track record of predicting oil prices is kinda amazing. |
Monday, April 20, 2009
Killer Solar-Related Business Idea
| I've got a killer idea for a solar-related business. As far as I know, it's not being done yet and is definitely needed (i.e. inevitable). Marginal costs are very limited and once its infrastructure is set-up it should scale-up massively. Bad news is that it's super easy to steal (no "barriers to entry"). I was even thinking of simultaneously starting two similar companies that appear to be competitors to give the perception to actual prospective competitors that's it's not an open field (a bit like Black&Decker with their DeWalt brand). BTW - Any opinion about the following possible names? (available as of 04/20/09) ENERGECTIA.COM ENERGISIA.COM ENERGIDIA.COM NERGIDIA.COM ENESTI.COM ERNEDI.COM EARNGY.COM EARNIDY.COM EARNIS.COM ENERDI.COM ENERKY.COM NERJY.COM NERJISTA.COM NERGISTI.COM PRONERGI.COM PROGRESTI.COM PROGRESTIA.COM PROGRESSTIA.COM PRONTIA.COM PRONERJI.COM PRONTELI.COM CORNERGI.COM GENTIGI.COM JENTIGI.COM EUNERTEX.COM |
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Why I "fear" the impending giant bull market run...
I was inspired to write this after reading Alan Schram's column on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-schram/digging-out_b_186202.html He wrote: "Cash levels on the sidelines: Now at 84% of stock market value, up from 43% a year ago and much above the 66% average of the last 50 years." It got me thinking. Here are my assumptions/predictions: 1) Eventually (I optimistically expect in 6 months to 1 year) the US Economy will begin to show real signs of recovery (the bad numbers will "bottom out" and overall confidence/sentiment will increase because Americans, who are culturally inherently optimistic, will be exhausted/bored with being gloomy for too long). 2) The first wave of investment will pour into the financial markets. This is because cash will look decreasingly attractive due to inflation and low ROIs on risk-free-rate investments. This will come primarily from wealthy & institutional investors whose investment advisers need to justify their fees and commissions. You don't need a hedge fund to keep your money in cash. So a lot of that money currently "on the sidelines" will come in to the markets (i.e. increased demand) "artificially" inflating stock prices. 3) After a quarter or two of this first increase the financial news organizations (networks & magazines) will again start enthusiastically touting the increased returns on investment and the "new geniuses" who are luckily in charge now (because that is the easy news story they're most comfortable/equipped to tell). This increased hype will lead to a second and bigger wave of investment (even more increased demand). 4) This second major wave of investment will come from the late-to-the-party institutions and the slower-moving general public. This will create what some economists might like to call a "Virtuous Cycle" (which is the opposite of a "Vicious Cycle" as in the case of the self-fulfilling prophecy of a "run on a bank"). 5) In April of 2009, we have not yet reached the "baby boomer tipping point". Most of the baby boomers are still in prime earning years and thus ripe to be making maximum investments in their retirement (especially because their children are likely adult-aged and thus should be less of a financial burden). At this point, virtually the entire investment community will be back-on-board the stock market bandwagon and eager to recoup their losses. More demand increases stock prices in a self-fulfilling prophecy. At this time (which I hope will be around 2011-12) the markets will be like the go-go 1990s with the public, forever cursed with a short-memory & fickle interest, ignoring cautious economists' warnings about what will happen if we don't learn from the current mess (of 2008-09). "Hey, Dan. Overall, that doesn't sound too bad!" - You think. Why I "fear" the eventual giant bull market run... a) Systemic improvements can't happen when everyone thinks they're getting rich. No one wants to kill the golden goose. This is/was the giant cultural problem on Wall Street that caused the meltdown. You can't argue with a winner. Even if that winner is a bad poker player with a fundamentally flawed strategy of always going all-in pre-flop with 7-2offsuit. So long as he keeps winning he will not change his strategy. Only losers change their strategy. The challenge for society is redefining the barometers of losing. b) Systemic improvements have to fight inertia and entrenched interests. Consequently it is necessarily a slow fight to win. If we don't win before the economy rallies then we won't win this time (maybe have to wait until after the next market bust). c) When the boomers hit that tipping point and start making more withdrawals than they are making deposits into their retirement accounts there will be a corresponding artificial drop in stock market prices. This could start it's own vicious cycle that could last 5+ years until the boomers are sufficiently overshadowed by the rest of the market. Yet if we were more cautious and less-susceptible to hype we might be better able to limit those busts. I will write a new post to describe my proposed systemic improvements. Here's the teaser: "Accountability, Transparency, Compulsory Long Term Thinking and more deliberate decision-making (an ever higher stock price should, ceteris paribus, dissuade investors from buying but historically just the opposite happens)." However, as anyone could be with any prediction, I could be wrong here. This is especially possible because these predictions are so specific and definitively set over such a long time. We'll see... |
Friday, February 27, 2009
Dan's favorite tip for screenwriters: make your story "re-pitchable"
Dan's favorite tip for screenwriters is to make sure your story is "re-pitchable" up the exec ladder. (Part of your pitch is prepping that exec to pitch his boss).
My friend from Stuyvesant asks:
"What would you say is the essential thing that makes it re-pitchable? isn't it the same thing that makes it pitchable in the first place (i.e. it's just really good?)"
I explain further:
The meaning of "re-pitchable" has less to do with the quality of the project itself and more to do with the functional elements of the pitch itself (quotes, gimmicks, twists, jokes, the "hook" etc.) that your exec can mimic when re-pitching your project to his superiors.
Without these elements you're at the mercy of too many variables:
Since we're Stuy nerds, here's the equation:
(the quality of the project) x (your ability to communicate it in that moment) x (that exec's understanding in that moment) x (that exec's ability to reduce his understanding to a pitch for his bosses) = pitch viability
But with "re-pitchable" awareness you can give that exec well-crafted & repeatable lines he can simply parrot.
Don't trust the exec to understand and then come up with his own pitch. Arm him with the pitch elements that you already approve of (since you deliberately crafted them to be "re-pitchable").
Does that make sense?
Or did I not make this explanation "re-pitchable"?
;-)
Monday, February 16, 2009
Dan Abrams' "Theory of Comedy"...
| Dan Abrams' "Theory of Comedy": As some of you may know, I started my serious comedy-nerdom in college. Without as much natural talent as others, I took an academic approach. I even started working on a "Comedy Textbook" (in 1992). Some of my colleagues in our sketch comedy troupe helped me track down and interview a bunch of heroes of humor (including Jon Stewart, Dana Gould, Phil Hartman, David Spade, Alan King, Bob Saget and many others - I still have the audio tapes!). I wrote about 50 pages for my Creative Non-Fiction class but ran out of insight. Over the past two decades (almost) I've continued to compile notes and insight on the craft of comedy. And I'm ready to finally publicly reveal my "Theory of Comedy"... "Comedy is connections." - Proof: You can't laugh if you don't get the reference. - Physiologically, I theorize that a joke is literally a "mental shortcut" that connects disparate synapses. If somebody is slow to make the connection then they can still derive some satisfaction from finally "getting it" but it won't make them laugh as if they got it quickly. - CAVEAT: There is still a lot of comedy that I may even personally appreciate but can't yet understand its "mechanics". Some performers are just inexplicably funny independent of their material. I certainly concede that I don't yet have it all figured out. (And yes, I'm ego-maniacal enough to include the word "yet" in that sentence.) - Five Practical Consequences (that most already know or intuit): #1: "Call Backs" (aka references to previously established ideas) are consistently effective. "Set-up" a new idea early in a stand-up routine or script and then "pay it off" later for good closure of that connection. Set-up a bunch of references throughout and then sew them all together at the end for an even greater audience climax. #2: If your audience is open to connections (e.g. fans or simply a warmed-up audience that has already been primed to make connections/laugh) then they are more likely to enjoy you. Conversely, if they don't want to like you (if they're pissed off from a bad comic/script or if they're simply comedically exhausted from making too many connections/ODing on comedy) then they can effectively choose not to make the connections your jokes intend. So if they're "arms folded" be sure to start out with smaller connections that are likely to work and build credibility for the bigger stretches/connections later on. #3: Connections already made (old jokes) aren't as funny. But if the mechanics of that joke are sound then it may be applicable to a different set of references or at a minimum to a different audience. Try dissecting your favorite jokes/routines and see if you can swap-out references while preserving the funny. #4: If the audience is actively looking for the connection (maybe because you telegraphed the punchline or maybe because you simply wagered a lot of emphasis) then they can "get ahead of you" and make the connection prematurely which hurts the joke. This is also why dissecting comedy is so UNFUNNY. It's like the difference between an Aikido sensei telling you how he will throw you and the act of actually throwing you. #5: Comedy isn't really "surprise" or "revealing truth" as other academics have posited. Knowing that Dick Van Dyke or Andy Dick is going to trip at the top of a show doesn't prevent laughter, just the opposite. The audience is waiting to make the connection as a flipside to a "call back" - the nomenclature I devised for this kind of joke formula is "prophesy". So when you "set up references" they can be hidden to be used in a "call back" or explicitly done as in a "prophesy" formula deliberately alerty to the future connection but distancing it sufficiently to create a shortcut. WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I have a bunch more written about this but I wanted the basics established/published today. If you have your own ideas about comedy (or references/links to other stuff you find to be more valid) please let me know. I eventually plan to finish and publish my "Comedy Textbook" (but it could take me another decade). Thanks and good karma to you. Warm Regards, Dan |
Friday, February 13, 2009
There Should Be an "Equity Investor" Central Website (like Kiva.org)
You're already aware of "micro-loans" (see http://kiva.org ).
Too many businesses in America fail because of cash-flow problems.
Many were viable business models that were on-track to profitability when the owner simply couldn't survive a temporary, non-systemic downturn.
Someone should create an "Equity Investor" Central Website.
Like an Ebay for small stakes shareholders.
Let the investor marketplace help the small businesses (not just the mega corporations).
Business owners could "put themselves out there" and check in quarterly before they consider dangerous loans or oppressive credit card debt.
Potential investors could search the database by location, industry, size of investment needed (relative to valuation/profitability) etc.
Ideally, the federal government (maybe the SBA?) could supervise and give its imprimatur.
I envision imposing a bunch of hurdles to prevent abuse.
1) Business owners seeking equity investors:
a) must first take a fairly serious online course on the basics of business (like online traffic school) and pass with a score of better than 90% before they can make requests (to prevent some of the bigger idiots).
b) must have a notary (or "Super Notary" see below) vet who they are and verify what they claim to be true in their profile/request for investors.
c) can't seek more than, say, $50k in total
d) can't offer more than 49% of their business (and must maintain at least 51% ownership)
e) must disclose all of the other owners/shareholders in the business
f) agree to binding arbitration and strict oversight/reporting requirements.
g) etc. etc. etc.
2) Potential investors seeking businesses to invest in:
a) must have a notary vet who they are and verify what they claim to be true in their profile
b) must not invest more than 10% of their net worth, in total.
c) must agree to only use information for investment purposes (not solicitation)
d) must agree to binding arbitration etc. etc. etc.
Ideally, as this system matures, savvy investors (and/or Wall Street) could "bundle" good prospects into micro-mutual-funds.
If micro-finance-loans work why can't micro-equity?
Wouldn't there be more investors if they can participate in the upside?
Wouldn't entrepreneurs prefer an equity partner to an onerous loan?
But maybe someone else is/has already been working on this idea.
p.s. This ties in to my other idea for franchising the "Super Notary" where the public notary is brought into the 21st Century.
- Literally everything they notarize is placed on its own webpage on that SN's wesbite (encrypted if requested by the client) for eternal corroboration.
- SNs can videotape contracts being understood and agreed to (also posted to the SN's website for the client to link to if desired).
I have more on this idea but will post about it later.
Be well,
Dan
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Inherent Flaw in All Markets...
| I think most of us agree that markets are pretty good at determining prices. Historically, markets have proven to be better, in the aggregate, than any other system certainly including "central planning" of fascist (often communist) governments. But just as the recent (2008/2009) collapse of the stock & real estate markets have demonstrated, markets can be vastly inefficient at any given time. The effects of such inefficiency are so damaging that it's worthwhile to fully understand the obvious, inherent flaw in all markets: Just because one person is willing to pay a certain price for a given item doesn't mean every copy of that item is worth that same price to all people. However, for the sake of "simplicity" generally accept accounting principles ignore that truth and assume all identical items are worth what "the market" says they are worth. Consequently, the stock market compounds this flawed thinking. Generally it isn't a big problem... except when it its (like now). Let's switch gears so I can show you my "The Price of Some Stuff List": Currently... A painting by Degas sells for $37,000,000.00 A "Park Avenue" apartment in NYC sells for $3,750,000.00 A mint condition Babe Ruth rookie card sells for $517,000.00 A new Lexus RX 400 Hybrid sells for $41,403.00 A Raymond Weil watch sells for $3,762.00 A survival kit (2 people for 7 days) sells for $449.94 A fire extinguisher sells for $41.31 An emergency battery charger for your iPhone sells for $7.99 And a bottle of water sells for under a buck. Surely you can imagine scenarios where you would make any of those purchases. - e.g. My birthday is indeed February 14th and I could really use that Degas ;-) At the high end: You would buy an item if you had the means and you knew you could turn around and sell that same thing for a profit to another buyer. At the low end: You would buy especially if emergency circumstances dictated. But it is my contention that as an item exists further from necessity and closer to luxury the less exact its "universal value" can be. (I plan to later define "universal value"). Here's a useful and "not entirely absurd" analogy: Let's say I start a "widgets" business (which could be anything: tech devices, toys, works of art, clothes, houses etc.) and I make 10 that are ready to buy. - The first widget I sell to my parents for $100. - The second I sell to a well-to-do friend and as a favor to me he pays $1,000 for it. - That friend displays it to his wealthy friend who likes it so much that he offers $10,000 for the third widget. - After publicizing that third sale, I offer the fourth widget at a private auction which sells for $100,000 and gets even more press. - My well-to-do friend and his wealthy friend are elated at their bargain purchases of escalating-value widgets and talk-up their massive ROI to their mega-wealthy friends. - Those mega-wealthy friends decide to buy 5 of the 6 remaining widgets for $1,000,000 each so that they can then sell tiny percentages of the 5 widgets as investments for people who can't afford to invest a million dollars in one chunk. So here's the big question: IS MY LAST WIDGET REALLY WORTH $1,000,000? Wall Street folks might say it's worth more than one million dollars. But is it really? What if the widgets were actually shares in a start-up company. This example of escalation might seem extreme but it isn't at all when you compare it to virtually every successful "IPO". Recognize that the widgets valuation/market cap went up 10,000x. Heck, Google went up much more than that from its first investor's valuation to current market cap. Notice that the price of something can rise entirely independently of its fundamental value or objective utility (q.v. Enron, Madoff, Tulips et al.). See the "Greater Fool Theory". Therefore, when a stock price rises much more than the rest of the market most novice-investors take that to mean the price will continue to give a better ROI than the rest of the market. But, ceteris paribus, just the opposite is true. If a stock price rises in response to fundamentals (winning a lawsuit, clearing regulatory hurdles, greater earnings due to increased sales etc.) then it could mean the company has great management or a unique advantage over its competitors which may indeed lead to a better ROI than the market. But the reality is if a stock price jumps before you buy then that means you missed the best chance at an extraordinarily good ROI. That's why financial advisors keep giving the caveat "past performance is no guarantee of future results". It's foolish to try to "chase winners" by buying the stocks that jump right after they jumped. Now review the "Price of Some Stuff List" (above). Surely, you can imagine rare but legitimately possible situations where you would be willing to pay many times more than those prices for those "low end" items (plane crash survivor etc.). All of this may seem intuitively obvious to many of you. But it is my contention that this basic understanding is not yet sufficiently shaping our public policy. The ramifications / logical conclusions / recommendations seem just as obvious: 1) A country should ensure that necessities (food, water, energy etc.) are created in vast overabundance. Being beholden to any other countries for a necessity enables them to potentially exploit you when markets are inefficient. You don't want to have to trade your "Park Avenue apartment" for a bottle of water because, on a rare occasion, you happen to be literally dying of thirst. 2) Problems that can create such inefficient markets (war, disease, crime) should be the top priority of the wealthy (countries & individuals) because they have the most to lose when "bubbles burst". Alleviating poverty, educating & vaccinating the population, have a profitable ROI. To paraphrase Jon Stewart - social programs are "revolution insurance". 3) In order to protect "on the way down" you must restrain "on the way up". I acknowledge that balance or tradeoff is very tricky. By enabling U.S. banks to leverage at 26x (compared to 18x in Canada) Americans clearly had an advantage during the bull market. Stock prices had added upward pressure from more demand (due to more supply of effective dollars being used for bidding-up prices) and this echoed in the housing market boom as well. But the collapse of American banks (compared to Canadian Banks) seems to be evidence (if not proof) that policy should be prudent and stable over aggressive and unstable. Sacrificing some "upside", through regulations and enforcement, seems preferable to prevent collapses. This is especially so because such aggressive "upside" is often independent of actual increases in productivity & utility (as evidenced in part by the widgets example above). 4) As I've mentioned before, the focus of all industry must be to "grow the pie" through innovation and efficiency. Because profit without it is invalid, unsustainable, and unjust. Ok, this is long enough. Feel free to contact me with questions, comments, criticisms and/or praise. Good karma to you. Regards, Dan P.S. I still think Burton Malkiel's "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" is worth reading and full of useful information. |
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Determinism and the Illusion of Free Will
| Much has been written about Determinism (the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences) versus "Free Will" (the human individual control over its own thoughts and actions). Here's a concept that seeks not to prove one side but rather simply to explain how a Deterministic paradigm (human minds function like mega-complex computers) can give the "Illusion of Free Will" ("Free Will" being understood as humans having minds/souls that make choices which are not necessarily dependent on the laws of physics). First, why do we have the innate sensation of Free Will? I think it's because we each have had the experience of "knowing what we should or even must or even want to do" and then doing something else. So here's an analogy: A hypothetically mega-complex computer (as complex and efficient as a human brain) not only hosts a substantial knowledge of science but specifically has complete understanding of its own design. It "knows", that when it prints a file, exactly what is happening at all times in its processes and it "knows" the consequences are entirely deterministic and predictable. It therefore initially concludes that there is no such thing as Free Will. Then, one day, the mega-complex computer sends an electronic signal (command) to print a file but the system inexplicably crashes. SIDE NOTE: Most physicist agree that at the subatomic level, particles do not always behave 100% predictably. (See Quantum Mechanics) Maybe this phenomenon occurred in the process of trying to print a file. This subatomic divergence had a cascading effect that resulted in the system crash. Consequently, the mega-complex computer has the experience of "wanting" to do one action but experiencing another that seems to have no other cause. Then, the mega-complex computer is given the explanation that it's possible for mega-complex computers to have Free Will. And it's further instructed that the print-command system crash is evidence of a non-deterministic paradigm which proves its own "Free Will". And so, in the absence of contrary evidence, the mega-complex computer revises its initial conclusion and succumbs to the illusion of Free Will. The unpredictability of the subatomic particles can have a cascading effect of unpredictable behavior. A mind that is self-aware has an intuitive understanding of itself as predictable. Such a mind with the capacity to recognize its own behavior as occasionally unpredictable is thus susceptible to believing in a paradigm of Free Will. Seems clever to me but maybe I need to give it a lot more thought and research. Here are some links you might find interesting: http://www.rationality.net/freewill.htm http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/11/17/freeWillVsDeterminism.html http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm Final Note: I do not claim to be the first originator of any of this. But I think the computer analogy is cool (and I currently think it may possibly be mine). |
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Some Advice about Hollywood
1) You gotta do the tasks of the job for free before someone will pay you poorly to do them. You gotta prove your professionalism while getting paid poorly for someone to pay you more.
2) Simply interacting with people in Los Angeles over the years will earn you numerous opportunities to meet someone who has the power to give you a "big break". Whether they do is almost entirely dependent on what you have done before that meeting. Getting that meeting shouldn't be your top priority. Build up your selling points before you try to make a sale. Would you trust an unknown, self-proclaimed architect with millions of dollars to design your home? Or would you rather go with someone who has designed structures before that have actually been built, that you like, and that are still standing?
3) Make lots of friends and help them whenever you can beause you never know who will "get over the wall" first among your cohorts. Most importantly make stuff on your own! Equipment is cheap and when you're a novice so is your time. Be entrepreneurial. Always have "side projects" because you never know what will hit. Hold more than one lottery ticket. And finally, learn the "academic" side of your career because that's objectively determinable and only takes time & effort. "
4) This business is all about inertia. Other than money, there's no such thing as potential power in Hollywood. The only power that exists is that which is exerted. Owed favors are a farce. Go ahead and take any and every kind of favor that is offered because, I believe, favors work counter-intuitively. It's not "I do you a favor and now you owe me a favor" but rather it's oddly "I do you a favor and now I VIRTUALLY OWE YOU ANOTHER FAVOR". Conversely, refusing a favor can insult the offerer and poison them to future favors. A favor will only rot in your pocket. Use favors as seeds; accept them so that they may bear fruit and give them freely so that there is more fruit to go around.
5) Check out the brilliant (though embarrassingly outdated) UMEC Handbook.
http://www.um-ec.org/UMEChandbook.pdf
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Dan's End of Year 2008 Report on Oil
Ok, given that I don't work on Wall Street but nevertheless have been boldly pontificating about my oil prognostications, I thought it only fair to present an "Annual Report". (check my previous posts for corroboration) - July 13, 2008 - I advised short-selling oil. short at the Oil Per Barrel Price: $145 instead of shorting oil directly you could have bought an "Exchange Traded Fund" (that shorts oil): DUG (ETF) Price:$30.02 http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=DUG - August 10, 2008 - I reminded you that oil would keep falling. Per Barrel Price: $115 DUG (ETF) Price:$38.40 - September 8, 2008 - I advised you to "lock in your profits" and get out of that position Per Barrel Price: $105 DUG (ETF) Price:$40.72 YOUR ROI (had you taken my advice on this transaction): short oil 27.58% / buy DUG 35.64% - September 22, 2008 - I advised you to again take a short position on oil. short - Per Barrel Price: $120 or buy - DUG (ETF) Price:$35.74 - September 29, 2008 - I advised you to lock in your profits. Per Barrel Price: $99 DUG (ETF) Price:$42.58 YOUR ROI (had you taken my advice on this transaction): 17.50% / 19.14% Note: To be fair, I was foolishly conservative to lock in profits here. Who knew oil would drop from $99 to $38? (Certainly not me. That seemed like crazy panic unsupported by most fundamentals. It was as absurd as the run up to $147, at least to my eyes.) - December 2, 2008 - Despite the bad karma, I reluctantly advised you to BUY oil. Per Barrel Price: $47 alternatively you could have bought the opposite ETF "DIG" (which is long oil) Price: 27.91 http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=DIG - December 31, 2008 - CLOSING PRICE FOR 2008 (as I check it at 5pm on http://bloomberg.com/energy/ ) Oil Per Barrel Price: $44.60 DIG (ETF): 28.89 YOUR ROI (had you taken my advice on this short oil transaction): -5.11% (LOSS) but it would have earned a positive ROI with the DIG (ETF) of 3.51% OVERALL ROI (had you taken my advice every time, compounded)... on oil: 42.25% (i.e. $10,000 invested would be worth $14,225 now) on the DUG/DIG (ETF) trades: 67.27% (i.e. $10,000 invested would be worth $16,727 now) By comparison: S&P 500... on July 14, 2008 = 1228.30 on December 31, 2008 = 903.25 for a 26.46% LOSS CONCLUSION: if you had taken all of your money out of the S&P500 and wildly bet it all on my advice then you would have about twice as much money today (than if you had left it in the S&P500). "Gloat.Gloat." said the eccentric man who only bet his credibility since he had no money. <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.oil-price.net/TABLE2/gen.php?lang=en"> </script> <noscript> <a href="http://www.oil-price.net/dashboard.php?lang=en">To get the oil price, please enable Javascript.</a> </noscript> Summary: Ceteris Paribus (absent a global recession) I still think oil should be in the $70 - $90 range (in a "normal" economy) until the next big technological breakthroughs in solar/alternative energy/batteries. Reasons: 1) India & China are indeed increasing their oil consumption (not systemically going to slow that increase let alone curb consumption unless alternatives are viably priced - which will only happen with breakthroughs). 2) The same is true (albeit to a lesser extent) for the rest of the world. 3) Outside of the Middle East the cost of oil to extract & bring to market can be as high as $30 to $40 per barrel. Which means if prices drop any more, or stay this low for long, extraction will be reduced worldwide which will limit supply which will drive up prices. 4) Oil/Tar sands and other expensive extraction techniques are viable at oil prices of $70-$90 per barrel (which is where I get my prognostication numbers). Any higher than that and supply will increase substantially which will drive down prices. 5) On the conspiracy-theory angle: Oil companies do not want "windfall profits taxes" nor do they want a massive federal investment in alternative energy R&D that will lead to the breakthroughs I mentioned. I can imagine Big Oil temporarily dropping prices to inoculate against those possibilities. (Before you say such market manipulation is impossible I encourage you to read about Enron just a few years ago or BP being fined numerous times worldwide for price-fixing over the years). Once the public is sufficiently distracted or if Big Oil companies see the federal R&D as unavoidable then I think they will scramble to earn as much profit as possible ASAP. Side note: I think BP's response was really interesting around the end of November (when oil was around $50) when Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and oil ministers from OPEC members Venezuela, Algeria, Nigeria and Iraq said that an oil price of $75 a barrel would be a "fair" level that supports investment in new capacity. Get this - BP's chief economist Christof Ruehl disagreed with their views, saying: "There is no fair price. There is a price, which balances demand and supply." WHY WOULD HE SAY THIS TO THE PRESS (even if he thinks it)? Why would an oil man say $75 is wrong when the current price is $50?I posit that he is setting up to rationalize prices well above $75 (maybe hundreds of dollars - where agreeing to $75 now would really haunt him and hurt his credibility). http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLSKH4zJGsj8 6) As I previously mentioned, the Middle East war "risk premium" is a giant factor in oil prices. If you think there will be more war in the region then prices will likely be higher. Less war and they will tend to be lower. I optimistically think Obama will have a lot of credibility in the region and thus there will be much less war. (which is why I don't think oil should ever be crazy high like $150). Obama's expected behavior is why I think the Israelis are doing such a major offensive now in the waning days of Bush. They want to take out their biggest obvious threats and look as scary as possible now. Israel knows that such a bellicose strategy will not be welcomed/endorsed by Obama (or at least not nearly embraced as much as the Bush administration has). Then Israel believes its recent strikes will enable more leverage in the upcoming negotiations with its neighbors. 7) Given that oil is so low right now, I would think there would be increased incentive (for airlines, other big transportation and industry) to buy long term contracts to lock-in these historically low prices. Such a buying spree will push up prices. 8) In light of the economic meltdown, however, everything has to be discounted. I think oil prices are hurt by $20 to $30 per barrel for this reason alone. The faster the recovery, the faster oil prices will rise. The slower the recovery the slower oil prices will rise. Ok, that's way too much to ask you to read given that I'm not a billionaire based on a multi-decade track record of consistently effective prognostications. But maybe this will be the first year of such a record. ;-) We should all be so lucky. Be well and good karma to you. - Dan p.s. I still want to develop my "cost of everything" economic theory in harmony with an "ecosystm/biosphere" metaphor should any of you big brains want to help me. |
"Cost of Everything" / "Ecosystem-Biosphere Metaphor"
| I still want to develop my "cost of everything" economic theory in harmony with an "ecosystm/biosphere" metaphor. Hope you big brains want to help me. In short the basis is pretty basic: Think of each country as a biosphere that trades with other biospheres. First you have to understand people's priorities (e.g. on their own biosphere or all biospheres). Then get a systemic view of how many of a particular species (e.g. humans) you want to survive over time in that biosphere. Then you can solve for how many other items must exist in the biosphere to sustain that species. There's a lot more to it but I want to debate it verbally more before I write it all out. |
Sunday, December 14, 2008
"Dan's Spicy Tomato Bisque" recipe...
Here's my recipe for what I'd like to call "Dan's Spicy Tomato Bisque" - Ingredients: - One Can Campbell's Condensed Tomato Bisque Soup - Whole Milk - Half Cup of Diced Onions - 1/3 of one fresh orange Habanero chili pepper (that is no longer than a chapstick tube) - little pat of butter Directions: 1) Be very careful as you finely dice the 1/3 of a habanero into very tiny pieces (right after that thoroughly wash your hands and all surfaces because that stuff is almost a weapon!) If you don't like spicy consider using only 1/6th of a habanero (or just make something else). Lunatics can use 1/2 a habanero. I will not be held responsible for people who use more than that. ;-) 2) Saute the onions in a pot with a little pat of butter. Toss in the habanero pieces and saute for 1 minute. 3) Add in the contents of the can of Campbell's Condensed Tomato Bisque. 4) Refill that can with whole milk (not water as its regular directions note) and add that to the pot. 5) Stir thoroughly over a medium-low heat. 6) Serves 2. Enjoy! BTW - Let me know if/when you've seen this recipe elsewhere. If someone else came up with it first I want to give credit where it's due. Good karma to you. |
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
There's gotta be a price at which you would buy or sell anything...
At $47 per barrel, Oil just seems too cheap considering China's & India's ever increasing demand.
Never thought I'd ever recommend anyone to "buy oil" given my ideological opinions about renewable energy.
But there's gotta be a price at which you would buy or sell anything.
I picked the peak at $145 and told you to sell.
Now at $47 I'm advising you to make a modest investment to buy oil.
Fellow pinko-commie, hippie liberals - please forgive me. ;-)
NOTE - Oil needs to be more expensive to make renewable energy more economically viable (until the next technological breakthroughs happen).
Never thought I'd ever recommend anyone to "buy oil" given my ideological opinions about renewable energy.
But there's gotta be a price at which you would buy or sell anything.
I picked the peak at $145 and told you to sell.
Now at $47 I'm advising you to make a modest investment to buy oil.
Fellow pinko-commie, hippie liberals - please forgive me. ;-)
NOTE - Oil needs to be more expensive to make renewable energy more economically viable (until the next technological breakthroughs happen).
Friday, November 07, 2008
For My Friends Who Are Legal Scholars
HERE'S MY FRIDAY NIGHT NERD MEGARANT...
"Legal Scholars Continued"
Okay, so you too are interested in my lifeguard
analogy (see the bottom of this essay)
or you're at least interested in correcting my
theoretically flawed reasoning:
Those of you who already agree just follow along
reading my response to those who don't.
Among those who at least partially defended GWB,
your thoughtful responses can generally be
grouped as follows:
1) There is some consensus that in my lifeguard
analogy the "Chief Lifeguard" would indeed be
guilty of a crime but that it is moot/irrelevant.
2) Some of you lawyers think there is a
constitutional problem in the judicial branch
prosecuting the executive (even once GWB is out
of office) for actions that, at least ostensibly,
are specifically within the purview of the
presidency.
3) Some of you lawyers think the lesson in the
analogy is not applicable to GWB because the
President has specific legal protections
("affirmative defenses") against such a
prosecution.
4) Some of you think that congress' authorization
to use force "legalizes" any related action by
the president.
5) Some of you think there are troubling
practical considerations for "opening the door"
to prosecutions with 20/20 hindsight
second-guessing.
6) Some of you mentioned a potential lack of
"specific/criminal intent" if GWB truly believed
there was any sort of threat.
7) Some of you mentioned the issue of
jurisdiction.
Okay, here is my response...
(largely based on my reading of Vincent
Bugliosi's book "The Prosecution of George W.
Bush for Murder")
1) The new Congress assumes office before GWB
leaves office. There is a window where they can
impeach on principle and also to castrate any
possibility of pardons. If you agree with the
following arguments this step is crucial.
2) Surely the president is not above the law.
According to the "Soldiers and Sailors Civil
Relief Act of 1940" every soldier is entitled to
a postponement of any civil action until the end
of his active duty. And yet the Supreme Court
unanimously denied President Clinton's request
for a postponement of Paula Jones' lawsuit until
after he left office precisely because no one is
above the law.
Let me be provocative, if a president strangled
your child for purely perversely sadistic
enjoyment surely he could tried for murder. So
being president mustn't enjoin the judicial
branch from doing its solemn duty of
administering justice when crimes occur.
"Aha!" you think, "What if this crime didn't
occur or there was an affirmative defense?"
3) Of course a president can be wrong & make
mistakes. A president can legitimately make a
foolish decision that results in terrible losses.
But any "affirmative defense" is predicated upon
lack of fraud or criminal behavior. Surely a
president who took us to war with China because
he didn't like his fortune cookie at Panda
Express could be prosecuted for "reckless
disregard for human life".
Note that "felony-murder" laws state that any
death that results from the commission of an
underlying felony is first degree murder. The
getaway driver gets the chair for her
accomplice's ricocheted bullet that killed
someone when he was only trying to fire a
"warning shot". In fact, Bugliosi cites an
example where a proprietor shot at a robber and
accidentally killed an innocent customer and the
ROBBER was convicted of first degree murder.
"Felony-murder" was instituted to discourage the
felonies that are inherently dangerous.
If president Obama directs all the bank recovery
billions into his personally owned green-energy
startup venture that doesn't make or do anything
then we should prosecute him for theft. Just
because a president says he's acting in the best
interests of the people doesn't make it so.
All actions can be viewed on their own.
Defrauding the public to go to war is (I would
argue) the greatest crime a president can commit
even if he had altruistic goals (which I don't
concede GWB did).
The president is not a king. There are actions he
can do that are illegal regardless if he claims
they are just.
We can debate what those actions are but the
concept of an imperial presidency that can do no
wrong is simply bogus.
"But congress consented!" you claim.
4) An absolutely fundamental principle in the law
is that "Fraud Vitiates Consent".
Explore this hypothetical example: congress
declares a storm a federal disaster and
authorizes compensation to victims. Then a
government official disburses funds, in
accordance with congress' instructions, to a
victim of that storm who coincidentally happens
to be a family member. That's ok. If congress
didn't declare it a federal disaster because it
was just a light storm with one lightning bolt
that did damage to the uninsured family member's
house then the government official would be
breaking the law to give money to that family
member. Now, if the government official deceived
the congress and tricked them into thinking the
light storm was a giant national disaster, in
order to enrich his family member, then congress'
subsequent "consent" based on that fraud would
NOT make that government official's actions
legal.
Consequently, if it can be proven that GWB
deliberately deceived congress then any resulting
"consent" or purported legitimacy is worthless in
a defense.
"Aha!" you counter, "What proof is there that GWB
deliberately deceived and didn't have earnest
belief of a threat?"
Check out Bugliosi's book. There is an ocean of
evidence.
But my personal favorites, due to their absence
in the zeitgeist, are:
a) Multiple American intelligence agencies
repeatedly called claims of Baghdad's likelihood
of having functional WMD "dubious" and yet all
such dissents & skepticism were entirely stripped
of the "white paper" that was declassified for
the public (and in fact much of the language was
definitively heightened to scare more).
b) On October 7th 2002 Bush told the nation that
Saddam was a "great danger to our nation...on any
given day". Yet that very day Tenet sent a
letter to Senator Bob Graham signed by his number
one deputy director McLaughlin - which stated
Saddam would not use Chemical & Biological
Weapons unless attacked. And yet Bush was looking
to provoke Saddam and ultimately invaded anyway.
If Saddam would surely use purported WMD when
attacked then why attack?
c) Assorted administration officials (Bush,
Cheney, Rice, etc.) repeatedly used words that
communicate "imminent" when describing Iraq as a
threat ("unique urgency","could launch...in as
little as 45 minutes" etc. etc.) but never, in
countless quotes, used the actual word "imminent"
(which connotes a "legal defense"). So the fact
that they didn't use the most likely word is
circumstantially compatible evidence of conscious
guilt.
"But congress and the public were misled. So
maybe Bush was too" you plead.
The Bush administration wasn't misled because
they were the originators of the disinformation
(remember the indisputable facts that no WMD were
found and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). They
said the opposite. Where did that claim start? In
the beginning, no one other than the Bush
administration was saying Iraq had WMD and Iraq
was involved in 9/11. The Bush administration
were precisely the ones doing the misleading!
5) Hindsight - I agree that you can't expect
leaders to govern when every mistake (with the
benefit of hindsight) can be prosecuted. But
there's a crucial difference here.
Why did the Bush administration spread its
coordinated disinformation campaign? Obviously
because they wanted the support of the people.
Absent that deception citizens might have
protested sufficiently enough to prevent or stop
the war. If the Bush administration didn't fear
the will of the people then why would they
deceive? If they truly believed they had the
right to unchecked war by presidential whim/fiat
then they wouldn't have tried so hard to trick
us. They could have let the dissents & contrary
evidence come to light and they could have not
repeatedly conflated Saddam and 9/11 in countless
television appearances.
This fundamental deception is where the crime
occurs.
"What's wrong with deceiving the American
people?" you wonder.
I contend that it depends on the circumstances.
(not to mention the laws that specifically make
it illegal for the government to deceive
Americans on American soil whereas bogus
propaganda elsewhere is in fact legal).
What would be so bad about chilling our leaders
into a less bellicose foreign policy?
"Well we have all those Muslim enemies who want
to kill us!" you scream.
What if I told you that that threat is bogus?
(See my blog and scroll down to my argument that
"There is no existential threat to America"
http://corpania.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
)
In not-so-short: There are 1,300,000,000+ Muslims
on earth.
Psychiatric studies show that as much as 1% the
human population is schizophrenic.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm
And more than 1/10,000 commit suicide.
So it stands to reason there should be at the
very least 1,300 schizo Muslims with a deathwish
to be worried about.
What if only 50 of them simultaneously shot up
churches or malls around America? That would
surely incite full-on WorldWar3.
Clearly, if the threat was so great our enemies
could coordinate some of them entering the US to
wreak havoc (on our infinite vulnerabilities:
like our non-hardened chemical plants, thousands
of miles of Alaskan oil pipeline, water supplies,
etc.).
But they haven't.
You know why?
Because the number of people who may
superficially hate us may be in the millions or
billions (hopefully not after Obama's victory)
but they ain't gonna do a thing about it because
they're busy with their own lives (feeding their
kids etc.).
The number of people in the world who hate us so
much that they're willing to leave their family
and journey to our shores to kill us IS REALLY
MINISCULE!
But every time we bomb someplace and there is any
"collateral damage" (and there always is) then
that victim's relatives become exponentially more
likely to want to make that havoc-wreaking
journey to our shores. War begets war. Revenge is
a vicious cycle.
Chilling our government into not waring is
exactly what we need now. Until the geo-politics
substantially changes we should be actively
discouraging war (even more so than usual).
Okay, back to the last of the 7 concerns with
prosecuting GWB...
6) Intent: The pro-active, deliberate deception
proves intent. Remember that "reckless disregard
for life" (drunk driving etc.) is a felony.
Soberly deciding to get drunk so that you can
commit "vehicular manslaughter" is premeditated
"first degree" murder.
7) Jurisdiction - Any District Attorney, Federal
Prosecutor or Attorney General who had a resident
of his/her jurisdiction who subsequently was
ordered to war and died there can prosecute
George W. Bush for murder.
Ok, how many of you actually read all of that?
Good for you. ;-)
Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Thanks and good karma to you.
Regards,
Dan
________________________________
> > Tell me if this is specious reasoning...
> > Here's my newest legal question:
> >
> > Suppose a Chief Lifeguard on a beach says
> > "there's a thousand downing kids in the
stormy
> > ocean right now" and orders a hundred of his
> > subordinate lifeguards in to the turbulent
> > riptide to save them.
> >
> > A few of those lifeguards drown and it turns
> > out that the Chief Lifeguard knew there
wasn't
> > ever any legitimate evidence of any drowning
kids
> > but he still definitively claimed that there
were.
> >
> > Is that Chief Lifeguard legally responsible
>> for the drowned lifeguards' deaths?
> > Is that Chief Lifeguard guilty of a crime?
> >
> > If so, then isn't George W. Bush guilty of an
> > analogous situation in Iraq?
> >
> > Check out legendary prosecutor Vincent
> > Bugliosi's book and upcoming documentary -
> > "Mad as Hell: The Prosecution of George W.
Bush for Murder"
Thursday, November 06, 2008
A Question for Legal Scholars
Here's a legal question:
Suppose a Chief Lifeguard on a beach says
"there's a thousand downing kids in the stormy
ocean right now" and orders a hundred of his
subordinate lifeguards in to the turbulent
riptide to save them.
A few of those lifeguards drown and it turns out
that the Chief Lifeguard knew there wasn't ever
any evidence of any drowning kids but he still
definitively claimed that there were.
Is that chief lifeguard legally responsible for
the drowned lifeguards' deaths?
Is that Chief Lifeguard guilty of a crime?
If so then isn't George W. Bush guilty of an
analogous situation in Iraq?
Check out legendary prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's
book and upcoming documentary "Mad as Hell: The
Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
All Contracts Should Be Videotaped / Profit Without Productivity is the Cause of Every Crash!
After watching the documentary "Maxed Out" and thinking about the current credit crisis I have come up with a unique solution...
MANDATE: "ALL CONTRACTS MUST BE VIDEOTAPED"
Why will this help?
I conclude that the common but addressable problem is the fact that the person who takes out the loan often simply doesn't understand the ramifications of the agreement.
Videotaping contracts requires the following to beneficial effect:
1) All parties have to at least hear ALL the terms of the contract (as opposed to the normal problem of people not reading the contract).
2) It prevents any party from making false verbal claims at the time of signing.
3) If the person looks oblivious and is obviously pressured to "just sign" then the deal can be vitiated on the legal grounds that there wasn't a "meeting of the minds".
Critics of my proposal may argue "caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)" but they are living in the outdated mindset of libertarianism. (See my previous blog post about Libertarianism being a quaint anachronism).
Profiting by means of tricking someone does not "grow the pie".
Profit without productivity is the cause of every crash!
(See my previous blog post about Productive Wealth aka P*Wealth).
MANDATE: "ALL CONTRACTS MUST BE VIDEOTAPED"
Why will this help?
I conclude that the common but addressable problem is the fact that the person who takes out the loan often simply doesn't understand the ramifications of the agreement.
Videotaping contracts requires the following to beneficial effect:
1) All parties have to at least hear ALL the terms of the contract (as opposed to the normal problem of people not reading the contract).
2) It prevents any party from making false verbal claims at the time of signing.
3) If the person looks oblivious and is obviously pressured to "just sign" then the deal can be vitiated on the legal grounds that there wasn't a "meeting of the minds".
Critics of my proposal may argue "caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)" but they are living in the outdated mindset of libertarianism. (See my previous blog post about Libertarianism being a quaint anachronism).
Profiting by means of tricking someone does not "grow the pie".
Profit without productivity is the cause of every crash!
(See my previous blog post about Productive Wealth aka P*Wealth).
Regulations are Crucial / Libertarianism is a Quaint Anachronism
Libertarianism is a quaint anachronism.
It's most applicable time was hundreds of years ago.
If you only interact with a dozen possible transactions (butcher, cobbler, farmer, soldier etc.) every individual can be expected to be expert enough to be vigilant of all the ways you can get screwed and thus inoculate and counter them.
But in the modern age there is such an exponentially more complicated division of labor that you can't expect "the free market" to work without regulation.
Take a guess how many companies (let alone individuals) your very life depends on every day? There are so many vendors and subcontractors in every car manufactured and any one of them could cut a corner and risk your life. If there weren't any regulations we wouldn't have seat belts or crash test safety features. There are so many ways you can die from tall buildings and poisoned medicine or spoiled food. No one person can remotely keep track of everything in modern America. We need to have faith in the safety of life just to function in such close proximity, vulnerable to literally millions of decisions every day.
This isn't the 17th century where you can know not to buy meat from Joseph because his shop is unsanitary and consequently Joseph goes out of business.
Let's use my favorite analogy - POKER. In the old times the players dealt the cards and while most were honest there were plenty of cheats. Now the casino has a dealer, pitboss and security cameras to ensure it's a fair and honest game. Consequently the number of cheats is a tiny fraction of what it used to be.
Good regulations only punish the bad guys. Good guys want to run an honest business that doesn't hurt others. Bad guys are always looking for a way to profit by screwing someone else. Good guys want to grow the pie and profit. Bad guys want to profit and don't care about the pie (but maybe even have a sadistic streak that predisposes them to shrinking the pie). All bad guys/criminals hate regulations.
That doesn't mean that everyone who hates regulation is a bad guy/criminal.
Well-meaning Libertarians hate regulations because they see the burden and don't appreciate the benefits (or the downside to not having regulations).
So lets focus our energy on crafting regulations that efficiently prevent bad actions.
We're talking about "where do you draw the line?" and "what's the best use of resources to achieve a given objective?"
If you explore the putative conservative Republican administration you'll see that their objectives, by nearly every verifiable measure, are contrary to the very foundation of American democracy.
And their strategies & tactics reveal their true priorities.
Don't talk about the so-called "Bradley Effect"
All talk about the so-called "Bradley Effect" only emboldens those who want to steal the election. That theory is complete garbage anyway. Check out Princeton Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell's research.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Lock in profits from shorting oil (again)
So far I'm batting virtually 1000 about my predictions on oil.
Check my dates & times of recommendations (on my blog & via email) and then see what happened to the price of oil.
I can't be right every time (as evidenced by the profit I "left on the table" the last time I told you to take profits on your shorting of oil).
But I did say on 9/22 to short oil at $120 and now I'm saying you should lock in your profits at $99.
Being in cash (with a reputable bank) doesn't sound like a bad idea now.
BTW - Make sure you don't have more than $100k in any one (FDIC-insured account) bank for FDIC insurance to work. I think it might have to be a joint account for the $200k to be protected (please double check on that).
Just my opinion.
Good luck to us all.
Check my dates & times of recommendations (on my blog & via email) and then see what happened to the price of oil.
I can't be right every time (as evidenced by the profit I "left on the table" the last time I told you to take profits on your shorting of oil).
But I did say on 9/22 to short oil at $120 and now I'm saying you should lock in your profits at $99.
Being in cash (with a reputable bank) doesn't sound like a bad idea now.
BTW - Make sure you don't have more than $100k in any one (FDIC-insured account) bank for FDIC insurance to work. I think it might have to be a joint account for the $200k to be protected (please double check on that).
Just my opinion.
Good luck to us all.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Start Shorting Oil Again (at $120 or higher)
With oil's absurd, record leap today I have to once again say it's time to short oil.
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.html
From $91 to $128+ in less than a week with no fundamental change in oil production or geo-politics? The market is in flux and needs to be exploited by the intelligently moral to help balance things out.
Last I checked, oil was at $128 which is still way too high (for all the reasons I state in my previous posts).
There is obviously a lot of money fleeing the stock market and it has to go somewhere. Which is why gold & oil have been bid-up so much.
Clearer heads will prevail over the long term and oil will be depressed by the "solar ceiling".
Damn, I'm a friggin genius. If y'all exited your short oil positions at $105 (like I advised) you'd be doing great right now. But I concede that if you had ignored my conservative profit-taking advice at $105 you could have made a bundle more by exiting at $91 at one point last week.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this (I don't have magic powers). But so far, I'm looking pretty good. We'll see what happens.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Take your "short oil" profits now (at $105 from $145)
Take your "short oil" profits now
Ok, when oil was $145 (on July 13, 2008) I told you sell oil short.
Then it fell to $116 and (on August 10, 2008) I said oil had further to fall.
Now it is $105 and I want to lock in my credibility by saying take your profits now (that you made from shorting oil or buying etfs & options/futures/puts).
$145 to $105 is a giant drop in two months.
While long term I wouldn't buy oil (because I think the "solar ceiling" will continue to depress oil prices), in the short term I don't see how it could drop massively (other than Obama opening up a giant lead in the polls).
Since the election appears to be polling close (and GOP convention goers were chanting "drill, drill, drill") and Palin is so pro-drilling, I think American politics will keep oil prices buoyant.
Also note that Thomas Friedman was on Meet the Press and had some interesting comments about energy policy (e.g. Saudis & Iranians would be celebrating the "pro drilling" stance of GOP - the implication being that drilling takes years to see an effect and "pro drilling" means not fundamentally shifting away from oil).
Finally, T.Boone Pickens' ubiquitous ads are promoting natural gas (not as heavily slamming oil) and he's claimed that OPEC will reduce supply to keep oil above $100 per barrel.
But I still think oil "should" be around $70 to $90 per barrel until the next major advancement in solar or other alternative energies.
However, McCain/Palin's strength in the polls leads me to believe that shorting oil and especially buying options ( betting oil prices will fall ) may not be the best investment right now - due to the premium on oil's "beta".
Just my opinion. I could be wrong (as I was predicting Tim Kaine as Obama's VP).
Let's see how long my brilliant prognostication streak lasts.
;-)
Be well and good karma to you.
Regards,
Dan
Friday, August 22, 2008
Tim Kaine will be Obama's VP (quickly disprovable)
Though I would prefer Wesley Clark, it's pretty clear to me that Tim Kaine will be Obama's choice. And I'm quite comfortable with that because:
- Kaine is a true progressive.
- Kaine was a missionary so he will appeal to blue-leaning Christians.
- Kaine speaks Spanish fluently (from his missionary work) so he will appeal to Hispanics.
- Forbes ranked his state "#1 place for business" so he will appeal to pro-business types.
"Obama/Kaine '08!"
I'm finally writing this and at quite possibly the worst time. My claim can quickly be disproved and I won't get credit for predicting this well in advance. Nevertheless, I'm on the record as of 3:50pm (PST) August 22, 2008.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
I think Oil Prices will Drop Further (from $115 price per barrel down to...?)
Check my July 13th post for proof of my prognosticating genius (I said $145 was the peak and then oil prices tumbled down to $115 today) and my reasoning.
I think oil prices will drop further (assuming no war with Iran) for the same reasons plus a few more:
1) The very fact that oil prices tumbled has become a news story. So the traders have to assess that there's less hype to "scare up" prices. That means less upside potential and therefore more reason to exit their positions. If oil prices dropped from $85 to $55 then you might think that it would be a buying opportunity but at $115 the price of oil is still way above what I think it's "intrinsic" value should be (check out my July 13th post).
2) The Bush administration and the McCain campaign have shifted away from bellicose talk about Iran. The more "Middle East War Talk" the more of a risk premium, the higher the prices. The less of such talk reduces the upward pressure on prices.
3) There has been news of Iraq running an $80 BILLION budget SURPLUS because of high oil prices. That draws international & U.S. scrutiny that the big oil players don't want.
4) The proponents of alternative energy want oil prices to be high to motivate the shift to renewable energy. Big Oil is fearful of a "windfall profits" tax. The major players in Big Oil recognize that being a bit less greedy for the short term (especially before the election) may give another issue a better opportunity to take the attention away from them. Remember that Big Oil is in the absurd position of simultaneously arguing that "oil is in such short supply relative to demand that it should have a high price" AND ALSO that "oil is in such abundant supply relative to demand that we shouldn't switch away from it". It's ridiculous that any informed, righteous, Republicans would be their defenders.
5) Apparently, high oil prices really have reduced oil usage among Americans. Less demand equals lower prices.
6) Pickens is still advertising about alternative energy and the more people know about it compared to oil the lower the "solar ceiling" that can depress oil prices.
Personally, I want oil prices to be higher so we do a giant shift to renewable energy.
But my prediction is based on the facts and my understanding of human behavior.
I could be proven wrong.
I post to this blog to put myself on the record.
I hope I have the integrity to not delete this post if I'm proven wrong. I'm specifically giving myself the test to potentially look like a fool in the hopes that if I'm proven right I will be seen as all the more righteous.
Silly & grandiose? Sure. I'm at least self-aware. ;-)
P.S. If I had to put a number on it, I'd guess that oil's "true price" should be $70 - $90 per barrel until the next big breakthroughs in solar & battery technology.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
American Foreign Policy: Russell Crowe vs. Tom Hanks
Here's an analogy:
Republicans want America to be Russell Crowe, beating up insane paparazzi (Al Queda) who are dangerous and constantly swarming around him.
Democrats want America to be Tom Hanks, loved by most and not even attracting the insane paparazzi. But even when they do show up he doesn't encourage their insane attention.
Melanie Sloan for Attorney General
Anybody want to give me 1000 to 1 odds on my hundred bucks that says Melanie Sloan will be Obama's Attorney General?
I know those odds will drop once he gets elected and I want to make a lot of money.
I really think she would be the best possible person for the job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Sloan
Sunday, July 13, 2008
"Solar Ceiling" : Why Oil Prices Must Drop
My thoughts on Oil Prices...
(but I'd be shocked if I were the first to think of it):
CONCLUSION: Oil must massively drop in price in the coming year (from $145/equivalent to 91euros per barrel on July 11, 2008).
1) Energy is energy. As long as it reliably comes out of the wall to power our TVs or reliably propels our transportation even the most ardent anti-hippie won't complain.
2) The argument for fossil fuels has always been price. From what I read a good rule of thumb is that fossil fuels can cost around 4 cents per kilowatt-hour (at best) and modern solar (in sunny areas) costs around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour (in worse conditions it can be as expensive as 30+ cents / kW-h though). So currently modern Solar (at best) is three times more expensive than fossil fuels.
3) Therefore, I conclude, that oil "can't" go above $450 per barrel (3 times the current oil price). If it did then solar would be comparably priced and all the incontrovertible arguments against fossil fuels (Middle East instability, Pollution, Global Climate Change) would necessitate virtually everyone to switch. Ceteris Paribus, who prefers oil? This is the de facto ceiling on oil prices.
4) So now that we know oil's ceiling price. Let's look at what factors could "lower the ceiling" (i.e. drop the price of solar).
- "Economies of Scale": If modern solar is currently 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, how much of a price drop would there be if suddenly production increased 10 times, 20 times? Remember that solar power accounts for less than 1% of global energy. There is so much room for growth that I think economies of scale should significantly drop the price of solar.
- "Technological Advancement": Technology always improves. Is it really conceivable that solar won't get twice as efficient? Three times? I read that the cost of solar will be 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour in the near future.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour
5) Now let's look at what is driving up the price of oil (rising floor):
- China has 1/4 the energy needs of the USA per capita. As their standard of living increases there is a predictable tsunami of energy demand coming on the horizon.
- India has a comparable situation.
- Almost the rest of the world is not terribly far behind.
But those factors have been known for a long time and the actual consumption trends have generally followed the consensus predictions. So why has the price shot up so far and so fast?
- the Iraq war was supposed to increase oil supply but the opposite happened. Investors dealt with the dashed expectations predictably by driving up prices.
- Bush & Cheney's "saber-rattling" about a possible war with Iran increased the "risk premium" because investors feared that such a war would further jeopardize production which would further depress supply which would increase prices.
- the dollar has dropped in value (but that is really a separate currency problem and relates to nearly all goods outside the US increasing in price).
6) Now I will conclude with my falsifiable theory why the floor will fall (i.e. many reasons why oil prices must eventually fall from $145 / equivalent to 91euros per barrel on July 11, 2008):
a) Obama will win the election and, at a minimum, stop the saber-rattling with Iran (at least less than the Bush/Cheney regime). Therefore the risk-premium of a possible war will drastically be reduced.
b) Obama will begin to withdraw from Iraq (albeit slower than we liberals would like) and so the "insurgents" will have less incentive to hurt oil production as a way to get back at Americans. Iraqis, now less worried that oil profits would be going to Americans, will massively increase production of oil in order to get out of debt (get their economy going). The Iraqi factions will also each want to get the oil money as fast as possible (to try to screw the other guys). They will also ignore OPEC because their country is in such bad shape. This increased supply of oil will further lower prices. There may even be a bit of "panic selling" as the other OPEC nations will want to cash in on high prices before prices plummet.
c) Obama & the democrats will stop subsidizing the oil industry and focus resources on alternative energies (lowering the ceiling further). Even McCain wants to work on this!
d) As it becomes more apparent to investors that Obama will indeed win the election and do as we predict, they will factor in the above arguments and thus be less likely to bid-up oil prices.
e) Oil Sands / Tar sands become economically viable at $80 per barrel but they take years to get up and running. Even though oil prices have skyrocketed the oil companies were previously reluctant to make the investments in extracting oil by those methods for fear that the price of oil would fall (and thus make such techniques & efforts poor investments). Only recently are companies beginning to make legitimate attempts (that will come online in the coming years).
f) T. Boone Pickens (the hardcore oil man & legendary investor) is not only working on alternative energies but he is ALSO PROMOTING THE HECK OUT OF IT!!! (This past Sunday, July 13,2008 - he had pro-alternative energy advertisements on Meet The Press AND This Week w/George S.) Consequently, even the oil men and investor community will soon begin to get more familiar with the factors I have outlined above (e.g. the "solar ceiling"). Wouldn't any speculator, aware that oil "can't" go above $450, think that as prices rise their potential profit would shrink?
CONCLUSION: While oil prices may potentially continue to go up in the very short term (until November) as the Bush/Cheney regime continues to scare up prices by exacerbating the risk-premium, the price of oil "must" come down in the coming years due to the lowering of the "solar ceiling" (and "wind ceiling" et al.) and the predictable coming absence of the factors for the previously rising floor.
But I could be wrong.
We'll see.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
CLIP "Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property"
Proposal for C.L.I.P (“Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property”)
By Dan Abrams February 10, 2008
My claim: Invention is primarily what makes life better for humanity over time, not business (and increasingly not the legal system). Business is good primarily insofar as it encourages advancement for humanity. The current patent system may be good for business but not for advancement.
What is the purpose of intellectual property protection?
1) To encourage advancement by providing inventors of IP with a profit incentive
2) To reward such advancement seems fair.
What is the motivation of the current U.S. patent system that provides a temporary monopoly to the first inventor?
1) The inventor should have control over his/her invention
2) Making it incumbent upon the inventor to profit from his own invention motivates not just the advancement but also the commercialization/popularization.
What are the negative ramifications of the current system of patent monopoly?
1) A competitor threatened by an invention has a motivation to purchase the patent rights for the purpose of killing its competition by simply preventing the any use of that invention.
2) Businesses predicated upon IP have an incentive to be secretive and non-collaborative (which is antithetical to scientific advancement).
3) Inventors must also be entrepreneurs or else be otherwise beholden to businessmen to commercialize their ideas. This reduces the incentive to invent and further motivates the smart people to become businessmen over inventors.
4) Patent infringement lawsuits are expensive and an unnecessary burden on the courts. The patent lawyers end up getting hourly fees on top of massive percentages of judgments and settlements. There is an incentive to use the patent monopoly as a pure business tactic to hinder the competition or to extort lucrative settlements.
What is my solution?
C.L.I.P (“Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property)
The following is one possible implementation of the CLIP concept.
Of course, specific terms and aspects would be subject to political and legal wrangling as well as corporate diplomacy.
For a 5 year window inventors applying for patents could select a traditional patent or a CLIP patent. After that probationary term only CLIP patents would be possible.
What is a CLIP Patent?
A CLIP Patent offers the inventor 50 (fifty) years of profit incentive but not necessarily a monopoly. A CLIP Patent confers upon the inventor a monopoly only if no one takes advantage of the “compulsory licensing” system.
How does the “compulsory licensing system” work?
A company interested in using the compulsory licensing system of a particular CLIP Patent must abide by certain strict rules.
1) They must set aside the greater of 5% of the retail price or 10% of the profit of the good or service that they sell that will employ the CLIP Patent to go into the “inventors’ revenue pool” (IRP). They would have to agree to “open the books” to independent auditors with a “pot-odds disincentive system” that would penalize them at a premium above the likelihood of getting caught multiplied by the amount they attempted to improperly exclude from the IRP. This would encourage fair & honest accounting (not “Hollywood accounting”) for the inventors’ share.
2) The inventors’ pool for that good or service is put in an escrow account (in the safest/most conservative of financial instruments - like US Bonds) that is regulated by a new branch of the USPTO called the “Inventors’ Revenue Pool Service”. The interest on the IRP would be distributed as defined by the inventors’ relative shares in that IRP. If your invention were used for 50 years (like a projection tube TV) you would be handsomely rewarded but not nearly as much for Plasma TVs.
3) Every year, interest from a given IRP are distributed to all the inventors of record. This would be determined initially by the corporation (based on standardized guidelines) but subject to arbitration much like the Writers Guild of America’s screen-credit arbitration process. An independent organization would evaluate the merits of inventors’ contentions that they deserve a greater share than some other inventor.
4) The standardized guidelines would be established by an expert task force for each industry. There would be less incentive to “game” this system (compared to the current monopoly system) because they know they have to pay a set amount into the IRP so they shouldn’t care too much about how it’s split up. The current monopoly system has such vastly varying extremes of outcomes that litigation is unavoidably a huge part of the game. An example of standardized guidelines for a new computer printer might take existing distributions of inventor shares (all publicly available on the web) as precedent balanced against the arbitrator’s assessment of the value to that particular product. So if the printer previously used 24 CLIP Patent inventions but now used a new wireless technology then maybe the floor for the new invention would be 4% and the ceiling would be 20% of that IRP. If one invention replaced another then that would be reflected in the share of the IRP.
What are the benefits of the CLIP Patent system?
1) Encourages innovation with a longer profit cycle without encouraging the “killing of progress”.
2) Better inventions are more likely to be effectively brought to market because competition doesn’t bind the inventor to a particular company (a variable which can only hurt the chances of the best product being best implemented commercially). Either the new product is better or worse that what already exists. If it is better and the particular company with the monopoly is anything short of excellent then the chance of the best product prevailing are diminished. On the flip side, if the new product is worse but is superbly marketed then the success of the better product that already existed is therefore diminished.
3) Businesses using the CLIP system have a known, quantifiable cost system for invention.
4) There is also a limit to any damages that could potentially arise from infringement. Their cost of litigation should drop substantially.
5) There would be less incentive to develop “me too” technology that only nominally differentiates itself from a previous invention. More development would go into genuine breakthroughs that would stand the test of time. Think of 50 years of CLIP revenue for an AIDS vaccine as opposed to developing another version of Lipitor.
ADDITIONAL IDEAS:
- Maybe to address the problems of a first-to-file “winner take all” system would be to set aside some portion of the IRP to “researchers in the field”. That way those who publish foundational research in a field (on which the invention is based) can still profit in some way. The RITF could include anyone who published on the internet. If they could prove that they played a role in an invention then they could apply for arbitration. Maybe with 100 “votes” from recognized members of that industry (in good standing) someone could get a hearing. Every vote that is subsequently validated in arbitration would add credibility to that member of that industry (for subsequent votes). Every vote that is subsequently ruled invalid in arbitration would commensurately tarnish the voter’s record. Maybe with 1000 votes an arbitration ruling could be appealed.
- In arbitration there could be limits on presenting your case (as a nuisance lawyer disincentive) like only 2 days to make your case and 1 day to rebut your rival. And if you lose you have to pay a fee to the IRP or arbitration (but not court costs nor rival’s legal fees).
OK, that’s my first draft of the CLIP concept.
Poke holes in it. Let me know its flaws and game-able aspects.
For now it’s only a thought experiment.
But in time it could evolve into groundbreaking policy.
I appreciate your consideration.
Good karma to you.
Regards,
Dan Abrams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)