Miscellany

That's right, Conglomerate, we've got a new flag. In fact, it's a conglomeration of flags. Isn't that adorable?

Time for some unrelated tidbits of semi-interesting stuff:

1. Miscellaneous Correlation Theory

The attractiveness of future generations is directly proportional to the male/female ratio of the current generation.

Explanation:

More males than females in a population means males are going to be in greater competition with each other, giving females greater choice in a mate. Greater choice for females means more men toward the "ugly end of the spectrum" are going to be left out, or crowded out by the relatively more desperate good looking men.

On the flip side, more females than males in a population doesn't necessarily lead to a similar outcome. Since the choice to have children lies with the female, women on the "ugly side of the spectrum" that would otherwise be crowded out of the dating market can still reproduce via artificial insemination, unfaithful males, etc.

So, if there are more men than women, only the better looking men will be able reproduce, but with all "types" of women. If there are more women than men, the better looking women will reproduce with all "types" of men, but the not-so-good-looking women will (can) reproduce by other means. And these other means don't discriminate by appearance as much as the others...

So long story short:

If our generation had significantly more men than women, we'd naturally end up with relatively better looking (more attractive in all important areas, really) children.


...Though I could be missing something important... Anyone see a flaw here?


2. Interesting Psychology

From Wikipedia:

"According to Self-perception theory, people undergo overjustification effect because by observing what they do and why they did it, the extrinsic motivation appears to be the main cause and so undermines their intrinsic motivation."

In other words, we determine our attitudes by trying to watch ourselves act from an outside perspective and rationalizing what acting implied, and doing this obfuscates the real, initial reason for the act.

Just yet another theory that makes you wonder why you really do believe the things you believe, ya know?


3. Miscellaneous Behavioral Econ/Psychology Study

From the abstract of this paper:

"In 4 studies with political and economic decision-making scenarios, it was consistently found that individuals with depleted self-regulation resources exhibited a stronger tendency for confirmatory information processing than did individuals with nondepleted self-regulation resources,"
and
"individuals with depleted self-regulation resources experienced increased levels of commitment to their own standpoint, which resulted in increased confirmatory information processing."


So what does this mean?

It means, apparently, that people with more confidence are able to be more objective. People with lower confidence (lower self-esteem, if you will...) are more stubborn. (Curtsy to Overcoming Bias for translating the psychobabble.)

If the person you're arguing with is incredibly stubborn and unable to accept your perspective in the argument, it's possible they just have low self-confidence. Maybe. Or, possibly, maybe you do.




Since I finally mentioned "curtsy," I'll give a Curtsy to our rarely-seen-these-days friend Chris Jeffords for coming up with the idea of saying "curtsy." I highly recommend that everyone adopt it immediately.

CEOs Are People Too. Rich People.

I've had just about enough of this:

CEOs Defend Their High Pay on Hill

In short, the government is holding hearings trying to figure out why CEOs are paid so much, even when their companies are failing.

Is this an intriguing topic to anyone in the Conglomerate? Is everyone thinkin', "Yeah! Why are those bastards makin' 600 times what the average worker makes?!"

I hope so, because otherwise writing about it would pointless and boring.

Here ya go:

Imagine you're on the board of a Fortune 500 company and you're looking to hire a new CEO. How do you attract the best candidate for the least amount of money?

Well, there are two variables (that are important, anyway).

1. Competition.

You and your board of directors are competing with other companies of similar caliber for CEOs. A young, talented CEO on the lookout for a job will compare your salary offer with other companies. Of course.

If your competition is paying $500,000 a year with tens of millions in stock options, you must either do the same or get a second-rate candidate. For the most difficult, most abstract, important and immeasurably stressful job in the entire company, you're going to have a hard time hiring a second-rate candidate and explaining to the stockholders that you "just don't want to pay to hire the best." Individual stockholders, for some wacky reason, don't see a problem with paying an extra million from their multi-billion dollar company's wallets to get a better-than-average candidate. Since so many competing companies are all facing the same problem with similar circumstances, CEO salaries will clearly go up fast, likely to the limit of the stockholders' tolerability level.

Clearly, stockholders can tolerate a lot of money going to their CEOs in salary and bonuses. If not, they'd vote 'em down.

2. Reputation.

If you were that top-tier CEO candidate looking for a job, would you rather work for a company that has a history of short-changing CEOs when their risky decisions turn out badly, or would you rather work for a company that pays their CEOs handsomely even when the company is failing?

Yes, it's a hilarious reality we live in, but not only does paying CEOs when they fail encourage them to make bold, sometimes risky, decisions, but it also acts as a signal to other potential CEOs. Chief Executive Officers don't work at the company forever, you know, and incoming candidates will be clearly more attracted to companies that have shown they pay for risk-taking behavior instead of punish it. Who on Earth would prefer to be punished for enacting [what you believe are] ingenious, but risky, business strategies?



That's it. That's why companies pay their CEOs so damn much. No, it's not technically fair, but they're not really, necessarily being overpaid, either. Just because the incentives are in the wrong place and somewhat hard to keep in check, and competition between companies in a great economy (ours) pushes CEO salary offers to the sky doesn't mean that it doesn't motivate individuals to work much, much harder to be more desirable to these companies. A business culture that pays CEOs millions upon millions of dollars certainly inspires people to want to be CEOs, don't ya think? The more CEOs, the more competition between CEOs, and the more and greater talent we have to choose from.

That's progress, dammit, with the bill paid by shareholders of giant companies. I see no problem here...

Notes to People

Here are some notes I recently wrote to various people that exist:



A note to the guy who's always complaining about being underpaid:

Of course you're underpaid. If you were overpaid, the company would lose money on you, and if somehow you were magically paid exactly what you are worth, they'd break even and then what would be the point? Sure, I get it - you're complaining because you think the company's accounting of your contributions is incorrect, but you fail to realize that your company is a much better accountant than you. I dare you to test the theory that you're underpaid by applying to other companies.

Also, you're whiny and nobody likes you. Actually, that's the real reason you're underpaid.


A note to that hot girl that asked me my opinion on Shapes for Women Gyms:

They supply a preparatory location for women who plan on transferring, once they’re in good [acceptable] shape to the "regular" gym so they can meet men.

Yes, yes, I know - not all women go to the gym to be better looking for the opposite sex… …But most do. So the way Shapes makes consistent money is exactly the same way every gym makes its money: Their customers don’t actually get anywhere with their exercise program. Don't believe me? Well, have you ever met someone that canceled her gym membership because she decided she was finally in perfect shape? Usually people quit the gym because they've decided to be satisfied with their current condition (motivated, of course, by the high cost of gym membership).

So women go to Shapes, buy a membership, go there with lower-than-expected frequency (as they would to a regular gym) and never "graduate" to the preferred level. Unfortunately, this substantially reduces Shapes' women's odds of meeting men at the gym (since there are none) and reduces men's odds of meeting nice, but somewhat self-conscious, women at regular gyms. Totally, totally unfair. To the customers of Shapes Gyms I say just stay home, meet other fatasses on Craigslist, climb the stairs and lift paint cans. It'll be cheaper and it involves far less self-deception.


A note to the guy who says immigrants took his job:

Immigrants can’t actually take your job. If you were first fired and then replaced by an immigrant it means you were over-skilled for the job (judging by the pay requested), and you can get a better job.

If you think I’m wrong about this, and if you think you were not over-skilled, then why are you asking for so much more money in wages than someone else with equal (or greater!) skills as you? You’ll say, “Well, because his (the immigrant’s) standards are lower, he’s happier with being poorer, etc…” And I’d say, well, then, it seems you’re terrible at managing your costs. Is it really fair that because you’re greedier than those immigrants you deserve to be paid more?

Besides, if we somehow prevented all those immigrants from taking your job, we'd still have to worry about all those unskilled high school dropouts. You're screwed, man. Unless, of course, somehow, some way, you learn some sort of marketable skill or something... Though that seems like a lot more work than whining and bitching and masking racism...


A note to misguided movie producers:

We need more 3D movies about dinosaurs. You know why.




If anybody knows any other people that are wrong and need to be corrected via note, just let me know.

Pirate Bashing

Not by me, of course.

I recently came across this very short statement about movie piracy among college students. It corrects some previous statistics the MPAA had released (they had significantly overstated the amount of piracy by students), but it also goes on to rant about the evils of downloading movies. I found this sentence particularly interesting:

"American workers miss out on thousands of new jobs each year and billions of dollars in earnings, in addition to the cities and towns that lose millions of dollars in tax revenue – all due to piracy."

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of people believed this sentence. It's interesting not because the figures are exaggerated (they might be), but because the logic is wrong.

First off, there are some compelling reasons that college students might be the biggest movie pirates. They are often more interested in media, they have lower incomes, they are generally more technologically savvy and they are not as "set" in their beliefs of morality as older folks are.

When companies set their DVD prices, they are focused on their largest demographics; their biggest spenders, which most likely does not include poor college kids. In other words, college kids are "priced out" by all the higher income folks that are willing to spend $12-$20 on DVDs. The fact that college students will make the effort to illegally download/copy movies while the "recent graduates" (for example) demographic does not seems to prove the fact that the price is out of their affordable range. If piracy were suddenly impossible, these college kids would, in large part, still be priced out of the market.

This being the case, the relevant question is this: If it were suddenly impossible to pirate movies, would college kids suddenly start spending "billions of dollars" on movies? I think we've inferred already that this would not be the case, but let's just play along and assume the MPAA article is correct.

This means that there are "billions of dollars" worth of resources in one of two places. In the hypothetical world where piracy was impossible, the billions of dollars is in the hands of movie producers and sellers. In our world where piracy is possible, these billions of dollars lie in the hands of whoever sells stuff to college kids, since college kids get to retain the money that they'd otherwise spend on movies.

In short, either movie producers and DVD sellers get the money or clothing stores, the cafeteria at the student union, liquor stores and pornography site webmasters get the money.

That's what college kids spend their money on, right?

Anyway, the point is this: It doesn't matter who gets the money - the "thousands of new jobs each year and billions of dollars in earnings" will exist either way. Whether or not it's good for the economy is solely a matter of determining the incentives created by the money and how people ultimately use it.



My guess is that the MPAA article is just using a little fear mongering to draw attention away from the earlier mistake they made. They can bite me - I'm going to go download Deep Impact or Twister, or some other movie of that excellent, high-dollar blockbuster genre. God knows I'm not paying for that crap.

The Dating Game, Part Two

Here's your weekend reading assignment, 4ECon:

Three things related to pairing up that I'm going to bullsh... er, talk about, I mean, in this post:

1. People are generally unaware how to maximize their dating success - Many people are often too hopeful, decreasing their odds of a landing a successful relationship, while others are "settling" too often.

2. Your instincts on who to date must, by definition, lead you in the wrong direction.

3. There's a way, possibly, that you can override your instincts, extract brutal honesty from yourself and solve the problems in #1 and #2.



First, some background:

Without being too obvious, I'd say there's a difference between getting a date and finding a mate. Dates only require some version of some form of attraction to go forward, but pairing up for longer periods - finding a mate - will succeed or fail based on a wider variety of prerequisites: Desire to start a family, age, expectations of future dating success (desperation, really), and very importantly, your perceptions of the dating pool.

A lot of the people I know that are paired up did so with minimum conscious strategy and maximum luck - even my parents who've been married for 33 years. Almost entirely before any of the prerequisites I listed set in, they'd already started dating. As far as I know, the desire to start a family was not consciously why they initially got together. They were young, not desperate, with high expectations of both themselves and, I'm sure, their possible alternatives (the dating pool.)

So the way it worked for my parents was that they coupled, they liked each other, and the bigger reasons for staying together kicked in over time, after years of dating. This is a pretty common story, I think.

But what are the odds that relationships between these types of couples last for as long as, say, a highly calculated and formulaic match between two people with similar perspectives on things like starting a family, age, dating alternatives, etc? Well, the filtering process in the first case happens like this:

You date one person and then you break up if it doesn't work. You date another, end it if it's bad. You date another and end it if it's not "meant to last," etc. You keep dating until you find someone that either has the same perspective as you or morphs into the preferred perspective along the same time frame as you.

Filtering partners this way has a problem. I would compare it to trying to find the answer to a math problem by guessing and checking - only in this scenario checking involves significant bias. In other words, it's hard to rationally compare your current choice of mate to alternative options after you've invested so much time in him or her. ...In econospeak: the transaction costs of switching partners are high enough to prevent efficient allocation. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

But does this really mean the probability of success using this method is lower than it otherwise could be? Consider a possible second method:

You take a test, determine your personality traits, your desire to start a family, your perception of the dating pool, your level of desperation (essentially) and then a computer uses a complex algorithm to match you with a partner that should maximize your probability of long-term success. This is also known as eHarmony - though I'm not sure they come right out and ask how desperate you are (but I'd bet they can get at it indirectly).

Now how could an algorithm that knows more information about you than you'd normally release by the 15th date, that sufficiently solves the problem of getting information into a centralized location, that takes potential pairs from the largest [possible] pool and matches them possibly offer you a lower probability of success than the first method, the guess-and-check?

Well, maybe because the type of people who put themselves in the centralized database are exactly the kind of people who have given up in the real world. The type of person that has not given up in the real world is most likely young, optimistic, confident and believes (likely with sufficient reinforcement) that the real world dating options are acceptable. These are exactly the kind of people that other people want to date, and thus they have not given up on the real world - it is not incredibly obvious that your dating options are severely limited when you're getting easy dates, albeit with second rate partners. ...Not to mention the fact that people often date, and even get married, for reasons of claiming (or pinning down, if you will) the best partners, regardless of overall "fit."





So what's the lesson to be learned here, Dave?

Let's get technical. EMH - Efficient Market Hypothesis, in finance, states that prices of assets will reflect all available information and it is therefore impossible for a single person to beat the market. The same rule should apply for all markets provided there is no barrier or limit on information.

The way this applies to the dating market is that it suggests that, within the multiple realms of date-matching (the real world or online), you will be paired with someone who is equally as "dateable" as you, in theory, over the long term. If you have the same information about the dating market as everyone else, you can't really exploit the market to your advantage - or, in relevant terms - you can't trick a '10' (from our scales in Part One, and from the "general scale" too) into a long term relationship with you if you're a '5', at least for any considerable amount of time.

There are, of course, exceptions to this general rule. One of them is that as long as divorce is socially or literally expensive, we'll get distortions. This is a lot less common now than it was 50 years ago, but it's still there, obviously.

Another exception is apparently (according to Tim Harford and others) a person's perception of the overall dating market, mostly due to the size of the available dating pool. If someone perceives their options as severely limited, they will be more likely to "settle." If this isn't obvious, here's a long argument that seems to prove it. Basically, people really do respond to supply and demand in the dating marking, and they decide to date and get married using the information available to them at the time. Perfectly normal.

So this means that a '5' could conceivably trick a '10' into a longer-term relationship for some amount of time given a significant and relatively permanent imbalance of the dating pool. Provided the '10' is not aware that he or she could be dating other '10's, the relationship should and probably would continue without too many problems.

Here's the more important question, though: If your goal is a long term relationship - even marriage - is it really the best strategy to try to exploit the market? Even if a '10' is actively choosing partners from a sea of '5's, the probability that a '10' will discover his or her error at some point and try to undo the deal (AKA breakup or divorce) is substantially higher than the probability of a '6' (dating a '5') discovering his or her potential.

So, assuming that the goal is a long-term relationship, doesn't it make sense to avoid your natural instincts - to not chase the best available mate, AKA avoid people who are "above" your dateability level?

I know, I know, it's an vague idea, but there is some way to figure out whether or not you are matched with your partner in terms of overall desirability to the opposite sex.

This is, in fact, one of those things that people just know. For a small example, if you're constantly worried about your partner cheating on you then it means the odds that you've unknowingly (or knowingly) exploited a dating market loophole are quite high. It's not a sure thing, of course - you could just be completely paranoid. But then being completely paranoid is also a sign that your partner might be more well-adjusted (less crazy/paranoid), and perhaps therefore more desirable than you.


(This post's link is unrelated, like usual, but I think it's pretty interesting)


All this might be pretty obvious to you. It also might just be useless if you're happily dating/engaged/married/dying of cancer. Otherwise it just may be helpful - if you're looking for that perfect match, or if you're just really desperate for a "LTR" (See: Any Craigslist ad in a random city for women in their late 30s), taking the scientific approach - the economic approach - just might be the best strategy.

If eHarmony and other online dating algorithm-based databases can, in theory, maximize your probability of a long-term success with a partner in the second-rate online world, shouldn't there be a way to do it in real life - where the first-rate people have yet to give up - as well? If all the most desirable people are facing substantial bias and asymmetrical information about their alternatives in the real world, shouldn't there be some way to find the "perfect" match that takes into consideration your individual market circumstances?

There should be - and maybe I'll be able to make some crap up by the next excruciatingly long post.

For now, arrivederci.

The Dating Game, Part One

Boy, everything seems to be a game of some sort these days at the 4ECon, doesn't it? This one really is a game, though... of some kind... I'm not lying this time...
...For the most part...

Let's pretend you're single. I think this applies to a little more than half of my known readers, so this should be easy. If you're not single, pretend that your current partner suddenly became your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend.

First, think of the last (or current) girl/guy you dated and score him or her on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the best of whatever it is you think you're looking for in a partner. You should put some thought into all the dimensions that define best or worst, of course. For example, If the last person you dated was the most amazing person you could imagine in terms of intellectuality or emotional stability (10 out of 10 on this scale), or something along those lines, but was also completely disgustingly physically repulsive (0 out of 10 on this scale), you could rate him or her a 5 out of 10, or weight one proportionally more than another, etc. Make sense? Average some numbers, think of all the important dimensions, make some crap up - you'll figure it out. We're basically looking to translate your opinion of your ex's overall attractiveness into a number. Remember this number.

Next, try to figure out the third-person perspective of that person. How do you think your former girl/boyfriend does on the dating market? Are other people clamoring to date this person, or are they desperately and permanently single? More importantly, how would other people rate him or her on our scale of 0 to 10? Put some thought into this. If it helps, try to think of your "average person," (of your gender) and imagine how he or she would rate your ex.

Before we continue, I should point out that it will help if you're honest. If the last girl or guy you dated was below average looking or intelligence, you should probably end up with numbers below 5. I know there's a propensity to use numbers greater than 5 on 0-to-10 scales, so just try to be honest. If your ex was an ugly moron, don't take it personally and give 'em a 2.

So, are the two numbers the same? Did you score your ex a '7' on your personal scale, but a '5' on the public perception scale, or is it reversed? Whatever your answers were, take the first number and subtract the second. (In my example, that would be 7 - 5 = 2). I'm going to call this new number your "Ex Perception Differential."


Now the hard part:

First, try to rate yourself on your personal scale. Whatever you think your obvious good parts are, or whatever the benefits of your ability to hide your flaws, rate your personality, your looks, your intelligence, your temperament, all of it on a scale of 0 to 10. Get a 7 on looks, did ya? Get a 8 on intelligence, did ya? Give yourself a 6 on honesty, did ya? It sounds like you'll end up averaging to a 7, then. Get the picture? Try to think of all the important spectra of your personal dateability, weight the ones you believe are more important higher, and figure out a number.

Second, you need to rate yourself from a new perspective: Imagine a member of the opposite sex that is gorgeous, intelligent, decent and interested in things that matter - basically, imagine a '10' on the public-perception-of-overall-attractiveness scale, especially in the looks department. Is the image of this person firmly in your head? Good - now here's the question: How would this person rate you on a scale of 0 to 10 if he or she had four minutes to meet you/get to know you? In other words, how would the best-looking and most attractive person you and your friends and family have ever seen in your lives rate you on an attractiveness scale after a four-minute speed date? Try to use averages here, if necessary, and be brutally honest.

OK, now are those two numbers the same? Wildly different? Did you rate yourself higher than or lower than the imaginary hottest-person-in-the-world did? Again, take the first number and subtract the second. If you gave yourself a '6,' for example, and your imaginary critic gave you '3', or something along those lines, you'd get a +3 for the "Self Perception Differential."





Now it's time to play with the numbers. There are a lot of blanket claims I could make, but I'm going to try to limit them (like the fact that single people are more likely to have negative differentials - or so I would say if I weren't avoiding making too many claims... Besides, I could be proven wrong by some anomalous but vocal reader.)

First, remember your Ex Perception Differential. This is the difference between how you rated your ex-girl/boyfriend and how the public does. Positive numbers mean you thought your ex had good qualities that your Average Joe or Jane wouldn't see. Negative numbers mean the opposite; that your ex was hiding her negative attributes from the public, which only become obvious after some amount of dating... (This is why I'd assume people who are actually single will get negative Ex Perception numbers and people who are just pretending to be single for the sake of the game will get more positive numbers. There is some bias, obviously, when it comes to who you are or are not stuck with.)

Now the "Self Perception Differential." A negative number (rating yourself lower than a super-attractive person would rate you) is probably pretty uncommon. I can't think of anyone who really thinks they are, personally, more attractive on "the outside" than they are "deep down." If you got a negative number on this, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

However, a large positive Self Perception Differential - say 2 or greater - should signal one, or both, of the following:

A) You are relatively unattractive physically and/or are extremely shy (and people know it.)

B) You are lying to yourself, at least a little, about your overall attractiveness.

...

These are my claims.

Any arguments?


(This link is relevant this time, by the way)

We'll save the implications for Part Two, after I've had some time to figure 'em out. For those who may be interested, I'm trying to figure out some sort of algorithm that'll determine exactly what kind of person you should "resign yourself" to date. In other words, some of our standards (mine, specifically) may be too high, all things considered, and maybe your standards are too low - I figured it's time to be honest with ourselves, and if we're going to be honest, we might as well include some quantitative sociology and develop some strategies, right?

If anyone can develop any kind of formula based on any sort of numerical ranking (the numbers in this post included or not) that can somehow extract honesty and determine what type [ranking] of person (based on the same scale[s]) someone "should" be dating before I do, they will get a prize. Don't worry, you can be pretty vague and make a lot of assumptions - that's how I do things.

Also, if anyone is curious, my Ex Perception Differential is -3 and my Self Perception Differential is +2. How about you?

Gamepaign 2008: Primary Vote

Well, it's Super Tuesday. According to the rules of Gamepaign, I needed to vote for the current leader (Obama, 288 Points). Unfortunately for both Arizona and Barack Obama, it is not only illegal for me to vote in Arizona's Democratic primary (as I'm registered Independent), I'm also 2,300 miles away and I'm not anywhere near a piece of paper that says "absentee" on it.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Arizona doesn't want Independents to vote for Republican or Democratic candidates in its primary. Strange, isn't it? If I had to guess, I'd say it's an attempt by the main parties to encourage voters to identify with one of 'em. ...Or maybe there's some sort of voter fraud (voting twice...?) issue... I have no idea, nor am I going to take the time to look it up and ponder it. Anybody have any clue?

I've been sittin' here watching Super Tuesday coverage all day, and I just saw that Hillary Clinton is projected to win Arizona by a large margin... You can't blame me, Obama, I don't live there. Nobody Set Up Them you.



Here is some political interestingness and relevantism:

-- Apparently, people in my current state are so antsy from the all the "Super" things in one week that they came to the polls a week too early. This seems like it should be especially embarrassing, because really - if you're not informed enough to know when to vote, how are you informed on who to vote for?


-- The NY Times has a good election guide for following the vote tallying and delegate counting for the primaries. Check it.


-- Intrade prediction markets are very interesting to watch when people have no idea what is going on. If prediction markets are our best method of getting information from the people, I'm not very optimistic for the future of people. (Just kiddin', I love 'em)


-- Mike Huckabee looks exactly like Kevin Spacey. While doing a Google image search for Mike Huckabee and Kevin Spacey photos, I came across exactly what I originally had in mind for a blog post.


-- I never figured that John McCain would be the Republican nominee - like a lot of other people, I figured he was overflowing with the old juices, and he'd give up running before he had a viable chance at winning. For those of you who don't know him too well (I don't, really, either), here's a list of policy stances and/or statements by John McCain that you might like. Or maybe you'll hate 'em, I don't know:

1. "Every time US went protectionist, we paid a heavy price." (Oct 2007)
Damn straight.
2. Free trade with any country except security risks. (May 1999)
Damn straighter.
3. "In 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state."
That's awesome, even if it's a teensy bit false.
4. "Republicans have forgotten how to control spending."
Agreed. Actually, I'd argue they honesty never knew. I was about to do a post on this.
5. "Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states."
Hey, that's a good point!
6. Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas.
That's a good stance, I'd say.
7. Close Guantanamo Bay prison; announce no-torture policy.
Rock on.
8. We need a simpler, fairer tax code, but not FairTax.
That is absolutely, absolutely correct.

There are a ton of reasons to like John McCain, especially when compared to other members of his party. There are also plenty of reasons to completely dislike John McCain. I figured I'd spread the [carefully selected] info.



-- Last, not least:
Barack Obama is a fantastic speaker. He's got great "economic logic," he's proved it during both the debates and during his speeches - he's by far the candidate with the best and most applicable knowledge of economics (Much more than Clinton, McCain and even Mitt Romney).

The idea of change is often a selling point among out-of-power party candidates that never comes to fruition, but I think this time - if we elect Barack Obama - we're going to get the most "experimental" president we could possibly imagine. I'm not positive this is a good thing for the country, but I'm also not really that concerned about screwin' things up in the interest of exploration. Exploration is good.

I'm glad that, since the Democrats are probably going to win the 2008 election, Obama has such a good chance of being the nominee.





I just saw that California is predicted to go to Clinton. Not sure how many of California's 400 or so delegates are going to each candidate.

If I had to guess right now, at 12:18 AM on UltraWednesday, I'd say we're going to see Clinton vs. McCain for the general election. Then again, maybe California is less important than I think.
Intrade contracts (higher means more likely) for Clinton and Obama at 12:17 AM.

Like I said, though, people don't have any clue what's going on - but they're our best hope for predicting the future.



UPDATE: Here's what the Intrade contracts look like at 11:30 AM on Wednesday, Feb. 6th:
Just about even, meaning that not only do people not have any clue what's going on, but they also now know that they have no clue what's going on. It took a while for the prediction market to reflect the real confusion (instead of the fake confusion from last night)...

I was trying to figure out why there was such a disparity between last night's predictions (63% likelihood that Clinton would be nominated) and today's (50/50). I figured that maybe people don't buy/sell Intrade contracts when they're asleep, but they was just silly.

I think the real reason Obama is given even chances now is that a theory from last night - that he'll get around half of the delegates - is now more of a fact:

"With most of the votes counted in an inconclusive contest, Clinton is projected to win only eight more Super Tuesday delegates than Obama, but will lead the overall race by more than 60 delegates."

This will [probably] leave the overall delegate count, if you're curious, at:

Clinton: 499 Super Tuesday delegates, 872 overall delegates
Obama: 491 Super Tuesday delegates, 793 overall

For a total difference of 79. That's about two smaller states worth of delegates. Whoever gets 2025 first wins... I presume...

4ECon - January 2008

Well, folks, it's been a Jantastic month.

Though I did spend the last few days being very sick. In fact, when I wrote that last post about the Democratic debate I was a little out of my mind with tiredness and braindeadism. Regardless, I'm sure you all appreciated my ranting.

For the record, which I'm always referring to but have never actually seen (who's maintaining this record? Google...?), January marks 6 months - a full 1/2 year - of 4EConglomeratory goodness. To celebrate this anniversarial goodness, I've decided to finally tell the story behind the 4ECon flag graphics. I know, you've all waited long enough. The time has come.

After I recap the month's postings, that is.

1. First off in January was part one of my attempt to dispute the idea that our middle class is being crunched/squeezed/destroyed/whatever. There is definitely, definitely more to be said about this - for as long as Lou Dobbs lives, Almighty God will not let me stop blogging. I even asked if I could stop and he said no.

2. Next off was The Parking Con. There is not a single website anywhere on the internet that does a better job showing parking behavior - nor has there ever been a blog post on any blog that can so easily double as a metaphor for whatever you want. Efficient Market Hypothesis? BS! This post knocked the socks off EMH! Go ahead, just try and argue! (Just kidding, don't try.)

3. Third was The War Conspiracy Game. It was supposedly a game because naming the post "The War Conspiracy" wasn't as interesting. Or would it have been? I have no falking clue. What am I, some sort of naming specialist?

4. I invented Krug Disease and I finally brought to the internet the phrase "Someone Set Up Us The Obama," (© 2005 Stephen Guzzo) . That's golden.

5. I got sick (Krug Disease?), I was bored, and I was watching the Democratic debates on CNN - in that order - so I posted my thoughts. I called it "Deblogging" because I was referencing myself from August 2007. I thought it was cool until I woke up the next morning and realized that no, no, in was not, in fact, cool at all. As we all know, though, once something is blogged, it can never be unblogged. What? Unblog is so a word.




A'ight.

And now, finally, the long awaited story behind the 4ECon flag graphics. I hope you're all wearing socks. Here goes. Finally:

I used Photoshop to turn a picture of my hand into a four because I was bored, then I put it on a flag-shaped thing and pretended that it looked like a 4 on an 'E', which is my last name in quasi-leet speak. And it's cool. The end.

And now you all finally know the story behind the über-famous 4ECon flags. Please, please, please, if you're the media, stop sending me requests for interviews about this one. Also, if you're the media, start doing a better job.

And just in case you didn't notice: Starting January 1st, you can click on the flag of any post and it'll sort all previous posts by that topic. Piratey is still my favorite brand. Try it or don't. I know, I know, it's lamer than your mom.

OK, that's enough of that.

- Dave

I've Got Krug Disease

Or, perhaps I should say, Paul Krugman, the writer/economist, and I agree on something (which is not as common as one might think.)

First read Krugman's story last Tuesday. Now here's Krugman on Wednesday:

"...the Fed ended up cutting the Fed funds rate — the overnight interbank interest rate — by a lot: more than 6 1/2 percentage points in response to the 1990-91 recession, 5 1/2 percentage points in response to the 2001 recession. That second time got scary, because there was only 1 percentage point left...This time we started at 5.5%. If the shock is worse than last time — which certainly seems possible — there is real reason to worry."

He's basically saying, in both of his blog posts, that the Federal Reserve is potentially getting dangerously close to too-low interest rates, or in other words the "zero lower bound" of the Fed Funds Rate is approaching too quickly.

I just hate to point out how awesome I am, but I just knew I'd be revisiting [the second half of] this post someday, in which I was making this exact same point about a coming zero-interest rate problem three months before the Fed's latest panic session:

"...when housing prices are facing a precipitous fall (now), a recession is possible, and inflation might not be too much of a worry considering productivity and/or population growth as well as reduced consumer demand, it seems that the long term trend in the funds rate toward 0.00% might just have to come to fruition in response to economic necessity rather than an easy, sooner-or-later it'll get there kinda thing. Basically, our economy might soon be facing a situation that will require an extremely fast drop in rates (whether or not it has anything to do with a long term trend.)

The reason why this is a problem, though, is that...If we're getting a recession and heavy deflation AND the funds rate is already 0.00%, our Federal Reserve buddy Ben Bernanke might actually have to rent a helicopter."

There's more relevant gems in the post. See, now you all know why I do these completely boring posts that nobody (except maybe Chris Jeffords) likes: to look smart later on. Then again, I'm sure nobody enjoys this post either. I sure had a fun time feeling righteous and writing it though!

Anyways...

Now I need to figure out a way to convert those mad econoskills into some sort of paying situation... like, maybe, one of those things I used to do... What was it called...? Ummmm...

Oh, that's right, a job.





Also, for the record, I promise I'll try not to point out how incredibly awesome my insight is in future blog posts. Oh, wait - except for this. I've got to do this:

From September 9, 2005 (Anybody know what night that was? Fred?) all credit goes to Stephen Guzzo, my former roommate, for this catchy, hilarious, 1337 and prophetic phrase:

Someone Set Up Us The Obama

For those of you who don't know the reference, watch this jewel. This line was/is the greatest tag line for any presidential run I've ever heard, so I'm putting it out there on the internet because nobody else has. Go ahead, search for it - there's an incorrect variation, but it's far more recent and isn't very official.

When Barack Obama's crew goes searching the internet for a motto that truly pulls at the heartstrings of his target demographic (the Nintendo generation), The Guz and I shall receive all the credit and all the mad, mad props. And money - send money, too, please. Thanks.

In a few months, if/when Barack Obama gets his party's nomination and he's using this phrase, you all will be so proud knowing that you saw its birth on the 4ECon. It's gonna happen, dammit. You'll see.


Ooop... There's my Krug Disease acting up again... I apologize, folks...

The War Conspiracy Game

Ever hear people say that World War II is what finally pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression? I'm not sure if that's actually true because we were doing pretty well towards the end of the 1930s, but it got me thinking: How does our economic performance (Gross Domestic Product, specifically) correlate with war, if at all?

Fortunately for you, me thinking means making pretty graphs for the 4EConglomerate. Check out the graph of GDP growth over the past 77 years, with nice little labels for when we started warring and when we stopped warring:
See anything interesting? (Click on it, foo)

This was interesting to me:

Years in which the United States went to war were relatively large-growth years. These ones are green in the graph, by the way, with labels on the bottom. Years in which the U.S. was in the process of pulling out of a war were relatively very low-growth years. These are the red ones, with the 'exit' labels on the top.

Take a look at 1945-47, 1954, 1974 and 1991. All of these years saw massive U.S. military withdrawals from foreign countries - WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War/Gulf War respectively. Each one of those years were negative-growth years. Also notice that since World War II, there have been only 11 years with negative GDP growth, and 7 of them just happened to be years in which we were pulling out of wars.

Is this a coincidence? Is there some reason that WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War ended during years in which the U.S. was entering a recession? Is a soon-to-fail economy a reason to pull back military resources, or is a sudden loss of defense-related production and services harmful to the economy?

As much as it could be a coincidence, I'd lean toward the latter as a better explanation.

I could even understand Vietnam, of all the major wars we've had, being an example of a war that was abruptly ended due, in some part, to economic problems back at home, but look at the graph: From 1971 to 1979, GDP was growing just as strong as ever, with the only exceptions being the two years it took to withdraw from Vietnam, '74 & '75. Not only were these two years exceptions, they were very conspicuous and short-lived exceptions. Go ahead, check 'em out in the graph up there.

Since I made this graph you have to look at it, too:
(If you click on it you can see the original graph in the background. I think it helps illustrate the relative size of the GDP effects from entering or exiting wars, but I mostly figured it would be nice to see the upward and downward "pressure" in formal red-arrow style. That's my favorite style.)

Also, before I start chatting about this too much, all the officially-rock-hard data is in an Excel file, with some nifty colorization showing all the years of both major and minor U.S. conflicts, as well as a whole bunch of GDP figures. It's a ton of fun to look at if you're even remotely interested in what I'm talking about. The war info is straight from Wikipedia and the excel file is RIGHT HERE.


So it seems to me that there is some pretty good evidence that ending a war is just as hurtful as starting one is helpful.

This makes sense, too. Increasing government spending - especially the kind of deficit spending we're good at - helps production, output, productivity, etc. at the beginning of a war, but when the war is over, resources have to be reallocated, production of defense-related products and services ends and output (GDP) has to fall. When you go to war, GDP and economic output rises, when the war ends, output decreases.



Are you bored yet? Do you care if going to, or leaving, war is good/bad for our economy? If simple economic truths don't entertain you, I say we start playing the "Invent a Conspiracy" game. It'll be fun. Ready?

Here's what you do: Read these intriguing facts and see if you can invent a conspiracy to match:

1. Since 1940, every year that has seen negative GDP growth has been either immediately preceded by a U.S. conflict or immediately followed by one. (The middle colored column in the Excel file shows every year with a U.S. conflict, major or minor.)

2. That includes the recessionary quarters in 2001-2002, which preceded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. As I mentioned before, 7 of the 11 negative-growth years over the past 66 years were years in which the U.S. was exiting major wars.

4. Every year the U.S. enters a major war turns out to be economically beneficial both for the year and for the duration of the war.

5. Three of the five major conflicts of the 20th century (Korea, Gulf War, Afghanistan/Iraq) were started right after official recessions.

6. Every major war after WWII was started within about a year of quarters that saw negative GDP growth. (Except Vietnam, which was a little more than a year. Of 241 quarters since 1947, there have been 11 groups of negative growth quarters - check out this Excel file.)

I'll give you a minute to make up your conspiracy theory while I'm thinkin' of mine. Don't worry, it doesn't have to be very good, just good enough to work on hippies.

OK, I'll go first:

The thing that is potentially disturbing is the fact that politicians (specifically presidents) have the ability to start reasonably expensive wars. If wars - specifically the funding involved in wars - can jump start an economy, should we be concerned about the president/Congress/etc. abusing this power? If you were the president, and maybe you were looking for more reasons (than you already had) to go to war, wouldn't the idea that you can boost the economy during your presidency, and help crush the economy during the next administration's term(s), be sort of tempting?

Let's pretend this is possible for a second, since we're playing the conspiracy game.

Let's just imagine that we live in a world in which politicians care a lot about injecting money into the economy via the military/defense infrastructure (like contractors/defense companies), calling it a war, or a conflict, if necessary, and at the same time ensuring that a minimum number of people in the country see economic hardship. Hypothetically, this is a big win-win situation for any politician.

Pretend that in this world politicians were willing to use military operations as excuses for spending on military contractors and other defense infrastructure in order to ensure [campaign] financing for themselves/their party/etc. in the future. Add that to the positive economic side effects and you've got a pretty popular politician. I know, I know - it's not possible right? But we're pretending!

If we lived in a world like this, where campaign financing and presidential legacies are both more important than decency and spending money properly, then what would we get?

Isn't it just possible that we'd have, say, a government that is very often at war and has a, say, um, random figure here... a $9 trillion deficit...?

Use your imagination: If we lived in that kind of world, then maybe that's what it would look like.

...

Now let's pretend that we were coming up on a recession as well as an end to a war. If you were the president, let's say the newly elected president, would you just let the recession happen and the war end? Would you just let the economy crumble slowly, hoping the Federal Reserve and the "spirit" of American consumers/investors will prevent your presidency, your reputation and your political party's future from turning into a Hoover-style disaster? Or would you do that other thing...

That thing that always seems to revitalize the economy and guarantee your presidency a second term...

You know... that thing that ensures the next candidate will get hit with your economic woes...

That thing that'll guarantee political and financial support from some of the richest companies and people in this country...

You know, go to war?

Of course you wouldn't, right? If you were president, you'd choose the moral high ground, right?

Of course.

But, alas, all this is just a conspiracy theory. Things are not that simple in the real world. In the real world, there are so many more other causes of war and other variables than any single citizen such as myself could possibly comprehend. In the real world, there are countless other choices besides just go to war or collapse. In the real world, lives are more important than legacies and riches.

And, don't forget, in the real world, when we go to war with Iran in 2009/2010 immediately following this next recession, I'm sure we'll have perfectly good reasons to do so.



Just kidding - that conspiracy theory totally sucked. Though I really had you going at the end there, didn't I? I'll try a little harder next time.

Fun game though, right? Let's play again in two years.

My Resolution

...is 1280 by 1024, and will likely stay that way for some time. I recommend everyone jump on the bandwagon this year and beef on up to the "twelve-ten," as I've been known to call it. If you're 1024 x 768, you need to try a little harder this year. If you're 800 x 600, well... Well, someone should just go directly to your house and beat the hell out of you. We're living in the 21st century, man. Grow the eff up.

On the other hand, if you're one of the 1337s out there with a 1600 x 1200 or some other wackiness, congrats. You've truly made it in this world. I'm proud.





OK, enough of that.

My New Year's resolution this year:

I promise to be more open and honest about my political opinions on this blog.

That's right. Instead of giving people and their dumb opinions the benefit of the doubt, instead of avoiding politically radical and/or offensive statements, I'm going to come right out and tell everyone exactly how I stand on THE ISSUES.

So, to start off right, I've made a list of 49 short statements that might anger someone/most everyone/wieners or otherwise be somehow controversial, yet honest.

I MOSTLY agree with these statements. There is not a single one, though, that I agree with completely. On the other hand, there's not a single one that I completely disagree with. So here goes:

1. The Federal Reserve is not evil.
2. No matter what you think, outsourcing (yes, jobs!) is better for everyone in the long run, and better for the vast majority of people in the short run.
3. The minimum wage mostly hurts the poorest class(es).
4. Unions are almost always unnecessary and harmful.
5. Earned Income Tax Credits reduce the standard of living (income) for the poorest class.
6. There is no "shrinking of the middle class," or anything even remotely similar to it going on.
7. Fiat Money is good - Reverting to the gold standard is retarded.
8. Subsidizing college raises the cost of college and hurts the unsubsidized (especially in the short term).
9. Legal immigration is good for the economy.
10. Illegal immigration is mostly good for the economy.
11. Building a giant Mexican border fence is insane.
12. This is what cussing in British text looks like: &£#%.
13. Ron Paul is a little crazy, and he's a surprisingly crappy economist. I'm not sure if he wants to be one, though, so I guess it doesn't matter.
14. "Fair trade" is stupid and harms the least skilled/highest poverty classes in the third world while helping the semi-skilled, semi-poverty classes (if you know what I mean...)
15. Real monopolies don't exist in a world without "excessive" government regulation.
16. Real tyranny happens just about as often as market tyranny (depending on your definition of tyranny, of course.)
17. Rudy Giuliani is a better and more decent candidate than you think.
18. The frequency with which someone updates their Facebook "status" is roughly correlated to their real world social status. Also, It's annoyingly confrontational (I'll explain that if anyone needs clarification.)
19. People who call themselves Libertarians aren't actually, truly, really real Libertarians.
20. I think of myself as a quasi-Libertarian, by the way.
21. I'm more inclined to vote Democratic over Republican.
22. Some taxes are good.
23. Most taxes are bad.
24. Good economics will help the poor and needy much, much more than "common sense" policies like the minimum wage & welfare.
25. BJS data and Steven Levitt have convincingly argued that the legalization of abortion is one of the primary causes of the huge drop in crime over the past 15 years.
26. CAFE standards (AKA vehicle mileage requirements) don't work even close to as well as a fuel tax would.
27. Carbon offsets might possibly be the most inefficient method of reducing carbon emissions that I could possibly think of (as well as a giant diversion from the real problem).
28. Not getting your baby vaccinated is silly, greedy and dangerous.
29. The death penalty doesn't work in this country, and it barely works in others (that are far, far more brutal). Go ahead, ask me why.
30. Buying a house - unless you're going to rent it out, or if it's a necessity for the family - is NEVER a good financial move, EVER.
31. Memory Foam pads are pretty soft, but not that soft.
32. It'll most likely be cheaper to "offset ALL your carbon emissions" AND drive a reasonably low mileage car for the next 10 years than it is to buy a new Toyota Prius.
33. George W. Bush is not that bad of an economist.
34. John Edwards is terrible when it comes to economic policy.
35. I like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, BOTH, more than any other candidate I've ever thought of. I'd vote for either of them over Bill Clinton (If this were 1992).
36. The world is not "controlled by the World Bank."
37. "Universal health insurance" - depending on how it's done - is not that bad of an idea, considering all benefits & costs.
38. I've never met anyone who agreed with me on every one of the issues in this list.
39. The only bad thing I've ever heard about Bill Clinton (from those who don't like him) was that he had sexual relations with that woman. I can think of a few more bad things, but I've never heard them from other people's mouths.
40. Machines don't "replace workers," and neither do immigrants in this country. Rule of thumb: If the skill level is different than yours, it/him/her can't "take your job," for the most part. If, on the other hand, you have skills equivalent to those of a poor, untrained illegal immigrant, then you just might lose your job, but, courtesy of rampant racism, if you're a white American, you'll probably be fine.
41. Speaking of that, this is probably the best article in the category "general economic theory" that you'll read all year.
42. If you don't like Ronald Reagan, I bet you can't tell me three (3) distinct things he did during his presidency to deserve your dislike.
43. FDR was a dangerously horrible policy maker/economist. His friends were even worse. His ability to motivate and speak, though, were fantastic, and reasonably (even economically) valuable.
44. The war in Iraq was a horrible idea in terms of decency, diplomacy and human respect and rights, but possibly an amazingly clever strategy in terms of U.S. long term goals. I've said it. I can't un-say it. Go ahead, ask me for details, I've got a great BS story.
45. I believe that the word "Gay" in the phrase "Gay Marriage" sufficiently sets it apart from "regular marriage." Besides, the fact that the government has some hand in marrying people - an inherently religious ceremony - is equally as shocking as homosexuals actually preferring to use the word "marriage." Everybody should shut the hell up and let two consenting adults do whatever the hell they want.
46. Martin Scorsese loves gangsters. It's getting weird. The movie "The Departed" isn't too bad, though - you should watch it.
47. If you disagree with any one - ANY one - of the statements in this list, you're probably wrong. I might be wrong, too, but I'd be willing to bet that if you gave me enough time, I could easily convince you that I'm not wrong, which would mean that we'd both be wrong. For the record, that's a much more preferable scenario than the one in which I'm right and you choose not to realize it.
48. I'm tired of listening to music, in general, but for some reason I still love Silverchair and the few songs off their album "Diorama." Also, their new album, "Young Modern," is right up my alley and I totally freakin' love it too. Unlike Diorama, though, I'm not sure I can translate this love. Everyone except for Fred might be in the dark - permanently - about this one.
49. I've spent all day doing nothing, and it's 11:00 PM on New Year's Eve. I'm going to go watch fireworks at the George Washington Memorial Masonic Temple, which should be pretty nifty. I hope. This city is awesome, and anyone who disagrees is a butt.

No time to check for grammatical errors. I'll do it tomorrow. You're all drunk tonight anyway, right? Who the fudge reads (...or writes...) blogs on New Year's Eve?


Welcome to 2008, you 4ECon readin' bastards!

Your Christmas Present

...is really somethin' special this year:

I'm giving you all carbon offsets. By "you all," I mean all official members of the 4EConglomerate, and by "carbon offsets" I mean I'm going to be offsetting your carbon emissions, which will basically allow you to pollute more without increasing your level of guilt! Isn't that great?

Here's how it's going to work: I was planning on driving like 20,000 miles this coming year in my car that gets less-than-amazing gas mileage. Now, in the spirit of giving and selflessness and caring and me being a generally fantastic person, I will not drive any of those 20,000 miles. Since this comes out to be about 16,000 lbs. of carbon emissions (really), you're all free to divide that carbon amongst yourselves and guiltlessly use it any way you like!

So, if you've got to take an extra-long road trip this year in a H2 Hummer, don't worry: Your pollution has already been offset. If you're planning on buying a private jet and flying around just for the hell of it, your "Carbon Footprint" has been washed away by the tide of my generosity. Even if you just feel like cruising down Main Street in your Camaro an extra 2,000 miles or so this next year, go nuts! In fact, pick up a hot date and be sure to mention, "You know, baby, I'm totally carbon neutral right now." That oughta do the trick.

So pollute a little more this year, friends - it's on me! Merry effin' Christmas! Here's your card:
For those of you who know what I've been doing the past few months (...not much...), this ought to be especially hilarious.



Don't give me that, "But Dave! You weren't going to drive those 20,000 miles anyway!" How the hell do you know that?

OK, ignore that one if you want. Here's a better Christmas present for you - a priceless, invaluably fantastic idea:

The Ultimate Eco-Friendly Christmas Gift

Friends, relative(s), readers of this con, er, I mean, the Con:

Is there someone on your holiday shopping list this year that just doesn't care much about material possessions? Someone that's constantly complaining about how George Bush and the evil empire are destroying the environment? Or, perhaps, you just need a gift for that eco-savvy professional that wants to do something for the environment but is way too busy?

Try carbon offsets! Yes sir, just like all them fancy corporations are doing, you too can monetize reductions in pollution! For about the same cost as not driving to the store you can give the gift of freedom; the gift of guiltlessness to that special someone. Here's how:

Think ahead to the coming year. Everything you could have done this year that would have created pollution, just don't do it! It's that simple! Were you thinking that maybe this was the year you were going to travel across the world in a hot air balloon? Don't do it, and give that extra freedom to pollute as a gift! Maybe you were planning on clear-cutting the forest next to your house for aesthetic reasons. Don't! Give the carbon-offsetting benefit of those trees to your friend or relative! Is this the year you were planning on burning city hall to the ground? Stop - think of all the carbon offsets that could be created by not starting that massive, polluting fire!

So reduce your potential carbon footprint and give that reduction to someone else! It's easy, it's cheap and it apparently makes you a better person/multinational corporation!

Did you need some sort of Christmas card that expresses the idea behind your gift? Don't worry, we've got you covered:

$4.95 per card or $48 for a dozen. These beautiful Christmas cards are the perfect way to say "I'm more environmentally conscious than you." They're made from 100% Ecuadorian Rain Forest trees and are embossed with high-petroleum plastic, assembled by coal-powered robots in China and shipped across the world to you with extreme care by sumo wrestlers on Atkins driving speedboats made in 1974. Also, this product is 100% carbon-neutral, done by purchasing carbon offsets from highly inefficient companies. Yes, it's expensive to be completely carbon neutral, but we figure we can easily pass that cost on to the environmentally concerned customer. Merry Christmas to you and your whole naive, er, eco-friendly family!

Oh, and one more thing: By this time next year my company - The Foree Con: Carbon Offsetting Co. - should be up and running. Basically, I'm going to allow people to pay me to sit around and pollute less (by doing less stuff). Let me know if you're interested, I'll see if I can sign you up early.


Happy/Merry ___________, everyone!

- Dave