of many a smutch'd deed reminiscent

Fri, 25 May 2012 19:40:53 GMT

"Eventually we'll have to let go of everything."

-- Brad Warner

a one-day break

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:06:56 GMT

I can't tell you how nice it is to be able to pee while standing.

With apologies to my female readers.

Kill the boy

Fri, 25 May 2012 13:26:55 GMT

"Kill the boy, John Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born."

"because you have no other choice"

Sat, 19 May 2012 12:17:44 GMT

So I asked Tod why Edwina Clawhammer should kill Alduin.

He said, because you have no other choice, this is the only way to complete the main quest.

Me: But, no, why should Edwina kill Alduin.

Tod: Because he is the World-Eater, everybody in Skyrim will tell you so.

Me: But, what if they are all wrong?

Tod: Why are you being argumentative?!

Me: I'm not, I'm role playing!

the ongoing adventures of Edwina Clawhammer

Sat, 19 May 2012 11:36:11 GMT

Edwina Clawhammer has been bored in Skyrim. After assassinating the Emperor and helping the Nord province to secede from the hated Empire, she tried to retire to her modest home in Whiterun, but occasionally she goes on some sort of (relatively minor) adventure with her young sidekick, and there are always dragons flying around that need to be dealt with. There's still some big dragon named Alduin who will supposedly destroy the world, so maybe she should do something about that. Maybe. He hasn't destroyed the world quite yet, and maybe he can't. Or won't. Could be a bluff. Like those imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She doesn't hate dragons, one of them saved her life. Sort of. Some of her best friends are dragons.

-----

Meanwhile she's got one of these Elder Scrolls, and she learned how to use it for time travel from one of those anti-Alduin bluffers. So she decided to travel back in time on her own initiative, over 200 years, to an earlier era, just for fun. Except something went wrong, and she materialized inside a prison cell, sans Elder Scroll, and had no way to escape or return to her own timeline. Unbeknownst to her, instead of merely traveling back in time, she managed to split the timeline in two, creating a copy of herself in Third Era Morrowind, while also remaining in present-day Skyrim. The Skyrim copy of Edwina thinks the Scroll thing didn't work, so is bored again. The Morrowind copy of Edwina thinks it worked, but that the scroll was somehow lost in the process of shipping her back in time. Oops!

Stranded. With no friends or family, no house, no reputation. Starting her life over again in a strange world. Wondering whether she can assassinate this Emperor also? The trick is always finding somebody to pay her. Killing is most fun when coin is the reward!

Who's your daddy?

Tue, 15 May 2012 11:01:33 GMT

Corporate profits (after all taxes), as a portion of GDP, have never been higher.

Wages and salaries, as a portion of GDP, are near record lows.

It could just be a coincidence that labor union membership, as a percentage of the workforce, at 11.4% is the lowest since 1932.

I am curious as to why Obama doesn't get any credit from rich people for giving them the highest profits ever. Instead rich people want one of their own, a former hedge fund manager, as their new president. I guess you can never be too rich.

"everybody should read this book"

Mon, 14 May 2012 22:17:35 GMT

Yes, climate activists, all our problems solved by reading another book! and more web browsing, and posting comments.

asking for utopia?

Mon, 14 May 2012 21:45:45 GMT

Reading some of the latest climate change research. Apparently some scientists are beginning to realize that human societies, in the aggregate, may never get around to limiting or reducing global CO2 emissions, and that their fancy models for how climate will change over the next 100 years never took "complete human stupidity" into account.

Global civilization is at risk, some of them are saying. Climate will change faster than humans can adapt, faster than 50% of species can adapt. Summer hi temps will average over 100 degrees throughout the US, for example.

OK. I hear you. I even believe you. But it doesn't matter what I think. It only matters what the median human thinks. And the median human in a democracy will "throw the bums out" if the economy doesn't grow more than 2%/year. So how are we going to limit or reduce CO2 emissions if this would reduce economic growth, or even cause an economic decline? It won't be politically possible. Even if any rational human would agree that limiting emissions is absolutely necessary. In a democracy, the median voter isn't "rational", he or she merely responds to economic stimuli.

So you need to find, promote, and enact solutions that not only cap, and then reduce, emissions. You also need to maintain >2% annual growth. Or else, whichever government proposed and enacted these solutions will get tossed out, and the opposition will open the floodgates to short-term economic growth via relaxed regulations.

It is a tough problem. One humanity might not be able to solve. Whenever have we solved a problem like this before?

here's how he looks in his changing room ;-)

Fri, 11 May 2012 19:34:43 GMT

Hi, Bugger!

The return of Bugger Jamison (Fallout 3)

Fri, 11 May 2012 18:09:38 GMT

It had been over six months since I played Fallout 3, I think. Well, the last time I won an achievement was September 2011.

Taking today off from work, I decided to pick up where I'd left off. Bugger is only level 11, with 40 hours of gameplay, and had only won 10 achievements out of 72 possible.

I didn't even remember his name! Bugger. It turns out I had never given him a last name, so today I named him after his father, James.

I think the main quest in the game involves following the trail left by James, but Bugger hasn't spent a lot of time doing that, instead he's explored on his own, and along the way has become a sort of hero to the good people of the Capitol Wasteland.

I gave him a buzz cut this morning, he'd been wandering around with an unruly bunch of shaggy hair, which he used to think was sexy. But styles have changed ;-) Then he finished a quest involving boosting the Galaxy Radio News signal, to help bring a form of shared reality to more survivors.

His main problem right now seems to be a shortage of ammo. He has more than enough teddy bears, more than can fit on his bed. Also, he's kinda lonely, with no traveling/fighting companions, and not a single nibble of romance. Not even a pet. But he refuses to use Google to assist him in finding one ;-) Well, somebody told him where to find a cache of weapons, maybe there's some ammo there.

After that, his available quests include: continuing to track his father (the trail leads to Vault 112), helping a local shopkeeper to write her Wasteland Survival Guide, tracking a sentient android through the Underground Railroad (perhaps to capture him for a reward), retrieving the Declaration of Independence, marching through the various downloadable content (DLC), or just wandering around. Only 8 quests on the list right now, nothing like the endless explosion of quests in Skyrim.

What's Bugger's motivation these days? He kinda liked being on the Mall and climbing the Washington Monument. So, he's going back there to retrieve the Declaration of Independence. Maybe he can help restore the republic? Fat chance!

again, how does cutting spending create jobs?

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:39:27 GMT

"And so we want to do what the people are telling us to do … cut spending, get our budget under control and create jobs."

What many Republicans were saying today, after Obama spoke in favor of same-sex marriage.

This is not new, they've been saying this for years now, that they will focus on the economy and create jobs by cutting spending.

There are one million fewer government jobs today than there were two years ago. Cutting spending cuts jobs.

the most experienced Libertarian presidential candidate ever

Tue, 08 May 2012 18:01:54 GMT

I hate presidential elections. The Republicans say things that infuriate me. The Democrats move to the center in ways that make me squirm. I feel like flirting with "third-party" candidates but usually feel like they have no practical executive experience and are at best a protest vote that throws the election to the Republicans.

This time is a little different (just a little) in one respect. The Libertarian candidate for president is a two-term governor of New Mexico who was a popular and successful executive: Gary Johnson.

Johnson is running on a platform that sounds great, at first. Legalize gay marriage, legalize marijuana, pro-choice, get rid of the Patriot Act, expand legal immigration, end the foreign wars. Wow!

But from the perspective of the economy, his platform is awful. He would balance the federal budget in one year, by cutting 43% across the board from defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and everything else. Then he would replace all federal income, business, and payroll taxes with the so-called Fair Tax, which is a national sales tax. Instead of taxing income, he'd tax consumption. Which, instead of spreading the wealth, would punish consumer spending.

And then, he'd change the charter of the Federal Reserve to make it more like the European Central Bank -- restricting it to fighting inflation only, not balancing inflation against unemployment. And then he'd end the federal government's current system of guaranteeing mortgage lending via Fannie and Freddie, which is propping up housing prices and thereby saving the rest of the banking system from a Great Depression sort of collapse.

This collection of stupid policies would be a disaster for the economy, especially if they were all implemented overnight, especially at a time when the economy is already overly indebted and unemployment is over 8%.

I really think a president needs to put the economy first. It would be great to also have better social policies and civil liberties. When I look at Obama, Romney, and Johnson, although none of them are great on the economy, Obama is the best of the three. And he's generally left of center on social policies -- at least moving in the right direction on most of them.

Johnson would have a chance at my vote if he had a sensible economic policy. For example, we don't necessarily need to increase federal spending if the Federal Reserve does a better job at monetary policy. You could combine a federal spending freeze (including entitlement reform) with a commitment by the Federal Reserve to implement 6% NGDP growth targeting to ensure a growing economy with enough inflation. Theoretically, you could do away with a lot of federal bailouts and guarantees if you goosed the Federal Reserve's money-printing hard enough -- a growing economy doesn't need bailouts. Then you could use tax reform to lower rates across the board while eliminating loopholes, credits and deductions. The growing economy combined with the spending freeze and tax reform would automatically reduce the deficit.

What I mean to be saying, is that there are libertarian-friendly policies that would be good for economy. But you can't just cut spending by 43% while drastically increasing consumption taxes and crippling the Federal Reserve. This is so fucking reckless and destructive it hurts my head to contemplate. I can't vote for this guy.

fine, let it be Michigan

Sat, 05 May 2012 17:09:40 GMT

If Romney wants to claim Michigan as his home state, OK.

He's an average of 11 points behind Obama in Michigan.

So, my regression equation says he's toast. Obama in a landslide!

home state update

Fri, 04 May 2012 11:53:15 GMT

The Romney team claims his home state is Michigan, not Massachusetts.

Is this how it works, you get to claim your home state, regardless of where you actually live, or ran your political career?

He was born in Michigan, but he does not maintain a home there. He has residences in MA, NH, and CA.

I don't know, Romney threatens to destroy my regression equation because he can even flip flop on which state he claims as his home.

-----

[Update]: I asked Tod which state is Romney's home state. He replied, "Money."

the economy is growing too slowly, sir

Tue, 01 May 2012 20:42:50 GMT

The Gallup tracking poll has Obama at 46%, Romney at 46%. The race is too close to call.

My own proprietary regression model, using recent economic growth as the main input, also puts the race too close to call, with Obama getting 50% of the two-party vote (standard deviation is 1%). The economy is growing too slowly for the country to line up solidly behind Obama. If the election were held today, flip a coin to see who wins.

My model is also predicting Republicans gain 10 seats in the House, due to the slow economy and blaming it on Obama. (The model doesn't predict Senate outcomes, because only 1/3 of the seats are up each election and the states are not similar to each other in population.)

-----

One input for my presidential vote model is whether a candidate wins his home state. If a candidate does not, the model penalizes his national vote by a big chunk -- about 6 points, for a 12-point spread. This variable helps to explain Gore's disappointing vote percentage in 2000 (given the booming economy), and McGovern's in 1972. The idea is that if you can't even carry your own home state, you must be an awful candidate for personal reasons having nothing to do with the national economy. Gore and McGovern were awful.

But I'm not sure which state to use as Romney's home. Typically I'd use the state in which the candidate held political office, so I should use Massachusetts, but Romney only held political office there for four years, and did not run for reelection. Romney is not a career politician with a long-term home base.

Romney would clearly lose Massachusetts if the election were held today. In my model, this "awful candidate" penalty would push Obama to a nearly Reagan-sized victory.

But so far, the national polls do not reflect a 10+ point lead for Obama. Is this because the public-at-large hasn't met Romney so doesn't yet understand how awful a candidate he is? Or because MA isn't really his home state for purposes of testing awfulness? Or because my proxy variable for awfulness is a fluke?

I'm thinking Romney really is an awful candidate, and that the results on election day will support this conclusion, such that the election will not be so close as the polls show now.

But who knows? Can I really predict the future with a spreadsheet?

policies

Tue, 01 May 2012 19:04:13 GMT

It is my policy not to argue with complete strangers on the Internet.

the US hasn't deleveraged at all

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:27:26 GMT

This is a graph showing total US nonfinancial debt, divided by GDP. This shows how leveraged our consumers, businesses, and governments are.

You can see how during Republican administrations -- Reagan, Bush I, Bush II -- the US quickly ramped up its borrowing. During Democratic administrations -- Clinton, Obama --the US stabilized its borrowing.

Democrats are, compared to Republicans, fiscal conservatives.

But neither party has led the country in such a way as to reduce our borrowing. Either we vastly increase it, or we hold it steady.

The borrowing really took off in 1984, because Congress passed a law providing that foreign lenders would not be taxed on the interest paid by Americans. This boom in borrowing led to the first real estate bubble and the Savings and Loan Crisis, and we stabilized our borrowing.

Until 1999, when Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act that had imposed strict regulations on the activities of commercial banks. Borrowing really took off again! This boom led to an even worse bubble and banking crisis.

But we are still highly indebted. And business interests probably can't wait until they can push through some new kind of tax cut or deregulation law to fuel an even bigger bubble that will end even more disastrously.

I don't expect either Obama or Romney to propose realistic ways to fix our overindebtedness. As I've written before, there are no politically realistic fixes. Logically, I'd advise rapidly depreciating the US dollar by 50%, followed by a reimposition of sound taxes and regulations. Like FDR did in 1933. But even FDR didn't run on that platform.

Do I have to take back everything I've written about Peak Oil?

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:57:42 GMT

According to the latest statistical abstracts, and I admit I'm behind the times on this (published June 2011), global oil production hit a new record high in 2010.

So we didn't hit peak oil during the prior decade after all. It just seemed like it for a while.

How will we ever know we've truly hit peak oil if we can hit a temporary peak and then roar back to new global highs a few years later?

This is a problem, if you are trying to predict the future ;-)

-----

Here in the US, it still feels like we hit Peak Oil in 2005, because we are still consuming less oil than we did back then. And energy prices for US consumers are near record highs, at about the 98th percentile for monthly data going back to 1957. Energy prices were only persistently higher than now during May-Sep 2008, right before the global economy crashed. Energy prices this high, if they persist, are consistent with imminent deep recessions, and politicians kicked out of office.

-----

But globally we continue to squeeze more oil out of the ground than before, one way or another. And other forms of energy never peaked globally during the last decade. Natural gas production has consistently risen, as has coal production, hydro production, and other renewables production. If any form of global energy has hit a peak, it is nuclear energy, which peaked (at least temporarily) in 2006, perhaps more due to political constraints than supply constraints -- for example, look at the fuss the world is making over Iran's attempt to build a peaceful nuclear power program. Plus, nuclear accidents are far more spectacular than the creep of carbon-forced global warming.

If the globe is still awash in energy production, what is the problem in the US? Why has our overall energy consumption hit a plateau? It isn't just the US, Europe and Japan also have the same problem -- hitting a plateau in overall energy consumption. Meanwhile, energy consumption in South America, Africa, and non-Japan Asia has continued to grow smartly.

The US, Europe, and Japan have hit some sort of energy ceiling, while the rest of the world is catching up with us, while energy prices remain unusually high.

-----

It may be impossible to answer this question definitively, why advanced economies have hit a ceiling while less advanced economies are generally continuing to develop.

Perhaps there is a limit to how productive a broad group of humans can be, given the fundamental costs of pulling stuff out of the ground, combined with the natural limits of human cognition and social organization. I could call this Peak Human Productivity.

Perhaps as less advanced economies learn how to emulate advanced economies, the resource pie is being shared more equally than before, which keeps the advanced economies from growing.

Perhaps, although energy supplies can keep growing indefinitely, the days of cheap energy are now gone forever, so future growth will require advanced economies to restructure and devote a larger portion of GDP to energy production, which will require faster inflation than these advanced economies are willing to tolerate.

All of the above?

Bill Clinton spoke blithely at the Sustainability Summit

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:57:50 GMT

His theme was that we should lead by example.

I guess the best example of such leadership is holding an expensive sustainability summit in Manhattan.

-----

So, sustainability is impossible to achieve on an individual basis. If you live in the modern world, there is no way to completely avoid products that depend on fossil fuels or mineral extraction. There is no way to lead by example.

The next best thing, I suppose, is practicing an ethics of conservation. But there is a very important economic truth that reduces the effectiveness of individual conservation efforts. This economic truth is something I will call the multidimensional supply and demand curve.

I might try to explain this in more detail in a future post. But assume I've shown you my work. The bottom line is that if Person A decides to conserve a gallon of gasoline by working from home today instead of commuting, this does not reduce total human consumption of gasoline by one gallon. Instead, Person A's decision to not purchase a gallon of gasoline today reduces the price of gasoline by some teeny tiny amount, which produces an incentive to a marginal consumer, Person B, to increase her gasoline consumption. Perhaps by as much as one gallon, depending on various market conditions.

Furthermore, the money that Person A saves by not buying a gallon of gasoline is used in some other way. Person A either spends that money on something else, which required forms of energy to produce it, or Person A saves that money, which is lent to Person C, who spends it on something else, which required forms of energy to produce it.

So, personal conservation efforts, even if intended to lead by example, are ineffective ways to reduce overall energy consumption.

-----

From an economist's view, what would be the best ways to reduce overall energy consumption?

(1) Increasing taxes on energy. Taxes insert dead weight into the supply/demand curve and reduce both supply and demand, which reduces overall energy consumption.

(2) Cap and Trade. Placing a hard limit on the economy's supply of energy will, by necessity, reduce overall energy consumption.

Personal conservation and leading by example do not work. We need taxes, regulation, and law enforcement if we truly want to reduce humanity's ecological footprint.

sustainability summit?

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:03:04 GMT

I really hate the use of the word "sustainability" by businesses and even by environmentalists, because I don't think any of the people who use this word have really thought through what it would mean.

It doesn't mean finding a way to save 10% of your energy costs, or using recycled materials, or funding carbon "offsets".

Sustainability would require that everybody on the planet stop using fossil fuels. Period.

And we'd all have to stop mining materials from the earth. Period. (BTW, this would rule out nuclear fission power.)

And we'd all have to strictly limit hunting and fishing.

And any recycling you are thinking of doing with the materials we've already mined, needs to be fueled with wind, solar, geothermal, or hydro power.

I'm thinking this would reduce global GDP by about 90%, and cause widespread starvation. So it ain't going to happen.

-----

This rant brought to you by my spotting a sustainability summit in NYC this week, that costs $2000 to attend, plus $329/night at the host hotel, plus transportation to and from Manhattan. I guess you can dumpster dive for your meals while you are there. Who would seriously go to a sustainability summit in NYC??? Other than Bill Clinton, of course.

"Be as a wanderer in foreign lands"

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:44:04 GMT

Lifted from a Buddhist blog I follow, from some old poemish advicey bit written centuries ago.

I like this line because it reminds me of how I have felt while traveling in foreign countries: how I explicitly feel, all the time I'm traveling, as though the surroundings do not belong to me, as though my time in these surroundings is not permanent, as though I need not get involved in myriad disputes about how things ought to be. I can merely exist, observe, and interact.

From the point of view of an impermanence practice, I've been a wanderer in foreign lands from the day I was born, and will be until the day I die. This is not "my" country. This is not "my" house. These are not "my" pets or partners. This is not "my" LiveJournal. I'm just visiting here for a while, and so are you. Hi!

fascist zen cushions

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:31:39 GMT

OK, I must be getting more serious, at least in my imagination, about doing meditation, because I'm looking into getting a set of matching cushions, called a Zafu and Zabuton, upon which to sit.

I'm looking on Amazon, reading some of the customer reviews of course. One of them said she bought her nice brick-red cushion set, only to discover that her local zen retreat center required black cushions only. I did a Google on black only zafu and found at least one other instance of somebody saying they wanted attendees to only use black cushions.

This must be the height of zen fascism, to rule that everybody must use the same color cushion! Must we also wear identical uniforms while sitting? Have identical haircuts? Nobody with gang tattoos allowed?

I expect part of the motivation for such fascism must be like part of the motivation for school uniforms, to keep the students from competing with each other over who has the cutest set of cushions. But, come on! Buddhists can be just as totalitarian as any other group of humans.

Besides, for the set I want, Amazon is sold out of black.

i want to write like this in my 80s

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:37:02 GMT

Did you then holding
the phone tongue your own lips finger your naked shoulder as
if you could liquify touch into sound through wires
to lips
or shoulders
lick
down an entire body in familiar mystery

Tonight No Poetry Will Serve

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:32:13 GMT

Adrienne Rich was my favorite living poet, though I don't think I've written about her before in my LJ. I've been more partial to quoting Walt Whitman or Rumi. But AR was an important influence on me during my coming out years, while I was in college, OMG over 20 years ago. When I look back at the poems of hers that I loved, I shudder, they bring life to the surface, and I want to live like that. How could I have left her to drift.

She died this week.

I just bought her latest book of poetry, the Kindle version.

Saw you walking barefoot
taking a long look
at the new moon's eyelid

later spread
sleep-fallen, naked in your dark hair
asleep but not oblivious
of the unslept unsleeping
elsewhere

Tonight I think
no poetry
will serve

Mega Millions!

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:59:00 GMT

I can barely believe I purchased lottery tickets today! Today is one of the very rare cases when a jackpot (Mega Millions) has grown so large ($540 million) that the expected value of a lottery ticket is greater than its price. Of course, this does not mean I'll win anything -- actually, I already did win, when I bought three $1 tickets (one for each of our triad humans) I received $2 back instantly -- it just means that the average expected outcome is greater than the cost. (I reinvested the $2 in new tickets for myself.)

The chance I'll win the jackpot with one of my three tickets is 1:60,000,000.

My chance of dying today (given my age and gender) is 1:250,000.

So, I have a much greater chance of dying today than I have of winning the jackpot.

But, still.

If I win, I'll have to choose between the 26-year annuity payout of about $20 million/year, and the current lump-sum payout of about $350 million.

The annuity is attractive to me for noneconomic reasons. I barely know what I'd do with $20 million right now, much less $350 million. So psychologically it would be easier to take $20 million per year.

But as a rational economic historian, I would advise a person to take the lump sum, because right now taxes and interest rates are both relatively low, compared to historical norms. So go ahead and grab it all, and pay your taxes now.

But as a rational economic historian, what would I advise you to do with all that money? The amount you can't spend right now, you've got to invest it in something. Rationally speaking, the amount of money shouldn't affect how I would invest it. The expected uses for the money should affect how I would invest it.

My expected use for that kind of excess cash would be to provide for me and my family over the long term, so I'd probably put all of it into a balanced portfolio of mutual funds, something like 10% in global money market, 30% in global bond funds, 60% in global stock funds. Then I'd see how much I can spend!

I have no idea whether I'd keep my job. I tend to think I would ... because I like my job anyway.

Whatever, I'm much more likely to die today.