05 February 2010

Twitterfication

As Internet culture has grown, we’ve come to romanticize certain kinds of unmediated, old-fashioned “human” interactions. But this fantasy ignores how much of normal social interaction is fleeting, bite-size, instant, tweetlike. Humans have always talked to each other via a kind of analog Twitter. These new technologies just get us there with maximum efficiency. Meeting a new person is thrilling, in a primal way—your attention focuses completely, if only for a nanosecond, to see if the creature in front of you has the power to change your life for better or worse.

Read more: Is ChatRoulette the Future of the Internet or Its Distant Past? -- New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/media/63663/index1.html#ixzz0eicpG7tp
Very insightful. Many people these days complain about how Twitter and Facebook and the likes are making human interaction less...well, "human". I've not really agreed with this idea, and the idea presented above is why. Just because the interaction isn't face-to-face doesn't make it any less "real". Read the article, it's very interesting.

28 January 2010

Yes!!!

Somebody finally dealt a blow to BYU! We knew it would happen. 15 game win streak was pushing it...but I guess when you're playing marginal squads it's easy to rack up 15 in a row. #10!?! Seriously! I've been griping about BYU's position in the polls since they made an appearance. They've beaten nobody big. Nobody worthy. So how they've come to ride the wave to the #10 position is beyond my understanding.

But that's all over now. Thanks to the Lobos. What's that you say? Oh yes, you're correct, UNLV did beat the Lobos....on the road. So by the logic I see displayed in the polls that got BYU to #10, that means UNLV should slide in to the top, say, 20? Heck, how about top 10? Because we beat the team that beat the #10 team, so we must be THE BOMB! Right? Wrong.

BYU never belonged in the top 25. And if they aren't dropped on 2/1/10, we can totally disregard anything the polls have to say about college basketball. I don't know why the polls even bother me, I know that they mean absolutely nothing. I guess it's because so many others think they DO mean something. Have you ever tried to contest the thinking of an idiot? That's what it's like talking college basketball with somebody who thinks the polls mean something.

Anyway, I'm glad they finally got served a loss. Can't wait until 2/6/10 when they roll to the Mack. IT IS ON!

16 January 2010

Pointless Ruminations

Cassie and Steve are getting hitched today. Raul is down in Hawaii to be a part of the wedding party. I was supposed to be there, but things didn't work out with the money situation and getting the time off work. Hope they're having a great time.

Waldo and I are stuck in Vegas, but it's not so terrible because the Rebels play today at 7pm, and we will be present. A quick bite at In-N-Out, then pre-gaming in the infamous Black 3 until tip-off. Jesse, nota bene. At last Wednesday's game I was surprised with a delicious rum slush (double of course) from Eduardo when he returned from a trip to the restroom. It was exquisitely timed...either just before the end of the 1st or just after the start of the 2nd, but precisely when the buzz was starting to fade. Along with the Rebels excellent performance in the 2nd half, this kept our spirits high until it was time for the traditional post game tailgate while waiting for traffic to clear out. It was a fine evening, you would have enjoyed it.

Well, 3:30pm is the time, In-N-Out is the place, so I must go now. Adieu.

12 January 2010

"Jersey Shore" Analysis

A funny article in The New Yorker about MTV's "Jersey Shore".

03 January 2010

Move Your Money

01 January 2010

Hello 2010

Welcome to the new year.

A little upset right now. My paycheck was supposed to direct deposit to my account Thursday night, just like it always does, but it didn't. What's up man? Seriously? This is not a good sign for the start of the year. Why can't things just work?

30 December 2009

The saddest thing I read today

Of course, plenty of taxpayers themselves are eager to live to see the new year. One wealthy, terminally ill real-estate entrepreneur has told his doctors he is determined to live until the law changes.

"Whenever he wakes up," says his lawyer, "He says: 'What day is it? Is it Jan. 1 yet?'"
That's from an article today in The Wall Street Journal. The estate tax for the super-wealthy is going to be non-existent in 2010, and it's really framing peoples decisions about health.
What's most depressing about the man in the quote above is that it seems his only remaining desire/purpose to live is to beat the tax. How awful.

27 December 2009

Eagles vs Broncos

The Eagles squeaked out a win today against the Broncos. Just a few things to touch on.

What the heck is happening in the 2nd half? The offense falls apart and the defense gets lackadaisical. We almost gave the game away as a result. They're acting like the Runnin' Rebels, and it's frustrating me.

Positive notes: McNabb's 27 yard rush to get a crucial 1st down! That was awesome. Hope he didn't hurt his left hamstring...he did grab it a bit at the end of the run. Oh, and let's not forget that insane catch by Jeremy Maclin! So glad they reviewed that and made sure to get the call right, because that would have been a shame if it was left ruled as incomplete, not to mention that the game probably would have went into overtime had the ruling not been corrected.

Overall I think we look pretty solid. Definitely need to get and keep the rhythm after the half though. Leaving them that close could mean a short lived run in the Playoffs.

25 December 2009

Rebels lose their second

Don't fret, the Runnin' Rebels are now 12-2 after a tough loss to USC in the Diamondhead Classic final on Christmas night, but it's going to be okay. There are a couple of things I want to address though.

First: why are we shooting so many 3-pointers if we aren't draining them? 5 for 22 tonight, that's under 25% folks. Really? QUIT SHOOTING 3's! That's a guaranteed turnover when we don't get the offensive board. Giving the ball away when the offense isn't doing squat is not going to help you win the game.

Second: 17 for 50 on FG's. That is 34%. Not an impressive offensive performance from the team tonight. Rather dismal I'd say. The ball just wasn't going down tonight. 17 for 19 on free throws though, so looking good when we get to the charity line.

In praise of the Rebels, I will say OUTSTANDING DEFENSE! Did you see that full-court pressure? Wow. I have come to expect no less from the Rebels, they play tough, hard D all game long. I'm surprised we only lost by 11 considering how poorly we were shooting. But when you look for a reason as to why it was not a complete blow-out, the defensive play is what you find. Keep it up Rebels!

So, we chalk up a loss. Shrug it off, get home, get rested, and get ready to blast BYU in Provo on January 6th.

GO REBELS!

Well, hello!

So it's been a while since I've posted. A long while. More than one person has mentioned to me how I'm not posting anymore. So, as I sit on the couch watching movies on this lovely Christmas day, I think of these remarks and think it's time to make a post.

Christmas has been great so far, a bit hungover today, but when you start drinking egg nog at noon hangovers are no longer an issue. Got some cool stuff for Christmas. A very nice Eagles sweatshirt, and a bitchin' Eagles backpack. I now have a backpack with working zippers, so no more stuff falling out. Got some cool Nautica sweaters, some sweet new running/exercise shoes, and some new books that look pretty enticing. I usually only watch Glenn Beck to find someone to disagree with, or to laugh, but I got his new book "Common Sense" (inspired by Thomas Paine no less) and am actually looking forward to reading it. I also received a book by Paulo Coelho by the name of "The Alchemist" which looks very good. And last but not least, a book about drinking. It's called "McCarthy's Bar" by Pete McCarthy. Looking forward to that one. I read a book by J.R. Moehringer called "The Tender Bar" (good book, read it) and I imagine this is similar.

So now I sit drinking egg nog and watching Christmas-themed movies. I just finished reading some posts on Marginal Revolution and am now inspired to blog again.

I also just finished an intense "argument" with my Dad about the following: free market economies-politics-racism-standards of living-cultural analogies. He didn't listen to one thing I had to say, and is still thoroughly engrossed in his own beliefs. I will try not to argue with him in the future, as it is a futile exercise. Trying to change old men's opinions is as impossible as moving a mountain. Don't even try.

For now, adieu. Talk to you shortly.

07 July 2009

My s%it is bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s

I brought a banana with me to work today for a mid-morning snack. As I sat eating it just a bit ago, I wondered why the damn things are so inexpensive. A quick Google search led me to a slew of information on bananas. This article from the New York Times gives a breakdown. Bananas are cheap because:

1. The corporations that grow and distribute built a solid infrastructure;
2. The workers are treated like crap;
3. And they only grow one variety, the Cavendish, which allows growers to reap the benefits of economies of scale.

A Freakonomics blog post pointed me to this page, which has a bunch of interesting banana info. Did you know India is the largest world producer of bananas? I was shocked. I thought bananas only grew in tropical climates. And did you know that there is enough energy in two bananas to sustain you through strenuous 90-minute workout? I'll definitely be eating more bananas before my Ultimate matches from now on.

03 May 2009

I'm crushed

Why are people such idiots?

26 April 2009

Considering deleting Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace

Because this post has reified my thoughts about why I'm using these services.

24 April 2009

Awesome!

You don't even have to panhandle anymore!

07 April 2009

$4 Trillion - Seriously? This is getting funny...in a sick sort of way

The International Monetary Fund is now said to be projecting $4 trillion in losses on bad assets. Via Calculated Risk.

PPIP, Geithner, and the Great Bail-Out

Why are people so surprised about the PPIP (for those not in the know, this stands for public-private investment program) that Geithner is proposing?

Here is a good article. But it's a little off. Jeff Sachs postulates it will turn into a profit scam that the banks can "game".

Of course it's a scam. We knew that the day the plan was announced. Anytime you get to sell something worth nothing for near face-value it's a scam. The investors get to borrow 85% of the purchase price from the FDIC, Treasury kicks in half of the remaining 15% needed and the investor puts in the rest, a whopping 7.5%.

But it's not a profit scam....it's a loss-reduction scam, er uh, "program".

We will use Jeff Sachs' example from the article cited above. Citi forms a little PPIP, bids the face value, $1 million, on an asset that Citi owns, and only has to put in $75,000. The PPIP defaults on the federally guaranteed FDIC loan and Citi is sitting pretty with $925,000 profit.

The problem is, it really isn't profit. If Citi had originally paid any more than $925,000 for the security that gets sold to the PPIP then they are net zero. They just recouped any potential loss of the security really turns out to be worthless. Profits would only materialize if the PPIP is buying the security for more than what Citi originally paid for it (which is possible and likely to happen if these auctions aren't held in check...but why would they be held in check? the point of this plan is that the federal government doesn't know how to value the assets, so they're going to let the "experts" figure out the value and then bid that value with taxpayer dollars. Adverse selection anyone?).

The whole PPIP program is really just an indirect bail-out. The government is buying assets for more than what they're worth. Period. End of story. The Geithner plan is merely creating the illusion of price discovery through market transactions. People aren't cool with the government just writing a check to the banks. To circumvent public scorn and discipline they have to make it look like an "investment program". But really, we're just giving the banks money for assets with unknown and likely inflated values.

Don't get irate. If the plan goes through and this actually happens then we will have achieved what we wanted to: saving the banks. Nobody wanted to let them fail. Well, that's fine and dandy, but if you don't want them to fail then this is the only option--reimbursing them the lost value of bad assets. There's now way around it. So don't think Geithner is pulling the wool over our eyes. He's doing what he's been charged to do, and just making it seem less like what it actually is.

UPDATE - APRIL 7, 2009 - 7:00PM:
Via Calculated Risk.

The FDIC thinks there will be no losses on the loans it insures to investors participating in the PPIP. Seriously. This is no joke.

So my question is, if the FDIC is so confident that there will be zero losses on loans made to purchase assets of questionable value, then why do the loans need to be guaranteed? There's obviously no risk in purchasing these assets if the investors who choose to buy them are able to make the loan payments. So if they're so safe, how come nobody wants them?

Oh, and the FDIC has some stipulations on the loans it insures. It says it will carefully vet each loan and require borrower's to pay loan fees and post collateral. No risk loans, but they are to be collateralized and vetted carefully? Something smells fishy.

Aside from that, who the hell is going to post collateral that actually has value for a loan to make a gamble on some obscure and mysterious asset of unknown value? Some investors might be pretty risk tolerant, but this ain't the craps table on the strip--these are businessmen looking for a handout. They're not going to post good collateral. The point of PPIP is to encourage investors to buy these "toxic assets" (I hate that term) by minimizing the risk of loss, ie giving you 92.5% of the money, no strings attached, to purchase them, with no recourse and no collateral needed. The strings are going to discourage anybody from borrowing to buy the damn things, leaving us in the same situation that we are in now.

Our Greatest Legacy

"We are all culpable for this mess. Almost all of us have been acting irresponsibly and self-indulgently, in varying degrees, for a long time."


I like his analogy comparing drugs to debt. Many of us were indeed getting high on consumption. Now the withdrawal comes, and withdrawal, for those of you who have never experienced it, is very tough. One of the things that sucks the most about this mess is the huge negative externalities. For those who didn't choose to play, this calamity will extol its wrath on them just as equally as those who borrowed irresponsibly and percipitated the whole debacle. Is your employment situation as stable as it was a few years ago? In addition to the short term consequences that will be born by all, we will all also deal with much longer term consequences like the GARGANTUAN national debt. For teens and twenty-somethings our lives will never be what they once could have been. Most of us will remain in the lower or middle class, but instead of paying a 15% to 20% tax on our moderate incomes, we will likely be paying taxes somewhere in the 30% to 40% range in order to payoff this massive debt incurred to bail-out banks, financial institutions, auto companies, and home-owners. The array of opportunities once available to us are no longer possibilities. Our future budget constraints just shifted left, big time. We now have the honor of paying for the previous generations' excesses. A legacy of rapacious appetite for ever more.

02 April 2009

It's social science!

“Look, economics is not rocket science.  Think of the US Government as like McDonalds, a bank and a toxic asset are just like a franchisee and a Big Mac.  Once you see it that way, its simple.”

An interesting sentence from Steven Levitt.  It can be seen in context here.

01 April 2009

Rockefeller-Snowe Measure Proposes Government Regulation of Private Cyber Security

The idea is that private networks, which control the country's infrastructre systems for things like water and electricity, are vulnerable to malicious attacks from foreigners, and therefore are a national security concern.  The measure suggests a central government agency to establish security standards and regulations for both private and military networks in order to safeguard against possible cyber-attacks.  The full story is here.

I understand the need for securing these types of networks, but one of the may costs of allowing the government to control private network security is the privacy issue, which is brought up in the last paragraph of the article.

Blair acknowledged there will be privacy concerns about centralizing cybersecurity, and he said the program should be designed in a way that gives Americans confidence that it is "not being used to gather private information."

I don't like it.  It's another encroachment on private property and privacy for the "national security."  Besides, don't the entity's that own and operate these networks have incentive to protect their investment?  Why would the government be any better at developing cyber-security than the private sector?

Union Owned Companies - Corporate Suicide?

From the Washington Post this morning:

Under the government's proposed reorganization for General Motors, the union health plan and the company's bondholders would give up much or most of those claims in exchange for an equity stake in the reformed GM.

This is interesting.  What would be the implications of a union having a massive ownership stake in the very company that its members are employed by?  Hoepfully they'd gain control of the board, modify operations in a way that we might think a union would, and end up killing the zombie on their own.  The government doesn't seem to want to kill it; they're content with pouring billions of dollars into it.