H=R/E

I am now reading a book that just introduced a completely tangential and seemingly inconsequential character, Lewis. What he said, however, has been at the center of much of my thinking the past several days.

By trade, Lewis is a psychologist who dabbles in economic theory. One of these theories seeks to calculate the mathematical formula for Happiness: Reality divided by Expectations.

The few times I've tested it, it makes quite a bit of sense and is accurate, albeit simplistically unrealistic.

For the three days since I read the passage that started this all, however, I've actually had a bit of difficulty finding at the same time absolute numbers for numerators and denominators.

Considering that I lost my cell phone (which skews Reality in that my world became much smaller), started a new job (which skews my ability to accurately gauge Expectations), and had a car die on the connecting ramp from the Toll Road to 635 during morning traffic (which makes equating predictors as to how much I will laugh or smile seem silly and ridiculous compared to predicting how or when I will call my wife and a tow truck, considering the first factor, and how I will get to work the following Monday, considering the second), I simply need more time to test this theory to its fullness.

What I've found, quite simply, is that Happiness has always been found when not over-thinking it, pursuing it, expecting it, or inviting it to stick around (which makes Lewis' theory the corollary to Occam's razor that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity).

Whether that may be artificially increasing Reality while lowering Expectations, I'll leave that for the mathematicians to debate.

I've better things to do and I was never that good at math to begin with.

They're Coming To Take Me Away...

I love conspiracy theories. Even more, I love conspiracy theorists.

They amuse me.

Granted, the world in which we live functions, in large, on the basis of realpolitik. However, not every action is gilded with dual purpose shrouded in secrecy.

The few I have paid attention to lately:

This morning, I watched Texas Monthly Talks, the interview show moderated by Evan Smith. Gore Vidal was the guest. I think Vidal is perhaps one of the finest fiction writers in the world. For sure, he is the finest author of historical fiction. And now I know why - reality is as far-fetched a concept to him as gardening on the surface of Neptune is to me.

To begin, all conspiracies must be rooted with a hint of truthfulness. For example, my theories about the JFK assassination would be invalid were John Fitzgerald still with us today.

Anyway, Gore filibustered for 30 minutes how Bush has not yet been elected to the office of president. He, however, has successfully stolen 2 consecutive presidential elections with the help of the secretaries-of-state of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

That's the what.

Here's the how: The New York Times and Washington Post, two newspapers (in particular but not exclusively) who never endorsed his candidacy, opposed him on almost every major policy initiative, and have thrown journalistic roadblocks as often as possible, co-conspired with Halliburton, Enron, and the royal Saudi family to make sure the Bush Dynasty remained intact.

The why: The two newspapers are more concerned with corporate profits than First Amendment independence. A Republican administration will guarantee a healthy financial return for the two newspaper's shareholders. Apparently, his distant cousin's administration would not.

At a minimum, I am thankful this particular conspiracy underscores the ability of the Republicans to better advance the economy than the Democrats.

Next, can I also deduce that never having been elected to office, Bush is still constitutionally eligible to run for president in 2008?

The next conspiracy theory (as read in an letter to the editor in the Statesman):

Supposedly, Speaker Craddick accurately foresaw losing to Brian McCall in last Tuesday's race for Speaker.

So, he enlisted his lieutenant, Jim Pitts, to enter the Speaker's race, hijack McCall's candidacy and steal his pledges, and then drop out of the race at the last minute, thereby ensuring Craddick retains the gavel.

This one actually made me chuckle out loud.

Here's what turned it into gale laughter: Pitts would not want to risk his chairmanship on such a quixotic pursuit; according to this theory, he didn't even want the speakership.

So, Speaker Craddick and his cluster of corporate cronies (I'm into alliteration today) secretly transferred several hundreds of thousands of dollars (I guess in cash) to Representative Pitts to reward him for his block on McCall.

And you thought there were lots of zeroes in the bribe...

The last one:

Kobe recently changed jersey numbers from 8 to 24. Which, by the way, was my old high school jersey (which, trust me, becomes relevant in a few paragraphs).

According to Kobe, he made the switch to signify the beginning of the second half of his career. As such, he returned to the number that first put him on the path to the NBA.

Instead, the anti-Kobe theorists think the switch was coerced by Laker's marketing executives wanting to sell even more Kobe jerseys to make up for his descended endorsement contracts.

This is actually one I cannot instantaneously dismiss. Basketball players are as every much businessman as they are athletes. While they care about the traditional numbers in the point, rebound, and assist columns, they equally care about the other numbers in the checking, savings, and investment accounts.

However, I also believe that athletes are creatures of superstition and habit. Ask any former high school athlete to recite the number that comes up first in his head: his old jersey number or his wife's birthday.

On the court, the jersey number becomes one's sole identification. As such, it's easy to let a jersey number become your primary off-court identifier. [About once a month, we go to Randy White's BBQ just down the road. The place is replete with Cowboy's paraphernalia - particularly that of Dorsett, Aikman, and White. Most of the pictures contain an illegible scribble. The only legible portion is a "HOF" followed with a number and year of induction.]

That's why I find it hard to believe, but not impossible, that the jersey switch was made with fiduciary self-interest as the motivating factor.

To finish, I just got done watching Syriana again. This is one quasi conspiracy theory I'm ready to purchase since I've already put down a very large down payment.

What's The Melting Point For A Snowball?

The best team should always win; the hottest team, however, often wins. In a contest between the best team and the hottest team in a post-conference match up, I'll often take the hottest team.

Likewise, the current bowl system is supposedly broken due to its merocratic exclusivity; a collegiate football playoff system would presumably loosen those confines and produce a more democratic champion. In a contest between the occasionally controversial #1 and the unpredictability of a playoff system, I'll take my chances with the current BCS model.

It's ridiculously silly to assume the post-season model NCAA basketball employs will produce the best possible result in football. There's a reason it's called March Madness. The image that eternally represents the unpredictable electricity of this one-and-done tournament is Jimmy V running around Albuquerque looking for somebody to hug.

On the other side of the extreme, the College World Series is more methodical and conservative in its Best of 7 approach; the parity in baseball is much closer than in basketball and football and this serves its own interests. Obviously, employing this model in football is in nobody's interest.

The latest idea being run up the flag pole is the Plus One. Many coaches and university presidents may salute, but not enough to innoculate themselves from the innevitable firestorm to come from the coach of the first #5 team under this system.

I like the current BCS system. That being said, it's the worst way collegiate football has chosen to crown a champion, except for all others.

But were I to favor a playoff system, I'd propose a 12 team, 11 game system with the top 4 seeds receiving a first round bye.

My suppositions:

1. There is more parity in college basketball and baseball than in college football. Therefore, there should be fewer tournament games to retain spectator attention and sponsorship participation.

2. Playoff bowl sites will increase regional enthusiasm for the fans, local economic figures for the host cities, recruiting channels for the teams, and overall profits for the conferences.

3. The four elite Bowls (Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, and Orange) should keep their status; Second-tier bowls (Holiday, Cotton, Gator, and Capital One) should be included in the rota.

[By the way, check out the plans for the new Arlington stadium; that thing's gonna be incredible. The way I see it, Dallas had their chance to upgrade the Cotton Bowl and didn't. Innovative cities with innovative legislators are going to find a way to compete.]

It gives the top dozen teams a chance and takes away their argument of not being considered for a championship; with a system like this over the last three seasons, 13.9% of the play-off participants would have come from non-BCS Conferences*. It simultaneously rewards the top four teams for winning throughout their respective seasons (and presumeably winning their conference championship) but still makes them win three games to lift the Sears trophy.

It would also eliminate the six or seven week lay-off from a team's final conference game to their only bowl game.

The winners? Non-BCS conferences, mid-tier bowl cities, fans, Vegas and other independent practitioners, sports commentators, and corporate sponsors.

The losers? Top-tier conferences risking the importance (read, revenue) of a conference championship game and the historical bowl tie-in. Hence, the snowball's chance.

And my wife who would have to tolerate a month-long play-off system instead of the current two week get-em-all-over-with-at-once inundation.



* I included the Independents in the list of non-BCS conferences. Incidentally, Notre Dame could be the factor that pushes me over the side of play-off system; no team with nine consecutive bowl losses should be invited back over and over again to a premier bowl just because they have "Notre Dame" on their jerseys.

My Own Invisible Hand

I've been a bit more observant the past couple of months about the convergence of personal morality and consumerism.

I don't boycott specific companies if I disagree with their management policies or don't share the same corporate public policies. I also can't say that I actively avoid products manufactured in countries whose government or politics I don't agree with. As a consumer, I primarily look at quality of product compared to cost.

For instance, a large national discount store has taken some bad hits because of their management policies. From accusations of price under-cutting to inadequate health-care coverage to anti-union policies to corporate censorship to avoidance of immigration laws, there is something that almost anybody could find objectionable and provide sufficient reason not to spend their dollars there.

Not me. Were I ever to need a item from their store, I'd think little of purchasing it from a sickly illegal alien working through his lunch break. Why? Because it cost less. That's why.

A few years ago, two North Texas pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for birth-control on the grounds their religion places that practice with the same moral standing as murder.

While I don't share that same philosophy, I'm not going to boycott their chain because of their social activism. There's a reason their outlet is labeled a convenience store - because it's convenient.

I can only think of one chain that I will not patron due to their corporate policy.

To set it up, 7-Eleven recently announced its disassociation with a Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company under the puppetry of Hugo Chavez. Profits from this company are funnelled into an state-managed account and expended at Chavez's sole discretion.

In the past year, Chavez has called the U.S. President "the devil", denied the Holocaust, likened modern-day Israel to WWII-era Germany, and "won" re-election in a contest where more votes were cast that eligible voters.

In fact, I can't even say that I take a hard line on those issues alone.

The U.S. is not a neutral bystander when it comes to the backing of foreign leaders; we have certainly instigated more coups than we can ever take credit for.

And while I believe European Jews were designated for extinction based on the overwhelming evidence, others have their intellectual freedom to explore their own beliefs.

And I can name dozens of democratically-elected politicians, many from this state, who won elections through less than democratically-accepted means. I think they're still stuffing Box 13 for ya, Lyndon.

The primary difference is that the illegal alien down at Wal-Mart and the anti-abortion pharmacist down at CVS don't hate America; Chavez does.

He wants to hurt America and Americans. He closely associates with those who want to hurt America and Americans.

Since 7-Eleven's announcement of their disassociation, I've chosen to fill my gas tank at their outlets. Likewise, I've chosen not to fill my gas tank at outlets who have not made similar policies of disassociation.

Realistically, I understand this is a line drawn in the sand that will never appear on any economic flow-chart. My eleven-gallon gas tank certainly doesn't change the tide of Citgo's or Valero's profit margin.

And logistically, I couldn't care less if anybody else boycotts any of the companies I've named for any of the reasons I've mentioned. Your consumerism is your own.

That's the free market. Wouldn't Adam Smith be proud...

Cetirus Paribus, Nothing Is Ever Equal

I typically shy away from political commentary. You don't care to read it any more than I care to write it. However, there have been thoughts in my head the past week that I've been kicking around so this is my chance to get them out.

I read an article that the U.S. Treasury recorded record-high tax receipts on September 15th with $85.8 billion; the record it broke was exactly a year before that when the one-day intake was $71 billion.

Obvious Observation - the government is taking in more and more money. That's a sign of a prosperous economy.

The Obvious Question: (and I don't want to go Gordon Gekko at a Teldar Paper stockholder meeting), but why are our trade deficit and fiscal deficit at nightmare proportions?

But that's not the question I'm asking. Rather, I want to know how that 85.8 got there in the first place.

And if you think you know the answer, you don't because you're wrong. Nobody knows and here's why.

There are at least two competing economic theories simultaneously and hypothetically working against each other. Economic conservatives will tell you that it's because of the Bush Tax Cut, the golden lamb that is a panacean economic driver. Partly, but not by itself. Tax cuts by themselves don't stimulate the economy any more than tax increases do.

That being said, I think the Laffer Curve is perhaps the most brilliant man-made invention. Ever.

However, I'm a Keynesian. And a semi-reformed Supply Sider. Keynesian Economics relies on the tax cuts inherent in Supply Side; it, however, takes off where Supply Side stops. Increased government spending to stimulate the economy works in times of war and national disaster whereas Supply Side doesn't. The deterrent is when private savings are low, which hasn't been a problem lately.

Both systems work, in theory; sometimes even in concert. It's absolutely true: allow the private sector to supply a high-def tv and enough people will demand one. As they first hit the market, prices will be outrageous. After a while, prices will come down. However, we need not rely on high-def tv sales to keep our economy going.Equally true, responsible government spending can do in a week what it would take months for the market economy to do.

I had two great economics professors in college. One was a very hip racquetballer who would frequently set up matches with his students. He's the one who first introduced me to Yes, Prime Minister. He's also the one who taught me that objects have no innate value, only perceived value. He did that by playing two songs: Diamonds Are Forever and This Diamond Ring. In one song, Shirley Bassey sings "Diamonds never lie to me. For when love's gone, they'll luster on." In the other song, Gary Lewis and the Playboys sing "This diamond ring doesn't shine for me anymore; and this diamond ring doesn't mean what it did before."

The other professor came in each morning at 8 a.m. with a lit cigarette, a coffee mug that read: "I spend my money on liquor, cigarettes, and wild women. I blow whatever's left.", and a hung-over expression on his face. After setting his mug on the front table and clearing his throat, he'd start class off with a rhetorical question, always beginning it with "Cetirus paribus..."

I came out of those classes with two important truths:

1. Get the unemployment level too low, and interest rates, cetirus paribus, will skyrocket. Get interest rates too low, however, and prices will skyrocket.

2. There is no sure-fire economic theory that will work in every situation.

But back to our other competing economic system. Economic liberals will tell you that the current economic surge is a fall-over from the previous administration.

And that's why it's dangerous to mix politics and economics.Here's a third truth (my own): Richard Nixon was the last liberal president. He's the one who said "We're all Keynesians now." after taking America off the gold standard. He's the reason the Dow Jones has increased over 10 thousand points in three and a half decades.

And the last one: George Bush is the most liberal president since Richard Nixon. He's also the most conservative president since Ronald Reagan. He's also one of the few true moderates since Eisenhower.

That's about it. Like I said, I didn't have a particular point to make, just wanted to clue you in what I've been thinking about on the drive home for the past several days.

Still not interested in economics? You need to listen to the Money Honey.