Time.com's Premature Criticism On the Heels of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo Crash

As much as I tend to dislike many of the more recent popular slang expressions, "Haters Gonna Hate" does have a certain simple appeal in how it sums up the motives of some critics.  It was this expression that instantly came to mind when I read the following article "Enough With Amateur-Hour Space Flight" at time.com.  Before I get too far into this, I think it's worth mentioning that I do have an engineering degree (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from University of Arizona) and have worked a number of years as a systems engineer on a space-based DoD (Department of Defense) project, so I do have some understanding of the underlying subject matter.  Anyway, moving on to the article:

---------------
"It’s difficult not to feel sympathy for the hard-working people of Virgin Galactic—Sir Richard Branson’s private space tourism company—after the loss of their SpaceShipTwo vehicle in a crash in the Mojave Desert at a little after 10 a.m. PDT Friday. And it’s completely impossible not to hurt for the families of the two pilots involved in the accident—one of whom was killed and the other of whom suffered serious injuries, according to local police.

But it’s hard too not to be angry, even disgusted, with Branson himself. He is, as today’s tragedy shows, a man driven by too much hubris, too much hucksterism and too little knowledge of the head-crackingly complex business of engineering. For the 21st century billionaire, space travel is what buying a professional sports team was for the rich boys of an earlier era: the biggest, coolest, most impressive toy imaginable. Amazon.com zillionaire Jeff Bezos has his own spacecraft company—because what can better qualify a man to build machines able to travel to space than selling books, TVs and lawn furniture online? Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, has a space operation too because, well, spacecraft have computers and that’s sort of the same thing, right?

Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines, is at least in the business of flying aircraft, but the key part of that compound word is air. Space, as Branson surely knows, has none of that—and that changes the physics considerably."
---------------

Ok, my biggest problem with the article is that the author, Jeffrey Kluger, throws out these assertions "too much hubris... hucksterism... too little knowledge" but cites no examples or proof of such.  The only thing he bases this on is the crash itself, which we do not know even close to the full story yet.  Yet here is this guy demonizing Branson and Virgin Galactic the very same day as the crash.  Can you say "premature"?  (Or perhaps more accurately, "axe to grind"?)

Furthermore, he's equating Branson's business experience in running Virgin Airlines with the actual engineering decisions made with SpaceShipTwo.  Now I don't doubt that Branson has some input on the direction of the project, but is he really directly involved in the serious engineering and design decisions that may have led to this accident?  At most, he MIGHT be responsible for influencing the timeline of the test flights as part of any high-level management of the project on his part, but unless he's been ignoring the safety advice of his engineers in pushing the timeline (which there's no evidence for, at least yet) it is still jumping the gun to go on blaming him.  One should at least wait for some preliminary investigation to be done before shooting one's mouth off with such allegations.  And one more thing... the initial design and the concept originated with Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites, whose prior expertise and experience, before winning the X-prize, was primarily with aircraft design.  Does that mean the "amateur" Rutan should have stayed home and played with his aircraft and left the X-Prize competition to the big boys?


The author continues:
---------------
"Once NASA announced that after the shuttle program ended in 2011 it would be outsourcing the low Earth orbit portion of its portfolio to the private sector, it was inevitable that there would be a scramble of companies vying for those contracts—and that’s by no means all bad. In some respects, space has always been privatized: North American Aviation, Grumman Aerospace, Boeing and others have all been major NASA contractors, and they are hardly government-owned operations."
---------------

What a crock!  I've worked for two such contractors (again, in a DoD capacity), and let me tell you most of these contractors and the government are joined at the hip more than most people imagine.  Northrop Grumman was, last I checked, 90% dependent on government contracts, and even moved its headquarters to the Washington DC area in recent years in large part to better position itself for further contracts (a smart move for them... not necessarily good for the taxpayer or keeping government spending down, but as a business decision it makes sense).  Boeing is probably the one large aerospace/defense contractor that is least dependent on government contracts, but even they had $20 billion in sales coming from government contracts, nearly a quarter of their total revenue.  They may not be government-owned operations in the strictest sense, but when anywhere between 25-90% of one's business is government contracting it is foolish to think they are independent operators.  In reality they are tied intimately with government as well as to each other, so it's not really quite the free market arena that the author implies.  It's only recently that companies like SpaceX, and Virgin Galactic to a lesser extent, have started to shake things up.

I point this out because the author highlights these companies as examples of private space operations, when in fact they are so tied to government (politically and financially) that most could not function without it. They have become a cartel of sorts, and one big reason space launches and operations are still so expensive is in part because they discourage true competition from the outside (cost-plus contracts also play a huge part in it, but that's an argument for a later time).  While I don't have much of an opinion of Richard Branson one way or another, I do appreciate that his company is operating outside the old paradigm and pushing the envelope.  If we left it to these big contractors the author seems to think are better alternatives, space technologies and exploration would continue to stagnate.


More from the article... 
---------------
"All, however, are deeply experienced in the business of aeronautical and astronautical design, too. Elon Musk, founder of the upstart SpaceX is, so far, defying doubters, with a string of both commercial launches and resupply missions to the ISS and no major disasters. But SpaceX is a rare bird—and still a young one—and it has a while to go before it establishes its true space cred.

It’s Branson, however, who has always been the most troubling of the cosmic cowboys—selling not just himself on his fever dreams but his trusting customers. One of those would-be astronauts I met in the Mojave that day was a teenage girl, whose parents had put aside enough money to buy her the singular experience of a trip to space. They beamed at her courage as we spoke, and seemed thrilled about the ride she was soon to take. Those plans, presumably, are being rethought now."
---------------

Again, more trash-talking of Branson without any examples to back it up.  Also interesting to see the back-handed compliment towards SpaceX, which by the way is only two years older than Virgin Galactic.  Anyway, let's assume for a moment that Branson is the arrogant egotist that the author suggests.... how exactly is that supposed to have contributed to the disaster?  Is it that the author thinks that arrogant egotists are incapable of running wildly successful businesses and endeavors (*cough* Apple! *cough*)?  Seeing as the author doesn't highlight one or more specific decisions that could have played a part in the crash, we are left to assume that his problem with Branson and Virgin Galactic is simply in daring to try something new and challenging.  

And that is where "haters gonna hate" comes into the picture.  Some people don't like it when others try something new or dream big or draw outside the lines, and they will want to tear you down no matter what decisions you make or how you conduct yourself.  Some may do it because seeing someone take a risk to dream big highlights their own insecurities and their failure to chase their own dreams, whereas others may do it to get some attention or even to pursue some grudge.  Ultimately the important thing is to ignore these people, because not only is their criticism the unhelpful kind, but they will never be happy until you stop trying and give up.  Most of them are unhappy, full of regrets, and have resigned themselves to living less than a full life, and their only fleeting moments of joy are in spreading their misery to others and keeping others from achieving more than themselves.

So I say to Richard Branson, find what mistakes were made and have your people keep trying until you succeed.  Continue to push the envelope.  It is an inherently risky endeavor, and accidents can and will happen to the best of them no matter how many precautions and safety measures are in place.  You can only minimize risk, not eliminate it altogether.  Even NASA and the big aerospace companies like Boeing that the author seems to think are the end-all-be-all of the space industry have had their share of recent accidents, and that is despite their incredibly deep pockets and/or extensive engineering resources at their disposal.  And lastly, by all means don't place too much stock in criticism on engineering or space operations and design from a guy whose education and background is in political science and law.  Until I see solid evidence that proves critical, avoidable mistakes were made, I'm more inclined to back a proven entrepreneur and business owner, no matter how flamboyant or egotistical he might be, than a lawyer working in the mainstream media making unsubstantiated claims of recklessness.

More on “Basic Laws of Human Stupidity” - Part III: The 'Stupid' Group

Having just endured an election season, I figure it’s a perfect time to pick back up the topic of Carlo M. Cippola’s essay “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity” from last month.  This time I’ll focus on the mindless chowderheads that comprise the ‘stupid’ group.

Quickly, let’s review Cipolla’s definition of ‘stupid’ and the group’s qualities:

• A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) — or even with some resultant self-damage.

Now realistically speaking, everyone is capable of stupid actions as defined here.  However, the difference between most of us and a truly ‘stupid’ person is that for them it’s more a regular state of being rather than the exception.  I would argue that this is a category that is actually pretty modest in size, and that a good chunk of the people that we see as ‘stupid’ in our day-to-day lives are actually those in the ‘helpless’ and ‘bandit’ categories that lean towards the borderline of the ‘stupid’ category.  They may do stupid things more often than average, yet the overall proportion of the stupid behaviors & actions is still less than other behaviors & actions from the other 3 categories.  Such people may be frustrating, but aren’t quite the walking disasters that the ‘stupid’ individuals represent.  Those squarely in the ‘stupid’ category, however, stand out and are hard not to notice.  They are the people whose very presence tends to create difficulty for anyone they’re around.  How about some examples?

• That person at work who makes constant mistakes and messes everywhere he/she goes yet manages to keep their job because of excessively restrictive firing requirement policies (common in gov’t), nepotism or social connections, a manager’s misplaced sense of obligation, or simply because the manager is too chickens*** to do what’s best for the workplace.  Quite often the person in question tends to be put in places or assigned projects where they can “do the least amount of damage”.  Perversely enough, sometimes that happens to be some type of management position, often one that’s technically supervisory in nature but in reality just requires a pulse.  Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss would be one such example… as would a disturbingly high number of managers in government employment that I’ve had the misfortune to have to deal with.
• The horrible driver who talks on the phone at all times while driving, never paying full attention to the road yet sloppily weaving through traffic like a drunken Nascar driver.  And yet has the nerve to wonder why they are so ‘unlucky’ in how many accidents that ‘happen’ to them and why their auto insurance rates are so high.
• The lecherous dumb-ass who had three kids with three different women by age 23 (he having ran out on the first two women), and managed to get fired at his job for sexual harassment by hitting on yet another woman at work after only a few months at the job.  He even talks about the first two women and kids he ditched like it was some weird badge of honor.  This is a real-life example from my time at one of my several McJobs in my teen years during the 1990’s… and amusingly enough, he was actually an assistant manager at this particular fast food joint.  To this day I still can’t help but have a slightly negative perception of Lynyrd Skynyrd superfans because of this particular superfan example.  In fact, if you picture a skinny version of ‘Clevon’ from the beginning of Idiocracy, that image would fit this guy to a ‘T’.
• The stoner that decided he wanted a convertible, so he sloppily cut the roof off of his car.  In the fall season.  In ALASKA.  A few months later you see him and the unfortunate friends of his freezing his ass off in the car with some plastic sheeting strapped and lashed to the door and windshield frames.  Yet another real-life example I remember from my late teens (Ok so this last one was based on one spectacularly dumb act that I knew of, but that along with some of the things he said made it clear such lack of sense was a regular thing)

As much as I tried to, I couldn’t think of any clear-cut examples of politicians in the ‘stupid’ category.  While many if not most of them had caused damage to a great many people through their actions and decisions, most still manage to consistently come out ahead themselves.  Therefore they fall more in the ‘bandit’ group, though I’d argue closer to the ‘stupid’ end than the ‘intelligent’ end given the magnitude of the damage.  Even George W. Bush couldn’t technically be considered ‘stupid’ under this definition, since he’s managed to come out ahead personally even if most of us suffered under his term.  And I suspect that he and Obama the other presidents of the past couple decades (at least) have largely been acting on the advice of special interests and connected insiders, and being an opportunistic shill for personal gain is more of a ‘bandit’ behavior than ‘stupid’.  

In my opinion, perhaps the best example of a political leader that comes close to ‘stupid’ would be Adolf Hitler.  While early on I suppose he (mostly) played a shrewd game, later on it’s easy to see how he consistently and regularly caused avoidable damage to himself and others.  And while he may have been charismatic and skilled at manipulation and politics, the Second Law of Human Stupidity does state: “The probability of a person being stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.”  So being good at some things still wouldn’t exempt him from being stupid.  And if you think about it, most people that had extensive dealings with him got burned one way or another (Stalin, Mussolini, Tiso, as well as various leaders & participants in the Nazi movement that were perceived as ‘potential’ threats), which lines up well with the Fourth Law of Human Stupidity: “Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid people… they constantly forget that at any moment, and in any circumstance, associating with stupid people invariably constitutes an expensive mistake.”  And I think the best justification for lumping him in the ‘stupid’ category would be the Fifth Law: “A stupid person is the most dangerous person in existence.”  It’s hard to find anyone else that better fits that statement.

So what is the essential quality or qualities that makes these people ‘stupid’ and do the things they do?  What is the common connection between them?  My best guess is that it boils down to this: an insufficient amount of self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-control.  

• Self-awareness is critical in understanding how one arrives at one’s decisions, why we do the things we do, and in making honest appraisals of our abilities and limitations.  A lack of self-awareness leads to making similar mistakes over and over, not taking time to determine what our goals are or what they should be, or overestimating our abilities to the extent it gets us into trouble (like the person who thinks they’re such an awesome driver they can yak on the phone and put on make-up while driving in the fast lane).  
•  Self-reflection is tied to self-awareness, though it is more about the act and willingness to deliberately examine the nature, purpose, and motives of themselves and humanity in general.  As the act of self-reflection tends to build self-awareness, refusing to engage in any self-reflection contributes to a continued lack of self-awareness.  
• Self-control is necessary in being able to manage one’s impulses and desires in order to achieve a positive outcome or avoid a negative outcome.  A lack of self-control tends to lead one into destructive behaviors and making avoidable, costly mistakes (like say cutting off the roof of one’s car on a whim, or refusing to engage in safe sex after knocking up and running out on two different women).

So that is my hypothesis, and if you think you can add to it or come up with a better one, go ahead and chime in!  And if you have any (preferably humorous) examples of stupidity as defined here, send them to me and I will post them (suitable-for-work versions please….)

Link of the Week

Just because it is so timely considering the subject and tenor of my last post, this link of the week is about another disaffected citizen’s opinion on why he despises the current state of American elections and voting.  Nice to see more people thinking for themselves and breaking away from the herd.

----------------------------------

The Ritual of Voting

by the Dissident Dad

“This year, my wife and I will – for the second time in our adult lives – not vote. Previously, I would have seen this stance as many people do: as an irresponsible act. The ritual of voting is very much like taking communion in church for half of this country.

As a father, I want to raise responsible adults, which is why my wife and I will not be heading to the polls this election.

I want to always help my children understand that they are sovereign men and women, and have no obligation to any government.

When it comes to voting, my wife and I are personally opting out of the system. There are a lot of reasons for us not to vote, but at the core it comes down to not wanting to enforce our will on others. I’m fine with making our voices heard, but when the vote has a direct impact on how much money is stolen from another family, I want nothing to do with it.

Both Democrats and Republicans support militarism, taxation, spying on us, inflation, redistribution of wealth, Keynesian economics and corporatism once they get in office.

My children need not to identify with this group of sociopaths, so to vote would be a bad example for them. Plus, as my friend Doug Casey has noted, voting just encourages them – the politicians, that is. Whether you’re voting for or against someone, winning an election gives the politician a sense of a mandate that they are obligated to create new rules, taxes and redistribution of wealth schemes to satisfy their voting bloc. That somehow they are in the right, because no matter how sick their political philosophy is, the majority has demanded they implement it into the minority’s lives.”

You can read the full article here.

In Our Broken System, Voting Has Largely Devolved Into a Means of Distracting the Masses

“If exercising the right to vote were truly effective, the government would not be so eager to promote it.”  ― Andrew P. Napolitano, Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History

The above quote says it all in my opinion, and it’s something I always try to keep in mind during these times of year when we’re inundated with all this crap from candidates and all their various sponsors and interest groups.  Doing so helps put all the ads into proper perspective; they are less about informing or convincing voters on issues and candidates and more about getting people distracted and wasting their energy and focus on what is devolved into a lame sort of popularity contest and third-rate form of entertainment.  

During this period of time where I’ve been temporarily working in Colorado, I have been subjected to the nastiest, emotionally-charged political drivel I’ve experienced to date in any election year thus far.  Seeing as my work here is temporary and I retain my permanent residency and voting registration in Alaska, I have no stake in the elections and initiatives here in Colorado.  In a way this is nice since I’m able to observe the situation in Colorado without being emotionally invested in it, and at the same time being outside of Alaska I’m not exposed to the constant political advertising going on over there.  It really helps expose the political circus for what it really is… distraction… and allows one to see how hollow the exercise has become.  But if someone out there really thinks they can make a difference by voting I will respect that decision even if I don’t believe it myself.  I just hope they’re operating from a place of logic and making efforts to not get emotionally twisted up by the non-stop ads and propaganda.  I’ve seen some of the smartest people I know get wrapped up in the emotionally-charged rhetoric and talking points that rears its ugly head every election season.  Being smart doesn't make one immune to manipulation.

Now while I don’t believe voting at this point is sufficient on its own to bring about the massive systemic changes necessary for the good of the nation, I think there can be times where certain small positive outcomes can be brought about by voting.  In that spirit I did request and fill out a mail-in ballot, but I did so without any expectation that my vote will help bring about any serious change, and at best there's only the possibility of making a small positive difference.  In fact the only reasons I bothered at all were 1) the mail-in ballot is convenient and takes relatively little time, and 2) there are a few ballot initiatives that may make small differences on the local level.  I could care less about the candidates, even the local ones this time around, as I know all of the candidates with any realistic chances of winning this time around are all ‘lesser of two evils’ decisions.  Some of them might be good people personally, but they either are or ultimately will be fully co-opted into the corrupt political system and in the end will work towards keeping it in power.  It's not the people themselves that start out as bad (well at least SOME of them), it's the system that molds and shapes them over time into the tools and douchebags that they ultimately become.  

So whatever choice you make if you vote, make sure it's a choice you REALLY want as opposed to voting for one guy just because some people are saying "the other guy must not be allowed to win!" or "you're throwing your vote away by voting 3rd party or independent or write-in!".  Settling is what got us to this stage in the first place, and the same attitude that got us into the mess we're in won't get us out.  Vote your conscience and make your own decisions.  For me personally, one nice thing about Alaska is there are a fair variety of 3^rd party and independent candidates available that are useful as a protest vote against the two-party system if nothing else.  And of course as I mentioned some weeks back, there’s always the write-in box too….  ;-)

(From the last election...)

Georgians Vote for 'My Neighbors Cat' and 'Burning Bag of Dogs**t' over Anti-Science Congressman

(FYI, just behind “Burning Bag of Dog S**t”, my favorite write-ins were “The Great Pumpkin” and “Lurr, Ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8”)

Has the American Dream Moved Offshore?

"To me, the American Dream is being able to follow your own personal calling. To be able to do what you want to do is incredible freedom."   - Maya Lin

For a while now many financial experts, analysts, and commentators have been fawning over China, building and repeating the meme that it will be the new world financial superpower.  I personally don't buy it and expect that while China will be one of several major, significant powers in a multi-polar world, it isn't likely to dominate the way the US had since the fall of the Soviet Union.  However one trend I AM fairly certain of is that people in much of Asia will experience rising prosperity over the next couple decades whereas much of the populations of the Western powers such as Europe and the US will generally experience decreasing prosperity.

Interesting to see that I'm not the only one.... below is an excerpt from a recent Zerohedge article (click the title for the full link)

-------------------------------------

The Gaping Difference Between Asia And America In One Depressing Chart

"Nowhere is The American Dream more prevalent than... In Asia?"

-------------------------------------

Now this is not to say that the US 'economy' as it's currently measured will necessarily turn into a nightmare (I suspect it will suffer some but not so much as Europe and Japan), only that the prosperity of the average citizen will suffer.  Some might think that doesn't make sense, but I would point out that in the past 5 years of Quantitative Easing the US economy has improved by many measures yet it has been primarily the wealthier echelons of society that have seen their fortunes improve.  Money printing benefits those closest to the printing press (banks, large financial institutions, and the wealthiest 0.1%), whereas the rest either get no benefit or get robbed through increased inflation.  So if we carry this trend forward, it's easy to imagine how the country's economy can stay afloat for many years while at the same time the majority of citizens experience a large decline in prosperity.  Ultimately it is that impoverishment of the majority that most of us are interested in, and it appears that most people are not fully buying what the politicians, mainstream media, and the stock market is telling us.

As for Asia, many of the nations there are starting from such a basic level of economic activity and complexity that economic growth is almost a given considering all the available technologies, business ideas, and services that have yet to be fully introduced.  I've been able to see this first hand in Mongolia where I've spent a great deal of time in recent years.  While there is still a fair amount of poverty and social issues in Mongolia, I find it's telling that the political and social disputes are not on whether the economy is failing or how to turn it around, but rather are largely centered on how best to manage the growing economy and keeping corrupt politicians from stealing too much of the wealth.  Most people I've talked to there do have a general optimism that they and their children and grandchildren will generally prosper, and their primary concerns are political selfishness & idiocy driving away outside investment and the corruption & theft in some areas of government that threaten to direct too much of the economic gains away from the growing middle class.  Even in China where much of the economic gains have already been reaped and economic growth is slowing, the people I've talked to are (perhaps cautiously?) optimistic that they will be more prosperous in the future.  Contrast that with the US and much of Europe, where a lot of people are focused on merely keeping hold of what little they have in the face of declining prospects while at the same time various local, state, and federal governments pick their pockets via higher taxes and increasingly absurd fees and fines. 

Now is the American Dream as it's often defined, i.e. the idea that through hard work and some smarts you and your children can succeed and prosper, really dead in America?  I don't think so, at least not yet.  However it is at least safe to say that the American Dream has taken a rather big beating and is a much harder thing to achieve than it used to be, and that there are some countries where that 'dream' may be more attainable for any variety of reasons.  It's rather tragic, because America really has a great deal of competitive advantages.  Unfortunately, it is being led and micro-managed in such a way that we are making extremely short-sighted and stupid decisions and squandering our country's potential.  And sad to say most Americans are in support of the policies, decisions, and excessive bureaucracy that is killing this potential.  If this country was a person, it would be a gifted prodigy with a major drinking problem and an over-sized ego outmatched only by its proclivity for starting fights and bullying weaker people.  Imagine Sheldon Cooper combined with Biff Tannen and a healthy dose of Rick James, Lindsey Lohan, and Amy Winehouse, and there you have a spot-on personification of the US.

That being said, is it better to pursue the 'American Dream' somewhere in Asia?  Well I'd say it depends.  I'd say if you're the type who just wants a decent job and aren't interested in running your own business, the odds probably tend to favor America.  Sure there are some job opportunities in some Asian countries that pay an equivalent or somewhat better salary that one might get in America, but you'd better be a proven professional and very adaptable in your mindset to enjoy yourself there for the long term.  Having an idea of what most working professionals make in Mongolia and China, more often than not though you will probably have to accept a substantial salary cut even if you do get hired.  For example in Mongolia, a salary of $410 per month is the current average salary, and degree-holding professionals often don't make a whole lot more than that.  Expats in certain fields often get paid more, but it still would be difficult to get a wage equivalent to America.  And the wage difference is especially notable when you're talking about semi-skilled or blue-collar trades.  But if you are motivated and inclined towards in entrepreneurship and have at least a little capital at your disposal, then I see the opportunities being much more favorable in Asia.  Lower taxes, more open business niches & opportunities, and in many cases less bureaucratic hurdles and obstacles to overcome make Asia an attractive place for entrepreneurs who are willing to step out of their comfort zone.  In our recent trips to Mongolia, it's interesting to see how many Mongolians we met who studied and worked in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe have gone back to Mongolia, more often than not to take advantage of entrepreneurial business opportunities.  

I will say that opportunities vary greatly throughout Asia.  Mongolia seems to be one of the better long-term opportunities in Asia (despite their recent slowdown), though some nations like Cambodia and Myanmar (Burma) appear to be even more promising given they've only recently started opening their economies and societies in a big way to the world.  On the other hand, I would personally avoid China like the plague.  There may still be opportunities there, but the high degree of political corruption, difficulty in moving money earned in China out of the country, and their police state society doesn't seem to me the best environment for a foreign entrepreneur.  Their leaders are even bigger thieves than ours, and that's saying a lot.  I admit there are things to like about China such as the food (at least some of it), the sights, and many of the people, but I think there are much better places to build a business.  The US for example, despite its faults and crony-capitalist system, is still better than China.

It's not really my intent to encourage people to move out of the country, only to open peoples' eyes that there are other options.  Most Americans seem to not give much consideration to the idea of making a living outside of the US... perhaps due to fear of taking a risk for some, perhaps due to a misplaced sense of nationalism for others.  In my humble opinion, it's no less patriotic to consider making your life and/or fortune in another country than it is to consider moving to a different state because their taxes and business climate is more favorable...

Link of the Week

“By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”   - John Maynard Keynes

The following is a perfect example of the herd being sheared and taken advantage by simple virtue of 'playing by the rules'...

 

How The Federal Reserve Is Purposely Attacking Savers

“There's something we 'regular' citizens wrestle with that the elites never seem to: a sense of moral duty.

For example, following the collapse of the housing bubble, many people struggled with mortgages they could no longer afford to pay, fearing the shame of default. Many believed defaulting was wrong somehow; that it was their moral obligation to pay their mortgages, no matter how dire their personal situation. And of course, the mortgages lenders did their utmost to reinforce this perception.

In a perfect world, we would honor our debts and obligations, every one of us. But the world is an imperfect place ,and moral obligation is something that almost never enters into the decision matrix of our society's richest. Or the banking industry.

For them, the number one (and two, and three...) rule is that whatever is expedient and makes the most money is the right thing to do.

For the bottom 99%, it’s like playing with a stricter set of rules than your opponent: you’re not allowed to hit below the belt, and they’ve brought a baseball bat into the ring.”

For the rest of the article, the full PeakProsperity link is here.

Another One Rides the Bus

“Miller: I think a lot about this kind of stuff. I do my best thinking on the bus. That's how come I don't drive, see.

Otto: You don't even know how to drive.

Miller: I don't want to know how. I don't want to learn. See? The more you drive the less intelligent you are.”  - Repo Man (1984)

So several days ago my 12-year old Toyota Corolla's engine suffered a serious engine malfunction just as I pulled into work.  So that started my journey on the public bus system for the first time in maybe 5 years (at least in this country).

As you might be thinking, anyone who is perfectly fine with driving a beater car like my old Toyota isn't too snobbish or picky.  So after having the car towed to the auto shop and needing a way to get home some 20 miles away, I had no problem with the idea of taking the bus.  It's not my preference and I could easily afford a cab, but paying $50+ bucks for a cab ride versus a couple bucks for the bus seemed frivolous (at least when not being pressed for time).

Taking the bus is not glamorous, but it isn't something to avoid like the plague either.  Sure there are some areas in some cities I wouldn't choose to do so, but my ride through a big chunk of the Denver area was pretty uneventful and was actually a nice change of pace.  It certainly was nice not having to deal with the circus of ass-clowns that represent a sizable chunk of Denver's drivers.  And I suppose there is a little bit of truth to the above quote from the movie Repo Man, in that riding on the bus (or train) is conducive to daydreaming and getting lost in thought.  I think seeing the scenery passing by is a key part of it somehow; riding in an airplane miles up in the air usually doesn’t have the same effect.  Of course me being me, once the bus started filling up on the latter half of the trip I felt I had quit daydreaming and pay closer attention to the fellow riders (it’s not paranoia; it’s situational awareness).  Still it was nice just being able to spend 40 minutes or so getting lost in thought while still making way to my destination.  I kind of wonder what the other riders think of as they ride the bus.  Though in the case of the 40-ish guy with the dyed mullet, some odd style of muttonchops, and ill-fitting t-shirt revealing some sort of tattoo highlighting the word “BEER” on his very ample stomach, I’m betting he was thinking “how come it’s so hard for me to get a date?”

Anyway, one of the things I thought about during this time was why do so many of us spend so much of our time, money, and attention on the cars we drive?  Of course I understand that in many parts of the US our cities and housing locations aren’t very conducive to mass transit, so on some level many of us need a car as a means to get to work, run errands, and generally make a living.  And many times it's just really convenient.  But more specifically, why is it that so many of us spend so much compared to what we make on expensive cars and trucks?  

The traditional American answer to that would be that the car is a symbol of personal freedom, allowing us to go many places on a whim.  I personally get that, because I’ve done many, many road trips for purely recreational purposes to see and visit new places.  But if ‘personal freedom’ is the answer, why on earth do so many of us get cars that stretch our budgets and/or require big loans?  Tying yourself down to a loan payment for 4 to 6 years?  And now 7 and 8 year loans are becoming more popular.  Sure you’ve now got that spiffy new car that can take you almost anywhere in the country… oh, except now you can’t do that because you need to go to keep going to work to make the car payment.  That’s almost the opposite of personal freedom.  Not to mention that borrowing so much money for a depreciating and (in most cases) non-productive asset is a financially boneheaded move. 

I suspect the real reason for it is that most of us are victims of the consumer culture and the need to show status and ‘keeping up with the Joneses’. To paraphrase The Survival Podcast’s Jack Spirko, going into huge debt for such reasons like shackling shiny chains to our own wrists, and then bragging to everyone and saying, “see how shiny and expensive my chains are!”.  I’ve driven some nice luxury cars and even owned a couple (an Acura and a Lexus), so I do understand they are nice to drive.  But I never could see the point in borrowing heavily just so you can have a sweet ride.  In my pizza-delivering college days, I had a fair number of coworkers that got part-time delivery jobs, in addition to their existing full-time occupations, in part because they had to make the payments on the big expensive trucks they were driving (this was in Alaska, so the automotive status symbols tended to be big trucks).  It is insanity.  My car at the time may have been not much to look at, but it worked well and not being chained to a loan gave me the freedom to take multiple two-week and six-week vacations… and that was without the luxury of a job that had ‘vacation hours’.

So bringing this back around to the subject of the bus and mass transit, one thing I noticed was the number of 20-somethings riding the bus for work.  It’d be a bit hasty on my part to base my whole opinion on one long bus trip, but it is looking like the mainstream media isn't too far off when they say the Millenials/Gen-Y crowd really do treat cars more as an option rather than a necessity.  If so then good for them, and I hope they continue to move a little bit further away from the consumer culture.  Quite a few hipsters of various ages on the bus too…. I have about as much in common with most hipsters as I do with a Tibetan yak-herder, but if in their hipster-ness they happen to reject at least some aspects of consumerism, then what the hell, more power to 'em. 

So what about me; am I willing to give up my car?  Well as of yesterday the auto shop has declared the engine a loss, which I had suspected was the case from the noises it was making as I was pulling into work.  And the cost of replacing the engine or taking a chance on an engine rebuild is more than that 12-year old Corolla is probably worth, so that the next stop for that car is whatever junkyard is willing to pay the most.  Does that mean I’m going to start taking the bus to/from work?  If it was convenient I probably would, but the distance and the hours I work don’t allow for it.  Yet I don’t think I’ll be getting a new car anytime soon either.  It’s not a matter of affordability; I just think that getting a new car now would limit our options for next year’s planned move and foray into entrepreneurship.  We still have one car between my wife and me, and with us having different work hours now we can make it work.  Yet even if things were different and I needed my own car for work or what not, you’d still find me cruising Craigslist and online ads for a cheap car.  At this stage I’d rather free more of my money to invest more in productive assets now that will produce some sort of return over time.  As for that nice Tesla, it will still be waiting for me to buy when the time comes...