Categories
economics investing money rant Uncategorized

Investing in Stocks vs. Index Funds: Unraveling the Numbers and Unveiling the Prospects

When it comes to investing in the stock market, investors are often faced with a crucial decision: directly picking individual stocks or opting for the simplicity and diversification of index funds. Both approaches offer unique advantages and challenges, making it essential for investors to comprehend the numbers and historical performance to make informed choices. In this article, we dive into a comparative analysis of investing directly in stocks versus investing in index funds, shedding light on their respective track records over the past ten years.

1. Investing in Stocks:

The Appeal: Investing directly in individual stocks can be alluring, as it provides investors with the opportunity to handpick companies they believe have significant growth potential. It also allows for active management of the portfolio, enabling investors to make strategic decisions based on their research and market insights.

The Challenges: However, investing in individual stocks comes with inherent risks. A single company’s performance can significantly impact the entire portfolio. Moreover, stock selection requires substantial time, knowledge, and effort to make informed decisions, and even then, it carries a level of uncertainty.

2. Investing in Index Funds:

The Appeal: Index funds offer investors a simplified and diversified approach to the market. These funds aim to replicate the performance of a specific market index, such as the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average, providing instant exposure to a broad range of companies. This diversification helps mitigate the risk associated with investing in individual stocks.

The Challenges: While index funds offer diversification, they also come with limitations. Investors are bound to the performance of the underlying index, meaning they may miss out on the potential gains of standout performers within the market.

Comparing Performance Over the Past Decade:

Let’s examine the hypothetical performance of two scenarios over the past ten years: one involving an investor directly investing in a diversified portfolio of individual stocks, and the other involving an investor choosing an index fund tracking the S&P 500.

Scenario 1: Direct Stock Investment

Assuming an investor picked a diversified portfolio of individual stocks with average annual returns of 8%, the growth of a $10,000 investment would have resulted in approximately $21,589 over the ten-year period.

Scenario 2: S&P 500 Index Fund

If the same investor chose an S&P 500 index fund with average annual returns mirroring the index’s historical average of around 10%, the $10,000 investment would have grown to approximately $26,750 over the same ten-year period.

The numerical comparison over the past decade illustrates that, on average, index funds have outperformed the performance of individual stock portfolios. This phenomenon can be attributed to the broader diversification and consistent exposure to market growth that index funds provide. However, it is essential to remember that past performance does not guarantee future results, and market conditions can vary over time.

Ultimately, the decision to invest directly in stocks or opt for index funds should align with an individual’s risk tolerance, investment goals, and level of involvement in managing their portfolio. Investors seeking simplicity, broad diversification, and less active management may find index funds an appealing option. On the other hand, investors with a deep understanding of the market and a willingness to invest time in research may find value in selecting individual stocks. Regardless of the chosen approach, a well-informed and disciplined investment strategy is key to achieving long-term financial success in the dynamic world of the stock market.

Interested in various funds? Stash has a number of funds available exclusively on their app, sign up here today and receive free funds!

Categories
investing profit rant technology

Harnessing the Power of All-Iron Batteries: The Future of Energy Storage

In the quest for sustainable energy solutions, all-iron batteries have emerged as a promising contender, poised to revolutionize the energy storage landscape. Leveraging the chemical interactions between iron and oxygen, these batteries offer a myriad of benefits, from thermal stability to low cost and scalability. In this article, we delve into the battery chemistry of all-iron batteries and explore their potential applications, including large-scale backup batteries for buildings and mass energy storage.

Understanding All-Iron Batteries:

1. Battery Chemistry:

All-iron batteries, also known as iron-air batteries, are a type of rechargeable battery that operate through the redox reaction between iron and oxygen. At the heart of these batteries lie two main components: the anode and the cathode.

Anode: The anode is the negative electrode where the oxidation reaction takes place. In an all-iron battery, the anode typically consists of pure iron or an iron alloy. During charging, iron is oxidized to form iron ions (Fe^2+ or Fe^3+), releasing electrons and allowing for electrical energy storage.

Cathode: The cathode is the positive electrode where the reduction reaction occurs. In the case of all-iron batteries, the cathode is an air cathode that facilitates the interaction between oxygen from the surrounding air and the anode. When discharging, oxygen reacts with water and electrons to form hydroxide ions (OH^-) at the cathode, initiating the flow of electrical energy.

2. Thermal Stability:

All-iron batteries exhibit exceptional thermal stability due to the redox reactions occurring between iron and oxygen, which are inherently less prone to thermal runaway compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries. This feature makes all-iron batteries safer and reduces the risk of overheating, a critical factor in large-scale energy storage applications.

3. Low Cost and Abundant Materials:

One of the most compelling advantages of all-iron batteries is their low cost. Iron, being one of the most abundant elements on Earth, provides an inexpensive and readily available resource for battery production. Compared to the scarcity of materials in lithium-ion batteries, all-iron batteries have the potential to significantly reduce the cost of energy storage technologies.

Applications and Advancements:

1. Large Backup Batteries for Buildings:

The thermal stability and cost-effectiveness of all-iron batteries make them an ideal choice for large-scale backup batteries in buildings and infrastructure. By providing a reliable and safe energy storage solution, all-iron batteries ensure uninterrupted power supply during grid outages or peak demand periods.

2. Mass Energy Storage:

With the world’s growing focus on renewable energy sources like solar and wind, efficient energy storage is critical to maintaining grid stability. All-iron batteries, with their ability to store energy at a large scale, offer a viable solution for storing excess renewable energy during times of low demand, subsequently releasing it when needed.

3. Decentralized Power Generation:

All-iron batteries can play a crucial role in promoting decentralized power generation by integrating with small-scale renewable energy systems. By storing excess energy from solar panels or wind turbines, all-iron batteries empower communities to become more energy-independent and sustainable.

As the world strives for a greener and more sustainable future, all-iron batteries stand at the forefront of energy storage innovation. Their unique chemistry, characterized by thermal stability and low cost, makes them a compelling alternative to traditional lithium-ion batteries. From large-scale backup batteries for buildings to mass energy storage solutions, all-iron batteries have the potential to revolutionize the way we harness, store, and utilize energy. With further advancements and ongoing research, we are inching closer to a world powered by clean, reliable, and economically viable energy storage systems – a future made possible by the remarkable capabilities of all-iron batteries.

Interested in helping achieve that future? Donate to help me launch a commercial effort to bring this technology to market!

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00
¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00
¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00

Or enter a custom amount


Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Categories
bitcoin crypto economics investing money rant technology

Cryptocurrencies: Debating Securities or Actual Currencies and the Role of SEC Oversight

Cryptocurrencies have become a prominent feature of the modern financial landscape, sparking debates about their classification as securities or actual currencies. The distinction holds significant implications for regulatory oversight and investor protection. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plays a central role in overseeing securities, raising questions about whether cryptocurrencies should fall under its purview. In this article, we delve into the complexities of categorizing cryptocurrencies and explore the arguments surrounding SEC oversight.

1. Cryptocurrencies as Actual Currencies:

Advocates of classifying cryptocurrencies as actual currencies argue that they function as mediums of exchange, stores of value, and units of account. They assert that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Litecoin are designed to operate independently of any central authority, resembling traditional fiat currencies in their decentralized nature.

Monetary Freedom: Treating cryptocurrencies as currencies recognizes the potential of financial innovation, offering individuals greater control over their assets and financial transactions.

Currency-Based Regulations: Placing cryptocurrencies under the purview of financial regulatory bodies focused on currencies may lead to more suitable and effective regulatory frameworks.

2. Cryptocurrencies as Securities:

Proponents of classifying cryptocurrencies as securities contend that many initial coin offerings (ICOs) and token sales represent investments in projects or businesses, similar to traditional securities. The Howey Test, established by a Supreme Court ruling, is often cited to determine whether an asset qualifies as a security.

Investor Protection: Treating cryptocurrencies as securities could provide a higher level of investor protection, ensuring transparency and disclosure requirements.

Regulatory Safeguards: SEC oversight of cryptocurrency offerings may prevent fraudulent activities and promote fair market practices.

3. SEC Oversight and Regulatory Challenges:

The SEC has taken action against ICOs that it deems to be selling unregistered securities, reflecting the Commission’s efforts to regulate cryptocurrency-related activities. However, determining whether a specific cryptocurrency qualifies as a security can be challenging, as some digital assets may possess both currency-like and security-like features.

Regulatory Clarity: The lack of clear regulatory guidance on cryptocurrency classification has led to uncertainty among market participants and hindered the growth of the crypto industry.

Global Implications: Decisions regarding cryptocurrency regulations can impact the global crypto market, raising concerns about regulatory arbitrage.

4. The Evolving Crypto Landscape:

The cryptocurrency space is continuously evolving, with new innovative projects and technologies emerging. The dynamic nature of cryptocurrencies poses challenges for regulators to adapt and strike a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring investor protection.

The classification of cryptocurrencies as securities or actual currencies remains a subject of intense debate and regulatory scrutiny. Striking the right balance between fostering financial innovation and safeguarding investor interests is paramount. As the crypto landscape continues to evolve, regulatory authorities, including the SEC, must engage in constructive dialogue with industry stakeholders to develop a coherent and adaptive regulatory framework. Achieving clarity on the classification of cryptocurrencies and providing comprehensive oversight will be instrumental in building a sustainable and inclusive digital financial ecosystem that fosters innovation, protects investors, and embraces the transformative potential of cryptocurrencies.

Interested in trading crypto and stocks? Sign up with Robinhood here to start trading today, and get up to $200 in free stock!

Categories
economics investing money rant technology

Autonomous Vehicles and the Shifting Tides: The Impending Disruption of the Auto Insurance Industry

The automotive industry stands on the brink of a transformative era, heralded by the rapid development of self-driving and autonomous vehicle technologies. While these advancements promise improved road safety and efficiency, they also bring forth a myriad of legal complexities surrounding liability in the event of accidents. As the responsibilities shift from human drivers to artificial intelligence, the auto insurance industry, particularly the traditional agent model, faces unprecedented challenges. This article explores the potential destruction of the auto insurance industry as we know it, shedding light on the multifaceted parties that will be impacted by this looming disruption.

The Rise of Autonomous Vehicles:

Autonomous vehicles represent a groundbreaking leap in technology, driven by cutting-edge AI systems, advanced sensors, and sophisticated computing capabilities. The promise of safer roads, reduced accidents, and enhanced transportation efficiency has led major automakers and tech giants to invest heavily in autonomous vehicle research and development.

Liability Complexities:

The introduction of self-driving vehicles raises complex questions about liability in the event of accidents. Currently, human error is a primary factor in most accidents, and auto insurance covers these liabilities. However, with autonomous vehicles, liability extends beyond the vehicle’s occupants to the manufacturers, software developers, and even infrastructure providers. Determining fault becomes a convoluted task, making the traditional auto insurance model ill-equipped to handle the legal challenges posed by these technologies.

The Impact on Auto Insurance:

  1. Traditional Insurance Agents:

a. Reduced Demand: As autonomous vehicles become more prevalent on the roads, the frequency of accidents attributed to human error is expected to decrease significantly. Consequently, the demand for traditional auto insurance policies sold through agents could experience a steep decline, leading to an upheaval in the current insurance business model.

b. Shifting Role: Insurance agents may face an evolution in their roles. Rather than focusing on selling policies based on individual driver histories, agents might be required to navigate the complexities of autonomous vehicle liability and educate consumers about new types of insurance coverage for manufacturers and software developers.

  1. Insurance Companies:

a. Reassessment of Risk: Auto insurance companies will need to reassess risk factors associated with autonomous vehicles, including data on AI system performance, cybersecurity protocols, and manufacturer reliability. Underwriting practices will undergo significant changes, and new risk models will emerge to accommodate the unique challenges of insuring autonomous vehicles.

b. Collaborative Partnerships: To address the evolving landscape, insurance companies may forge partnerships with autonomous vehicle manufacturers, technology companies, and municipalities to collectively manage risks and devise new insurance offerings.

  1. Autonomous Vehicle Manufacturers:

a. Product Liability Insurance: As the responsibility for accidents shifts to manufacturers due to potential defects in software or hardware, they may need to procure extensive product liability insurance to cover damages arising from accidents involving their vehicles.

b. Bundled Insurance Services: Automakers might explore offering bundled insurance services with the purchase of autonomous vehicles. This could provide consumers with a seamless insurance experience while ensuring the manufacturer has more control over liability management.

  1. Software Developers:

a. Errors and Omissions Insurance: With autonomous vehicles heavily reliant on AI algorithms and software, the role of software developers becomes critical. Errors and omissions insurance will likely become essential to protect developers from potential litigation arising from system malfunctions.

  1. Government and Regulators:

a. Legal Framework: Governments and regulators must establish clear and comprehensive legal frameworks to address liability and insurance requirements for autonomous vehicles. Their actions will significantly influence how the auto insurance industry adapts to the disruptive changes brought forth by these technologies.

Conclusion:

The rise of autonomous vehicles is set to revolutionize the auto insurance industry as we know it. The traditional agent model faces challenges as liability complexities associated with self-driving vehicles extend beyond human error to manufacturers, software developers, and infrastructure providers. As this transformative era unfolds, the industry will need to reimagine its role and develop innovative insurance solutions to address the unique risks posed by autonomous vehicles. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders, including insurance companies, manufacturers, software developers, and regulators, will be instrumental in navigating the complexities of liability and ensuring a seamless transition to a safer and more efficient transportation future.

Categories
bitcoin crypto economics investing money rant technology Uncategorized

Unveiling the Risks: The Dubious Legality and Perils of ICOs

The rise of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) has become a magnet for entrepreneurs seeking alternative fundraising methods. Promising rapid capital generation and access to a global pool of investors, ICOs have surged in popularity. However, beneath the surface lies a murky landscape of dubious legality and inherent risks. In this article, we delve into the world of ICOs, examining the potential pitfalls and regulatory uncertainties that raise red flags for both investors and project creators.

1. A New Frontier for Fundraising:

ICOs have presented a novel means for startups and blockchain projects to raise funds, bypassing traditional channels like venture capital or initial public offerings (IPOs). By issuing digital tokens or coins, companies can attract investors globally, often without adhering to the rigorous regulatory requirements that accompany conventional fundraising methods.

2. Lack of Regulatory Clarity:

ICOs have flourished in an environment marked by regulatory ambiguity. The lack of clear guidelines has created a fertile ground for dubious actors to take advantage of investors’ enthusiasm. The absence of established frameworks has also hindered investor protection and raised concerns about fraudulent schemes.

3. Fraudulent Projects and Scams:

The allure of ICOs has attracted a significant number of projects with little substance or legitimacy. In some cases, fraudulent ICOs have duped investors with empty promises and exaggerated claims, leading to financial losses and disillusionment.

4. Legal and Regulatory Repercussions:

As the ICO landscape matures, regulatory authorities around the world are scrutinizing these fundraising mechanisms. Unregistered and non-compliant ICOs are facing increased legal challenges, with regulators stepping in to protect investors and maintain market integrity.

5. Volatility and Market Speculation:

The unregulated nature of ICOs has contributed to extreme price volatility and speculative behavior in the market. Investors, driven by FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), may engage in speculative buying, leading to price bubbles and sharp corrections.

6. Investor Protection:

Unlike traditional fundraising methods, ICOs often lack adequate investor protection measures. Investors face significant risks, including limited recourse for losses and potential difficulty in tracking down fraudulent actors.

7. Project Viability and Sustainability:

Many ICO projects lack a viable business model or a clear path to sustainability beyond the fundraising stage. The absence of regulatory oversight may enable unscrupulous actors to collect funds without any intention of delivering on promises or building a successful project.

While ICOs may have initially promised a new frontier for fundraising and innovation, their rapid growth has brought to light significant risks and legal uncertainties. The lack of regulatory clarity, coupled with the prevalence of fraudulent projects, underscores the need for caution and due diligence in the ICO space. Investors must exercise prudence and thoroughly research projects before participating in token sales.

To foster a more sustainable and investor-friendly ICO landscape, regulatory bodies must work towards providing clear guidelines and standards. Striking a balance between encouraging innovation and safeguarding investors is critical to building a responsible and legitimate ICO ecosystem. As the cryptocurrency space continues to evolve, vigilance and responsible practices are essential to weed out fraudulent schemes and ensure the long-term viability of ICOs as a credible fundraising option for legitimate blockchain projects.

Interested in trading crypto and stocks? Sign up with Robinhood here to start trading today, and get up to $200 in free stock!

Categories
bitcoin crypto economics investing politics rant technology

The Terra-Luna Crisis and the Inflationary Ripples: Examining the Impact of Stablecoins

In the dynamic world of digital currencies, stablecoins have emerged as a compelling alternative to traditional cryptocurrencies due to their pegged value to fiat currencies or other stable assets. With a market capitalization exceeding hundreds of billions, stablecoins have recently faced unprecedented challenges, exemplified by the Terra-Luna collapse, igniting concerns about their potential impact on inflation dynamics. This article delves into the complexities of stablecoins, focusing on the Terra-Luna crisis and its implications for inflation, presenting both potential benefits and risks.

Stablecoins are digital currencies designed to maintain a stable value by pegging them to a reserve asset, such as the US dollar or a basket of commodities. Tether (USDT), for instance, is one of the most well-known fiat-backed stablecoins. The mechanism behind stablecoins involves collateralization, algorithmic adjustments, or a combination of both. This unique characteristic has led to their growing popularity, as users seek to escape the extreme volatility associated with conventional cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

As stablecoins’ adoption grows, economists and policymakers have become increasingly concerned about their potential effects on inflation dynamics. The Terra-Luna crisis provides a stark reminder of the risks posed by stablecoins. The collapse of Terra, a prominent algorithmic stablecoin pegged to the value of Luna, triggered a cascade of events leading to liquidity issues and increased volatility in the broader digital assets market. This event serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the implications of stablecoins on inflation.

  1. Inflationary Pressures:

a. Increased Money Supply: Stablecoins, especially those that are algorithmically managed, can expand the money supply rapidly if their demand surges. In a scenario where stablecoins become widely adopted as a medium of exchange and store of value, a substantial increase in the money supply might stimulate aggregate demand and lead to inflationary pressures.

b. Competing with Fiat Currency: Stablecoins’ ease of use, fast transactions, and borderless nature could lead to a shift away from fiat currencies. As more individuals and businesses prefer stablecoins for transactions, the demand for traditional currencies may decline, potentially weakening the central bank’s ability to control monetary policy and respond to economic fluctuations.

c. Speculative Behavior: Speculative trading in stablecoins could exacerbate price volatility, leading to potential asset bubbles. As speculators flock to stablecoins seeking quick returns, the inflated demand for these digital assets might impact the broader financial markets, contributing to inflationary pressures.

d. Isolation Risk: In the event of a collapse or defunct stablecoin, particularly fiat-backed ones, there is a risk that they could become cordoned off from the economy. This isolation could disrupt financial markets, cause liquidity shortages, and result in inflationary shocks if not appropriately managed.

  1. Deflationary Forces:

a. Price Stability: The primary purpose of stablecoins is to provide a reliable store of value and act as a medium of exchange. In doing so, stablecoins can counteract the inherent volatility associated with cryptocurrencies, which could result in more predictable and stable prices for goods and services. Price stability, in turn, might mitigate inflationary pressures.

b. Economic Efficiency: The use of stablecoins could enhance economic efficiency by reducing transaction costs and enabling faster cross-border payments. These benefits could lead to increased productivity and economic growth, which could, in the long term, temper inflationary trends.

As stablecoins gain traction, the regulatory landscape surrounding these digital assets becomes increasingly important. Striking the right balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding against potential risks is crucial for policymakers.

  1. Clear Legal Framework: To mitigate potential adverse effects on inflation, regulatory authorities must establish a clear legal framework for stablecoins. This framework should address issues related to reserve requirements, anti-money laundering (AML) measures, consumer protection, and ensure compliance with existing monetary policies.
  2. Surveillance Mechanisms: Real-time monitoring and surveillance of stablecoin transactions are vital to prevent any illicit activities and to assess their impact on the broader economy. Collaborative efforts between regulatory bodies and technology providers will be essential in developing effective surveillance mechanisms.
  3. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Governments are exploring the idea of issuing CBDCs to maintain control over monetary policy and safeguard against the risks posed by privately issued stablecoins. CBDCs could coexist with stablecoins and offer a digital representation of fiat currencies, giving authorities more oversight and control.

The Terra-Luna crisis serves as a stark reminder of the potential impact stablecoins can have on inflation and the broader financial system. While offering attractive advantages, stablecoins also pose significant risks, including increased money supply, isolation risks, and speculative behavior that could exacerbate inflationary pressures. To navigate this uncharted territory effectively, policymakers must establish a robust regulatory framework that fosters innovation while addressing potential inflationary challenges. As the world embraces the digital currency revolution, careful consideration and proactive measures are essential to ensure a stable and sustainable financial future.

Categories
economics essays on power and government politics rant technology

A Time and A Place

When I was young, I grew up playing civilization games, and watching my dad play them. I have always been a fan of grand strategy, politics, economics, and technological advancements. I was fascinated by how in human history, even after inventing all the pieces and discoveries required to make certain advances, how slowly technology has advanced until recent history. My father, when he played nearly any civilization game, plays the same way, he goes for early science, and then typically goes for the ability to use a republic as his form of government, then goes for a transition into democracy. When he plays, he plays as America, or as Rome or Greece. It doesn’t really matter what he does around that, or what method he uses to win in the end, but that’s the path that he goes down nearly every time. I always thought that it was fascinating that his ideological beliefs led him to never touch communism, fascism, monarchy, even in a video game, when it would lead to an advantage in the strategem he was using to win.

Ironically, this is definitely a form of toxic nationalism, which he would also stay away from, but he would certainly say that a democratic-republic is the best form of government, hands-down, no contest, and that any other form of government is in some way fundamentally wrong. Of course, when I asked him about these other forms of government, why they were wrong, or did not work, I would get non-sequitur answers, such as “because the communists in China massacred a bunch of people”, or “because they starved their people”, or “the Italian fascists were the bad guys of WWII”. While I could see that those governments did bad things to their people, it just never really explained my fundamental questions about their governments, which was how they functioned, and how their functioning could be “wrong” or “bad” in such a fundamental way. To me, all forms of government had sinned, and that governments like the USA’s were also responsible for atrocities.

It even seemed that he couldn’t accept a really basic cognitive dissonance that he had about monarchies and the monarchical language with which he would describe God, and even when I would point out this inconsistency, seemed immovable about keeping both true, that God was a good king, but there are no good monarchies, and that the system was inherently evil and tyrannical. I could never understand the fanatical devotion to his ideal of democracy and republicanism, which has morphed into something unrecognizable.

The inconsistency however, sparked my journey to look back through history, to find what actually makes a good leader. Who were the “good kings”, the “benevolent dictators”, and the “evil prime ministers”? What makes for stable government? What prevents corruption? How do we even judge such things through the lenses of history? What causes empires to fall, and for famine to overtake idealism?

I believe that the best form of government for a country is based on a combination of factors: the available resources, the level of infrastructure development, the level of technological development, and the objectives of the government. Each form of government has its drawbacks that can put it at risk of structural collapse, but with the appropriate combination of applied concepts, most of those risks can be mitigated.

For example, in a government that wishes to have a highly educated populace, with a number of high-value services, such as scientist, doctors, lawyers, programmers, engineers, and others, you would need to have a government that allows for the free exchange of ideas with few barriers, and would allow for educational support to increase the likelihood of any given citizen going into one of those professions. However, the free exchange of information allows for common people to organize, a drawback for a single-power state, as it allows for the creation of rival factions.

On the other hand, if the goal of the state was to generate wealth, you would want to have a government that strongly considers the interests of corporations, though without appropriate redistribution, and the ability for some upward mobility and support of the working populace, you could easily end up exploiting your working class too much. This is often the temptation, to drain resources in the short term, but this is always at the expense of long-term growth, and a nuanced understanding of economies tells us that poverty is a drag on society, and that you actually want economic policies that pull people from poverty to a middle-class standard to keep them content, and to ensure that they are more productive.

Because of this, sometimes the desires of a state and the ability of a state to meet those objectives are limited by the technology available. A government that had some flaws in it, such as difficulty managing bureaucracy, or distribution and allocation of resources across a state, or the necessity to divert segments of the economy towards defense, could work at a different point in history, where the circumstances have changed, such as technology, location, surrounding cultures, and societal norms. An attempt at a centralized state may work on a very small scale, but become impossible to manage without the advanced infrastructure of reliable globalized transportation that has only recently become available by land, air and sea.

It is through this lens which I look at the histories of these political empires, on scales large and small. To see what works, and what does not, and to consider counterfactual scenarios, where we can consider what things could have made it work. It is a somewhat dangerous task, I must admit, to ask questions like, “What would have made Mao’s communist China work better?” Because we must also consider the negative consequences it would have had for our own way of life now, such as a much earlier rise of China as a global power had it had access to the better agricultural and manufacturing techniques of the west just a few decades earlier, or if the state had expanded its educational system earlier, or simply had a better system of distributing resources. Would communism have had the power to sweep the globe?

It is my hope that by looking at the mistakes of governance and their successes through the ages that when the next wave of governmental experimentation occurs during the next wave of frontier exploration (space colonization of course), that we will have a more complete view of governing, and will be ready to evolve governance to its next stage. I predict this will be a hybrid model of governance which will include technology and human oversight as a part of its fundamental functions.

Categories
economics money my books politics rant technology

Technology and Integrated Education

I’ve had this idea for a long time now, but really only recently had the language and the knowledge to put into words the idea. It is part of my overall treatise on power and core governing principles, but as I have difficulty getting myself to write long books all at once, a series of notes and essays to later be compiled is a much more straightforward task.

I have for a long time thought that the US system of government was flawed. When I was younger, in the early 00’s, I was excited for a future where we could use technology to assist in governance, and could eventually make life better for everyone. Now, I still desire that future, but I have simultaneously become frustrated by the amount of technology that we have continued to develop, but still have a massive lack of technological integration into our government.

I even understood, back then, that technology has vulnerabilities, and that developing a complex infrastructure to incorporate into society would take time, to work out security, and to perform testing. The systems would need to be well-planned, so they could use cutting-edge technology at the time that would, with some effort, be able to be upgraded in the future, or would be able to be effective before becoming outmoded for a long time.

Alas, there have been few public works projects on this scale, with the most advanced typically being attempts at large-scale transportation infrastructure (trans-continental high-speed rail and the hyperloop are notable examples of this).

By now in our history, I would have expected for technology to have radically shifted how governments run. Now, the coronavirus is pushing some aspects of governance and society at large to be moved forward by technological needs, this fast pace of change carries with it great risk, as there is little time to deal with security risks, or to appropriately fund public projects to deal with the issues that we are faced with, instead being forced to rely upon the solutions that corporations have provided, cobbling together a patchwork system of applications, and systems that are becoming increasingly cumbersome and incompatible with each other.

A good example of this is education. I know that I am a pretty decent student when it comes to self-directed learning (it’s how I’ve managed to continue learning so much without access to formal classrooms), but I know that many of the people that I have met my age are not. I know how to find information that I am searching for, and even often how to get around financial barriers to that information, and I am so relentlessly curious that I won’t stop searching for information until my questions are answered, including those I didn’t know that I had until finding the information that answered them. With the power of search engines and the open internet, a person could become an expert in a particular niche, diving into their topic of interest, and gain a high-level mastery of it in just a couple of years, without ever setting foot in a classroom. Without some sort of guiding curriculum, most people’s educations’ would be limited to their areas of interest, leading to what would be an incomplete education, but these are simple considerations that are workable.

When I was in middle school, I was part of a magnet program for rocketry, but the program’s approach to interdisciplinary studies was genius, and I could see it, even in it. Across each of our classes, we had connections to each of the other classes, and at the end of each quarter, had an integrated project, a single project across multiple subjects that connected the things that we learned into something practical and interesting. One example of this was our pyramid project. I don’t quite recall all of the elements of the project, but I recall that it involved physics and engineering to make traps, a presentation that explained our pyramid in the context of history, and the pyramid had to be made to specific mathematical specifications. We had a number of these projects over the years, and each one brought to life the things that we were learning, instead of just learning a series of facts for each class, separated by subject and intention.

I knew that this was important. I had been interested in psychological hacking at this point in my life, and had been doing research on mind hacks, figuring that learning these hacks early in life would allow me to leverage them for the rest of my life. One of the things many of the resources I read taught you is how to create mnemonics, as they are often described as incredibly important tools for remembering things. You connect a new idea to an existing idea, to create multiple neural pathways to that idea in the newly created memory in your brain. Many of the things I read created arbitrary mnemonic systems that, while useful for remembering specific facts, I found became actually cumbersome. However, after reading enough of them, I found that along with reading some more reputable published sources on learning and education, I was able to get to the heart of the issue, and the jigsaw pieces fell into place.

Everything is connected. All of it. This was further reinforced by my interest in economics, and how I realized that economics ends up being a study of everything, as everything, from charity work building farms in Africa, to high-energy physics research, to steel production in China, to the latest viral video trends and creator content, is all within the realm of economics, and connections can be drawn between these elements.

Students don’t care about their learning when it seems that there is no connection to their everyday lives, or their understanding to how a piece of information will be useful in the future. Now, it’s not that those facts won’t be useful, and in fact, things that I thought would be completely useless to me in my adulthood have ended up being surprisingly useful, but if you had given me a few examples of where something like this is actually useful, instead of simple, silly, and unrealistic word problems, or just insisting that it would be useful eventually, I might have been able to more easily integrate the piece of information, instead of rote memorization. Also by connecting pieces of information that are connected, you build a more complete fundamental understanding of the world that is easier to build on.

I could see that the future would be a combination of integrated learning to create a broad but solid foundation, with more advanced integrated learning techniques being able to convey more advanced information at a younger age, we would be able to compress more education, with the other piece being narrow, interest-driven learning, essentially allowing children to begin finding their field of specialization early on. Unfortunately this has not happened, and while the amount that kids know by the time they get out of high school has certainly increased from where it was 20 years ago, much of it is not the result of more advanced curricula, but by absorbing things that they learn on the internet, the focused self-directed branch solely, and not guided by the educational system itself.

There is much that can be done to streamline costs and even the educational gap between wealthier districts and poorer ones, notably a free federal education system. Such a system, I imagine, would be able to be enrolled in completely digitally, with in-person/online supplementary facilities, perhaps placed in already existing infrastructure, where students could advance at their own pace, which would include classes and educational resources for students from K-12 and would include all of the courses required for at least an undergraduate degree, and continuing education for that degree for free through this federalized digital system, and would allow for students to move at their own pace outside of the typical fall/spring school year.

Having a “federal college” would be difficult, you need to create the classes, the curriculum, the paths of advancement, the exams, standards, and determining the requirements for degrees, building the digital infrastructure, and having the supplemental human resources for the program to assist children. Of course this college would probably be seen as less reputable, at least off the bat, so other schools would need to be phased out, simply making it an option for students. By having a digital infrastructure like Blackboard that students could access (accommodations including devices and basic internet service should be provided to low-income families), you provide more broad access to education.

Another advantage to having access to digital resources, and to allow for students to go at their own pace, you can track how quickly students are moving through courses each year, you can analyze when they are doing school work, and adjust resources. This also gives the federal government access to a depth of information on their future labor force, allowing them to more accurately project what the workforce will look like in the next decade, allowing for more informed policy decisions to be made. It can also be used to analyze how students prefer to learn. Do they do more work at night? Do they take the summer off? How quickly do they move through education if unimpeded by the barrier of the school year that we put in place to create even “batches” of students, like a factory.

The real test of such a system is how young will the average age of a degree-earner be? Even with increasingly difficult and dense curricula early on in life, we could still see the average age of a degree-earner drop steadily (or quite quickly for the most advanced students). Without the learning loss of summer and winter breaks, we could see people regularly earning their bachelor’s degrees by the time they are 18, and those who still seek it, but are slower, instead of being forced out of schools, can take things at their own pace and still find success with few financial barriers, and would provide an opportunity for those who were blocked out of higher education to catch-up, or to gain access to ambitions that were seen as out of reach.

Categories
economics investing life money rant

On the Post Office

Oh I get so many thoughts rattling around in my brain that it ends up being like a bingo machine, you never know what little random thought will come out. I end up having thoughts and ideas faster than I can write them down, and while I can seem to vocalize the topics pretty well, when it comes to actually getting them on the page, I often find myself drawing a blank, or feeling like the things that I am connecting feel insignificant.

At the moment, right now, I’m thinking about Terry Prachett’s “Going Postal”. I’m thinking about the state of the post office at the beginning of the book, with piles of undelivered mail. Mail that called out to be delivered. A populace where mail is unreliable, and there are only a few private package carriers. Underfunded, overworked, and then overwhelmed, a negative feedback cycle, where decreased faith means that the post office falls into disuse. In the book, the post office is saved by the appointment of a new postmaster general, one with vision, who restructured the post office, and funding it, incorporating new technology and existing infrastructure into its operations to make it work like it did in the days of yore.

At the moment, we’re not quite to the point where people have forgotten the mail, but the post office, especially with some of the recent cutbacks to the mail capability. How can people reliably send and receive bills, packages, medicines, or even animals, if they get indefinitely delayed. These especially costly delays, which can even result in deaths are the kinds of things that can quickly deteriorate confidence in the institution. If the negative cycle continues for long, such a large institution will not just have to be cut back, if it isn’t adequately supported now, it’ll end up having to be dismantled, sold off to private interests, even though, such a thing is fundamentally unnecessary, as we’ve seen with the support given to corporations in need of bailout.

What’s important to remember is that the utility of the post office goes far beyond the number of dollars that it brings in, but rather the service that it provides to the citizenry of our country, and that the value of the institution is multiplied by the value of all of the enormous volume of mail that it handles. Of course we should remember that the post office is one of the largest employers in the country, but more than that, so many businesses are built on the reliable shipping times promised by the service. Whole industries will cease to be viable if the delays that we’ve began to see become more permanent.

This will of course, have consequences. The most prominent of those being the shunting of public mail onto private carriers, giving corporations de facto control over postal service. This will bring with it increased overall shipping costs as more companies have to develop last-mile infrastructure to meet customer needs, or will simply neglect delivery areas, or charge astronomical rates to those out of their way.

It could however, be a boon to brick-and-mortar locations, which, since they often use private shipping firms anyway, will be able to capitalize on the increased cost of getting something delivered all the way to your residence. Of course, those lower prices will only incentivize more in-person shopping if the general anxiety about crowding into large buildings with a lot of other people has been overcome.

Big box stores are those who will be most likely to survive in such an environment, and we can expect to see more consolidation of the grocery store sector.

At least places like Amazon might be able to keep prices relatively low by throwing their money around, but this should be a red flag, and a sign of unhealthy market conditions.

Categories
economics life money rant Uncategorized

A Delivery From Hooters

This is the story of my food delivery from Hooters that I did just a few nights ago, I feel that it says a lot about the current environment, and may contain some clues as to where we’re headed.

First the time. I arrived in the golden twilight of the Colorado sunset. There was plenty of parking in the strip center where the restaurant was located. I picked a spot right by the front. I think it’s notable that the restaurants around the Hooters, many of which would fall under the category of fast casual, but the smaller, higher end chains among them, were in comparison, had lines out the door for their to-go dinners.

Typically, pre-pandemic, I would have to go up to the bar, and attempt to get the attention of one of the girls over the usually full crowd, and would have to awkwardly stand around the bar until the order was ready. Now, I barely make it into the foyer before I’m stopped by signs, two of them. The first is posted on the door, a simple laminated sheet in not – quite – Hooters orange, informing me of their “No shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service. ” policy. Certainly less catchy, but at least an effort was being made.

The next sign stopped me at the hostess counter, and declaritavely stated that no one would be seated without their hands being sanitized first, a move I have actually seen few places list, let alone enforce.

First I wanted to see how full the place was. There was no wait for a table, but half the tables were closed as well, making it difficult to judge precisely, but of the roughly 50% capacity available, I’d have to say they actually managed to get most of that full. At tables, I couldn’t see anyone wearing masks, though people seemed to at least have them from when they entered.

A somewhat surprising addition was the masks that I noticed the servers wearing when they approached. While most restaurants I’ve been to have had masked employees, these were branded masks, now part of the uniform, at least for now.

Hooters is a place often where people go to watch sports, but these days, there’s not a lot of your traditional sports on. In fact, playing on one of the chyrons on a screen, was the announcement that the Ivy league had just canceled their sports seasons until 2021 at the earliest. So among the screens was a smorgasbord of supplementary sports content. News of cancellations, along with sports like horse racing, poker and even virtual basketball, with only one screen having a traditional sports game on, a college basketball game from a smaller conference.

I used the restroom while I was waiting for the order that I was going to take to be ready, and was once again surprised by what I found on the entrance to their facilities. On the swinging door with no windows that does not lock, was attached a sign asking for only one person to use the restroom at a time. I laughed a little when I saw this ridiculous sign. I understand the desire to social distance, especially in a place where bodily fluids are much more likely to come in contact, but the token effort simply felt ridiculous when there was absolutely no way to tell from the outside the restroom if anyone else is in there. Regardless, I somehow managed to be the only one in it at the time.

I still had a couple of minutes to wait once I finished, and while I was idly standing at the entrance, one of the waitresses approached to ask if which order I was waiting for so they could check on it for me. However, she decided that since the masks muffle speech a bit, she would just take off her mask to talk to me. It was difficult to not react to the gesture. I thought that maybe it was just a lapse, but sure enough, when she brought the food back to me shortly after the conversation, she did it once again. I quickly made my way out and onto a hopefully less risky future delivery.

I think that what we see is that people really want to get out and go back to restaurants, but places like sports bars may suffer, even with precautions in place to reassure customers. Without large events like baseball or basketball games, even being open may not be enough to attract enough customer to those venues to sustain those business for much longer.