Category: Uncategorized

“What about the reality where Hitler cured cancer, Morty? The answer is don’t think about it.” – Rick and Morty

Artist representation of what a cell might look like.  Just kidding – fireworks at night in Fairbanks on July 4^th.  Hint:  on July 4^th there is no night in Fairbanks.

In new news this week:  cancer eats sugar.  But that really isn’t new news, since Dr. Otto Warburg won a Nobel® Prize in 1931 for showing that a cancer cells use ten times the amount of sugar as a normal, healthy cell.  Sugar consumption also leads to cancer’s biggest risk factor:  being fat (I could say overweight or obese, but let’s not chop the onion too finely – Arnold Schwarzenegger was overweight, but never fat.  I’m talking fat, here.)  Now that correlation is clear – fat people catch more lung cancer than smokers.  But is the cause right?  Is being fat the problem, or is it the things that you do to get fat that cause the cancer?

As we’ve discussed in the past, much of medical research has the same scientific rigor as astrology (Sagittarius, here!) or alchemy (I know where soooo much lead is) or even astronomy.  Ha!  The Earth revolves around the Sun!  What a hoot!  A recently released review indicates that as many as 30,000 (that’s not a typo) scientific (if you call biology “science”) papers were based on using the wrong type of cell.  In one case they were using liver cells instead of lung cells.  I personally taste my all my cell cultures before using them, and always check the expiration date.  Even a rookie can taste the difference between liver and lung!

See, I told you people don’t know how to Science anymore (LINK).

But a recent study that seems to have actual science behind it (and by authors whose first names are Johan, Wim, and Veerle) investigates the relationship between sugar and cancer.  It seems that cancer cells get energy through fermentation of sugar, and the more sugar a cancer cell has, the faster the cancer grows.  (Normal cells generally oxidize the sugar, so they use a different path.)  Again, in their study, increased sugar led to increased growth, which is what you want in a bank account, not a tumor.

But your body has to have sugar, right?

Well, no.  Generally the brain prefers glucose (the kind of sugar found in your bloodstream) but it can do just fine, thank you on ketones.  What are ketones?  A 1960’s Motown band?

No, ketones are what happens to fats (your fat, or butter, or cheese) when your liver rips ‘em apart and stuffs them back into the bloodstream where they eventually feed your brain (and every other organ, too), so you can save the sugar packets that you were going to send to Congress and the Kardashians (Say, would that be a great TV show or what?  Congress and the Kardashians . . . ).  But your body (the liver, again) can also turn protein into glucose.  So, is it necessary to have carbs or sugars in your diet?  No, not really.

So, curing cancer just means avoiding Twinkies® and chocolate-covered raisins?  No.  Or at least I don’t think it’s that simple.  If so, I’m free to give my Nobel™ acceptance speech any time after next Wednesday.  What my Internet sources indicate is that it’s not a bad idea to go low carbing if diagnosed with cancer, along with cutting back on the protein because it can become glucose.

One doctor in particular (LINK) recommends a diet of up to 70% of calories from fat in response to cancer.  Actually, he recommends this diet to all patients, regardless of cancer status.

So, is there a link to cancer growth and sugar?  Absolutely.  Is there a link to getting cancer in the first place and sugar?  Probably.

Should you trust what you read?  Hmmm.  Remember when carbs were good for you and eggs were bad for you?  I’m expecting smoking and scotch prescriptions before I die . . .

Am I a doctor and should you trust this without checking with somebody more than me?  No way.  Check all of this out for yourself.

“There are two kinds of pain.  The sort of pain that makes you strong, or useless pain.  The sort of pain that’s only suffering.  I have no patience for useless things.” – House of Cards

Talk about suffering . . . these guys fight to the bitter finish!

Suffering and evil.

They exist.

But so does happiness.

Scott Adams (the Dilbert® author/artist) even has a formula for it.  His post about it is here (LINK).  The formula as presented by Mr. Adams is pretty simple:

Happiness = health + money + social life + meaning

That’s a pretty short list, and a pretty simple formula, and, unwittingly those are represent three of the four items that I chose to feature on this blog – Monday Meaning, Wednesday Wealth, and WilderHealth Friday (yeah, that rhyme sucks, let me know if you have a better one) that this blog is thematically intended to address.  I guess that great minds must think alike?

Health

I believe Mr. Adams intended the list to be (more or less) in order.  For instance, if you’re on your deathbed, having money and a party with tequila-shooting 23 year old actual girl bikini models (you have to specify the “actual” part after 2016, I guess) in your room plus the Pope and Dalai Lama asking you for advice with their religious problems . . . okay, I’ll admit that’s not a bad way to go.  But the whole “going to die” in 20 minutes still turns the whole party into kind of a bummer, what with the dead dying guy and the Pope.  This Pope is not a party animal, unlike the last one . . . .

Can I get an amen? – source, Internet, Provenance Unknown

Money

Money is second on the list.  Is it?  I think so.

Money cannot by happiness, but it can buy experiences.  It can buy leisure time.  It can create situations where you have a social life.  And, it can create situations where you create meaningful experiences.  And I’ve been with very little money ($70 in the checking account and $150,000 in debt) and have been out of debt, and I very much recommend having money.  If you’re healthy, that’s a great start.  If you’re healthy and have money?  You can get to the next bits.

Social Life

So, you’ve got health, and money.  Without anyone who cares about you, it’ll seem pretty hollow, since we humans are (mostly) social creatures.  Oh, I’m sure that you’ll bring up Grizzly Adams® but even he had his bear, Ben.

In truth, Adams was just a businessman and shoemaker who made and lost several fortunes and died of an aggravated grizzly bear bite after a monkey bit him in the same spot five years later.  Normal, boring suburban life.  Picture source, Wikimedia, public domain.

Meaning

So, finally we end up with First World Problems.  Health is a common problem in the world, as is money, although I think plenty of strong families do get by without money, and even find tons of meaning during a simple life.

Weird Al talking about First World Problems.  Perspective, right?

There’s probably a sweet spot for income, too.  There might be a classic “Three Bears” problem of too much, too little, just right, but I’ll imagine it skews more towards having too much money.  We’ll hit the topic of earning “too much money” (really, probably working so hard and so stressfully that you die sooner) some Wednesday.

Meaning is important, and I can recall some occasions in my life where I had all the money, social connections, and health anyone could really ask for, and then I’d start thinking about meaning.  It was during those situations that I realized that mankind wasn’t horribly predisposed to contentment.  If it isn’t health, material possessions or friends, we have to have something to search for, and it turns out meaning is an easy one.

And I think that the search for meaning often shows up when we do have most of our comforts met – I know that some periods of personal success have left me feeling hollower and brought me back to looking for that deeper side of life.

The Other Side of Happiness

Some churches and religious folks preach that money and the good life is a gift from God, and I’ll agree.  But we cannot forget the gift that suffering is.  I’m not sure that there are many people who have been made better by having all that money.  But when a person has to go through a tough time?  Suffering exists, and difficulty exists, and they exist so we can vanquish them and emerge from the other side, better and stronger.

Is there suffering?  Undoubtedly.

Is there evil?  Certainly.

These exist.  And, we can use them, or rather, in vanquishing them, if we do it right.  If we don’t give in to despair when suffering, if we don’t become evil in vanquishing evil, then we emerge on the other side better for our journey.  And stronger.

At least that’s what I told the Pope and the Dalai Lama, but I’m not sure they heard me over the music.  And the Pope can totally drink tequila.  He’s a party animal!

“Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Merlin. You are about to embark on what is probably the most dangerous job interview in the world. One of you, and only one of you, will become the next Lancelot.” – Kingsmen:  The Secret Service

These women were interviewing for the baby-catching position we had.  Neither was hired – since it was clearly in the job description that you cannot be made of metal, wood or stone.  But they caught 8 of the 10 babies!

This post is the result of a discussion I had with a relative who is getting within six or so semesters of graduation.  Please, do pass this link around since many college kids have NO idea that HR is the enemy or even how the hiring process works at a major corporation.  Or how to use a dial phone.  But the whole phone thing is beyond the scope of this post . . .

Previous posts have discussed (honest) ways to make money other than being an employee – and being Johnny Depp doesn’t count.  Chief among them are being self-employed (which is like a job, but with none of the job security), owning a business, or being an investor.  But most people want to work for a company, especially new college graduates.  Something about having a steady paycheck seems to motivate them.

Starters:  The Résumé

I’ve had the good fortune to review thousands (not an exaggeration) of résumës.  I know that there’s no umlaut in the word résumés, but I never get to use umlauts.  Between me and you shouldn’t the word umlaut have an ümlaüt or two?

I digress.  I’ve seen zillions of résumés.  Most of them are booooring.  Really boring.  Member of this.  Member of that.  Yeah, and for five bucks I could be a member, too.  This isn’t to knock the kids coming out of school – but, really, no one cares if you were part of the intramural interior mural team.  It all just blends together on the page and looks?  Yes.  Boring.

My friend Eric had a cool résumé – in it he mentioned working on a Christmas tree farm.  After we hired him, he said that people always referred to him as “the Christmas tree guy,” so he kept it on his résumé. And, honestly, for mental manipulation in the interview process, that’s wizard-level technique.  Most people have fond memories of Christmas, and Christmas trees from being a kid, even if there was that year that Momma and Uncle Luther stopped talking to each other due (in part) to a Jim Beam® fueled argument over who Grandma liked best and who took better care of her because they were more selfless.  Only saw Uncle Luther one more time after that, but I did get a cool Transformer® that year.  It’s probably best to leave all that detail off a résumé – it falls under the category of way too much information.  But Christmas tree farm is awesome.  Ahh, the smell of home baked cookies, bourbon, and regret.

The idea is that your résumé should have something unique on it – something that raises a question in the mind of the reviewer, and ideally the item should be pleasant.  But even if you’ve got a great résumé?  Chances are good that (if it’s even printed nowadays) that it’ll be discarded after about thirty seconds of review.  Why?  There are lots of other candidates, and it’s a numbers game, and lunch starts at 11:30AM and I want to get there just after they bring the Nacho Bar out before fat Carol from accounting takes all the sour cream.  Mmmmm, nachos!  Swipe left on this dude.  Let’s go!

Have someone you trust review your résumé to make sure that it looks good.  Typographical errors in the land of spell checkers are a killer.  In the old days, having a typo meant you were, at best careless.  Having a typo on your résumé today?  You’re careless and actively stupid.  Also, when handing out paper copies of your résumé, make sure that yours aren’t covered in small blood spots and a thin film of mucous.  (Unless you’re attempting to be a forensic dude for a police department, where that’s probably okay, heck, maybe even required.)

The job hunting process is stacked against you.  You have to compete to get attention from someone who cares less about you than the Nacho Bar, which is why most jobs come from personal connections.  You’ve worked with someone, they talk you up to someone who’s hiring.  Now, instead of a picture of a résumé on screen, there’s a real personal contact – someone who now has a vested interest in getting you through the process.  You’re a real person again, and not just a blood and mucous covered résumé.

As a new college graduate, the person that you and your prospective employer both know is the college you went to.  Often, people who went to that college lead the recruiting effort there, so they can do service for both their new company and their alma mater.  So, as a recent graduate, you are in a unique position – your college and its reputation is your ticket in.  So, if your college has never sent anyone to work at your dream company?  It will remain just that – your dream company, since it doesn’t “know” your college at all.

Perhaps the best position to be in is if your father is or has been President of the United States (Chelsea, Donald Jr., George W., you all are in that category) which makes you improbably employable, since everyone knows you.  You could spend your time writing a children’s book about how the Armenian Genocide was a good idea and they’d put that sucker on the bestseller list.

But back to unpresidential you:  let’s pretend you’re the lucky one and your résumé has been pulled out of the giant HR hat where they keep résumés and pull them out on mimosa Friday (every HR department has this).  What next?

One time they let Tom Petty wear the HR hat in a video.  Exclusive footage!!!

Likely you’ll get an email attempting to set up a phone interview.  They’re most likely not sure enough about you that they want to spend a lot of time with you, but they know enough about you that they want to learn more about the Christmas tree farm.  Given that, they’ll give you a screening interview.

Screening Interview

The screening interview is generally a phone call (or an on-campus interview) that’s almost never longer than 30 minutes or so.  Some are as short as 15 minutes.  I would routinely end the screening interview early if the candidate was obviously not as advertised, high on PEZ©, or in some other way disqualified themselves.

How else could they disqualify themselves?  A variety of ways.  Not picking up the phone when I called at the scheduled time.  Excessive snorting.  No one likes a snorter.  Not knowing all the names of the Three Stooges© and the Marx Brothers™.  Really fundamental stuff.

As a candidate, know that the phone screen is just that – a screen.  Your interviewer just wants a reason screen you out so they can delete your résumé and have more room for Call of Duty™ on their HR computer and also narrow the pool of people that they’ll actually have to talk to in person, which will obviously take away from Call of Duty® time.  If the interviewer is someone from HR, they’ll likely go through a list of qualifications for the job and look to see if there’s some reason that they can ignore you for the rest of their lives, or maybe trade you to the HR guy over at the company down the street for a weapons upgrade.

One phone screen where I was the candidate, I set everything up so I’d have some peace and quiet in my bedroom when it was time for the phone call.  The phone rang, and I picked up and started talking to the interviewer.  About a minute later, my two-year-old daughter picked up the phone downstairs and started pressing buttons and babbling into it.

Me:  “Excuse me . . . just a second.”

I ran downstairs, vaulted over the baby gate, unplugged the phone from the wall, and took the phone with me out of the room, and then ran back upstairs.

Me, to interviewer:  “Back.  And I have one less daughter now.”

The interviewer chuckled and went on through her questions.  Apparently the interview went well, since I eventually got a job offer and worked at the company for some years, and the interviewer even baby sat that same daughter.

I didn’t feel at all bad after that phone screen.  My theory?  If they didn’t have a sense of humor, it probably wasn’t the best place for me to work, anyway.

If you haven’t done so, you really should practice interviewing on the phone with someone who has done some interviewing.  You may think you’re pretty darn special (and you might be) but you might come off looking as articulate as one of the contestants on Family Feud® during the lightning round.  And not one of the smart contestants.  Practice makes us all better.

On Site Interview

After you’ve not been killed in passed the screening interview, you’ll get the opportunity to go and visit the company at their site.  What will happen next  . . .  depends.

Probably the norm for small and medium size companies is that HR picks interviewers based on Astrological tables, and the interviewers have had exactly zero training on how to interview.  Not only that, the interviewers might not even know anything about the job you’re interviewing for.  You can generally tell if this is that kind of random-shotgun-amateur interview if:

• HR doesn’t give you a clue as to what to wear.
• People are late.
• Interviewers keep you over the allotted time.
• The interviewer doesn’t know exactly where you’re supposed to go next.
• The interviewer asks if you’ve seen any positions they can apply for.
• If the interviewers ask lots of yes or no questions or hypothetical questions.
• HR says it might be weeks before you hear back from them.

Working at a company like this will be as random as the process – they don’t have sufficiently developed business processes to make an interview go smoothly, or even share an idea of the qualities the company considers important when it hires to the interviewers.

Contrast that with a mature process:

• People are on time.
• Everyone has copies of your schedule and résumé.
• The interviewer (or most of them) are polished and smooth, and the only yes/no questions you get are whether or not you want coffee, water, or a bathroom break (and everyone asks).
• Every interview/conversation has a theme, and you do most of the talking and tell a lot of stories about your past. Sometimes even more than you expected to share.
• The final interview of the day is with a VP or higher, and they’re pretty impressive.
• HR gives you a very tight timeline on when you might expect to hear back from them, and they hit the deadline.

I’ve interviewed in both systems, and as someone attempting to get a new employee out of the system, I greatly preferred the second system – it produced a consistent quality of candidates.

In a polished interview setting like that, everyone gives feedback, everyone.  I had our department’s administrative assistant escort the candidate to the next interview.  It was neat, because she was very nice and the candidate, if they were going to drop their shields and act really weird, well, that was often when they did exactly that.  Some were rude to her.  One guy asked the administrative assistant if I was married (I never did figure that one out, and, no, he didn’t get a job).

As a new interviewer, I was awful.  I was disjointed.  I asked weird questions.  I might have seemed a bit intimidating.  I was not at all smooth in managing the interview time.  But I kept at it, and eventually the company added interviewer training and a guide to the qualities that they were looking for in an employee and with practice I got better – I’ve interviewed hundreds of people during my career, if not well over a thousand by now.

I learned that the most effective interviewing technique was behavior-based interviewing, where you had the candidate tell stories from the past, outlining how their behavior had created outcomes.  And it was amazing the stories that I heard!  I had candidates, during interviews, admit to stealing from previous employers.  And being trained in interviewing with lots of practice is sort of like having a superpower – the night I met The Mrs. I ran her through the interview techniques during our first date.  She ended up talking a LOT and told me most everything I needed to know.

On one occasion I was requested to interview a candidate and go through all of the topics.  Normally that took hours – like five, and it was done by five people.  It’s a really smooth process – and most people will tell you their innermost secrets if you ask them just right.

John Wilder:  “You need me to do what?”

HR:  “We only have half an hour with this candidate, and we need to know if we want to hire her.  We need a pro, and you’re the only one who can do it, John Wilder.”

John Wilder:  “But think of the cost, man . . . this will be a thoroughly unpleasant half hour for her.  Even if we want her to work here, she might not want to after that.”

The interview was probably the most horrific thirty minutes of the candidate’s life up to that point, unless she was born in a war zone (she wasn’t – she was born in Michigan, oh . . . wait).

The answer was no.  Even during that thirty minute session I’d ripped enough stories out of her that I would have been uncomfortable with her managing filling jelly doughnuts instead of the multi-million dollar responsibilities she’d have (and be fired for messing up) working for us.  A definite no.

That had been one of the hardest things for me when I started interviewing.  “Yes” is easy to say.  And it’s easy to see.  “No” was harder, until my friend (the same one who phone screened me) told me this:  “Remember, John, giving someone a job who doesn’t fit here is much crueler than telling them no.  You’ll have taken away part of their life that they could have spent doing something that they were meant to do.”

And she was right.  “No” became much easier, even a moral choice.

Since then, I’ve added one other criteria:  there is no yes but a “hell, yes!”  You should be excited about new people that you’re bringing into the organization.  One of them might be your boss someday.  Or your friend for life, like Eric, the Christmas tree guy.  Or Johnny Depp.

I think I need to talk to HR . . .

“This is the federal government, huh?  Now I know why my old man got a hundred and eleven Medicare cards sent to him.  Not one of them had his name on it.”  – The Rockford Files

I finally found Waldo!!!

Last week we talked through the specter of the budget deficit.  A link to that awesome post is here (LINK).  But I mentioned there was much more to the story.  I wasn’t trying to be a tease – I had originally intended that this next segment be attached to last week’s post.  But I failed.  When I did the word count on last week’s post?  It was already my second longest post ever, plus it was 2AM (really 2:30), so I punted until this week to cover the rest of it . . . even Iron John Wilder must sleep sometime, even though I consider “sleepy” the next cousin of “communist infiltrator.”

On Last Week’s Wilder Wealthy and Wise:

We have a budget that, mathematically, must rise exponentially and create deficits to keep us from permanent recession.  That’s a pretty ugly realization.  Recap over, though there’s more to it at the LINK.  I was discussing this post with a friend.  “John Wilder, what can we do to fix this?”

Me:  “Ummm, when you’ve been accelerating towards a brick wall and you’ve hit 70 miles an hour, and you yell stop 20 feet before the wall?  Nothing will help you.  Ask for your money back from ACME.”

Last week’s post describes a threat, but not the only threat – if it were, it might be manageable.  Even Wile E. Coyote has airbags nowadays.  But now?  There are components of the budget that are growing much faster than the rest, and will soon crowd out the rest of the spending.  I’ll start with the biggest of the big:  Medicare and Medicaid.

These programs started June 30, 1965, when President Johnson signed some stupid bill that he knew would get him votes but that he wouldn’t live long enough to see the consequences.

The Rolling Stones had the number two slot on the Top 20 the day he signed that stupid bill:

I just never want to see Mick Jagger eating an ice cream cone.  Especially not old, wrinkly Mick. (shudder)

(H/T Wikimedia Commons)

That’s a pretty cool graph.  Even cooler is that the Congressional Budget Office did it for me.  I like free things that I only pay taxes for.

But it’s not cool because it shows that by 2037 (the benchmark year we’ve been talking about) Medicare and Medicaid will grow like some science fiction monster to consume about 10% of the GDP.  Since Federal taxes seem to “break” the economy over about 19% of GDP, it appears we won’t be able to afford much of anything else, since right now Social Security consumes about 25% of federal spending.  But more on that later.

Let me explain the “excess growth” label:  it means that the program is projected to grow faster than the economy grows, and in this case, much faster.  But I’m still suspicious –federal government estimates are rarely conservative – program expenses always seem to grow faster, and the GDP always seems to grow more slowly.

But it gets worse:

Social Security has a “Trust Fund” that will run out in 18 years!  OMG!

Actually, the whole “Trust Fund” consists of the Social Security taxes you and your employer pay in every year.  For most of the history of Social Security, the taxes you and your pay have paid for the program, plus a lot more.

So, did the government invest that money in the stock market?  No.  Real estate?  No.  Well, surely they invested it?

Kinda.  They bought US Treasury Bonds.

And then immediately spent the money that they had just given themselves.  It is technically true that Social Security has a $2.8 Trillion trust fund that gets interest every year.  But it’s more like saying that you have $100 in your left pocket.  You transfer it to your right pocket, and put an IOU $100 LOL paper in your left pocket.  You then spend the entire $100 on PEZ®, pantyhose and elephant rides.

Congratulations!  You still have a $100 trust fund!

So, you can see that math is pretty stupid, but the government keeps doing it.  What’s more important is that we went from having extra money every month that we could blow on PEZ© to not.  Pretty quickly.  And it adds up:

Source:  Heritage Foundation

I’m sad to tell you that last week’s budget projection doesn’t take into account the explosive growth in cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and the “not quite as scary” growth in Social Security.

Okay John Wilder, this is NOT GOOD.

Nope.  And we’ve only been talking about the federal government.  At the state level, pension funds are (according to Moody’s (LINK)) underfunded by $1.75 trillion.  Whew!  I thought we were talking big money!  But in 2015, these same pensions were underfunded by $1.25 trillion.  So, that’s only a loss of 40% in two years, when the stock market has been consistently rising.  Right now the stock market is near an all-time high.

It’s like the states have a dedicated team of sugar-addled toddlers to managing their pension money and replaced the water cooler with chocolate syrup.  NO ONE could lose money in this environment.  But let’s not forget to blame 43 of the state legislatures for assuming that their pension funds would grow at a constant 8%.  First, most people would love that rate with current interest rates.  Secondly, you’re never going to get that with the batch of sugar-addled toddlers that they currently employ – you might get your portfolio traded for a Cadbury’s® Cream Egg™, and there’s not a lot of return in that.

I’m expecting the state underfunding to double or triple in the next five years – Chicago can’t pay policemen retirement past 2020 or so.  There are actually more retired cops than active cops that they’re paying.  This stuff is all over the place.  Easy to solve in a growing economy without debt.  Here?  Just more chaos to add to the picture.  You how bad it is in your state, according to the Wall Street Journal (LINK).

There certainly is an end game, however.

As I’ve mentioned before, the high United States’ reliance on debt combined with the use of the dollar as the de facto world currency places it in a pretty perilous precarious position.  Here are some random bad things that could happen (up front, I’m thinking these things won’t happen for a few years, and it may not be these things – but something will happen):

• Some country, like China, will dump all of their dollars to sink the dollar. Right now, China hasn’t done this because they’re not strong enough militarily or economically.  Eventually, their math might change.
• Somebody will come up with something better than the dollar. This isn’t as likely, but is still a possibility.  When a currency isn’t backed by anything (like the dollar) it’s all a matter of perception.
• Everyone stops buying Treasury Bonds (i.e., the money government is borrowing) and interest rates have to shoot up to convince people to buy United States debt.
• We will have an internal crisis brought on by the cold equations that govern the debt. One projection shows that by 2031 (not that far off) that Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and interest on the debt will consume . . . all the projected tax money.  All of it.  And this might be optimistic, because this graph doesn’t show nearly as much Medicare and Medicaid spending as the CBO does.  I think this might be based on an older data set.  Too optimistic.

Source:  Heritage Foundation, http://budgetbook.heritage.org/

It’s really hard to post a graph like the one above and argue that it’s too optimistic, but I think it really is.  We’ll probably run into hard limits sooner, say 2025.  In no way can this continue beyond 2040 or so.

Well, John Wilder, you say, we’ve been through a depression before.  This should be a cakewalk!  We have Netflix®!

True!  And I will be chillin’ with Netflix© as the ship sinks with a Macanudo™ and some awesome Malbec as the deck tilts, but in the Great Depression our economy was fundamentally different – instead of 70%+ of our economy being driven by consumption, we were the net producer for the world.  Our big problem back then was that we had so much money from all of those other countries floating around, as we were the largest net creditor nation in the world.  Now we’re the largest net debtor.  Ever.

And your grandma and grandpa had a garden, didn’t they?  It was quaint, you thought.  Back during the depression 20% or so of folks lived on farms.  They didn’t starve because they had access to chickens, eggs, food.  They could turn corn stalks into shoes.  Or something.  The garden your grandma kept?  She kept it because she remembered the hungry days, the days when they saved everything because it might have a use.  My mother saved aluminum TV dinner trays (yes, this was a thing) for decades.  “Might have a use for them.”

So what happens after the currency gets wonky?  Hard to say.  This is the textbook definition of a singularity – all the parts go vertical or are divided by zero.  What happens when that happens?  Again, that’s a really hard set of questions, and this is not the only singularity we will be facing in the near term.

I’ll have a future set of posts on other singularities like this.  The next one should be Monday, and it’ll be a doozy.

Hope this conversation didn’t leave you Thunderstruck.  If so, here’s a cure:

Yes, you did just see that.

 

“I have broken a ten year old’s spirit.  Time to reward myself with a fruit on the bottom yogurt.  Plain, plain, plain, plain . . . ooh, fruit.” – The Simpsons

Not where Soviet goatherders live.

I remember watching a news program when I was quite young and staying over at my grandparents.  A reporter had been dispatched to some part of the Soviet Union to interview a lot of old people.  The story showed a bunch of goat herders who lived in stone and mud houses in some remote mountain valley.  Wonderful television, right?  Well, the kicker was all of these old people lived to their nineties, but still claimed that they could beat the Nigerian cross-country ski team in the Battle of the Network Stars®.  Or maybe it was the Gong Show™?

The reporter earnestly asked a bunch of questions through interpreters about Soviet lifestyles.  We were watching on 27” televisions that seemed normal in size then, but absurdly small today.  Thankfully, they weighed about 1000 pounds each (the television, not the Soviets).  Back then four or five of these televisions cost about as much as a brand new Camaro®, which is the same thing as a new television costing over $6,000 now.  Or a new Camaro© costing about $4,500.  Now.  Don’t know about you, but I’d love to trade five televisions for a brand new Camaro™.

Turned out that goat herders spend their days herding goats.  And walking up and down steep hills to carry water back up to their mud and stone huts.  And chasing goats.  And eating yogurt.  And doing whatever else it is that causes them to lose their teeth and look like shriveled raisin-people.  Heck, the Soviets never learned about sunscreen and I bet their version of dentistry involved a steam engine and a comical series of gears in some fashion – for all I know the raisin-people were twenty three years old.  And they had zero televisions or Camaros®.  Did I mention that they discussed eating only yogurt?

Soon after this story hit, yogurt became available in the local supermarket.  I don’t think this is a coincidence.  I’m guessing that the American consensus was that we could eat our way skinny using yogurt.  And the other bet was that you could live to be as old and leathery as those Soviets.

First Yogurt Purchase on Wilder Mountain by Ma Wilder:

Young John Wilder:  “Ummm, gross.  It looks like snot.”

Ma Wilder:  “It’s good for you.  It has bacteria.”

Young John Wilder:  “SUPER gross!  Bacteria?”

Ma Wilder, flustered:  “These are supposed to be good for you, young comrade!”

But now I’m pretty sure that what kept those goat herders living their long stone and mud hut lives wasn’t yogurt, but was:

• No access to Ding Dongs®, Twinkies©, or Fruit Piesâ„¢, and
• Having to walk up and down hundreds of feet on that steep, steep mountain every single day of their lives to chase their goats and get their water, and,
• Great Soviet technology, which was far better than American technology – Americans have car/truck combination that is El Camino? Soviets have tank/car/jet combination called El Gorbacar!  Runs on kerosene and weighs 124,000 pounds.

Okay, my bet it was the low carbs and all the strenuous exercise and not so much on the El Gorbacar.  Same thing with the native Alaskan population – native Alaskans were lean, mean polar bear killing machines before Coca-Cola®, Ho-Hos™ and Doritos©.  After Ruffles®, Wonder Bread™ and mechanized transportation?  Skyrocketing heart disease.

I imagine those ex-Soviets all weigh 450 pounds now and sit around playing GoatHerder3™ on Playstation©.  But they have awesome non-leathery complexions from living in Mom’s basement.

And, all the latest data keeps proving my supposition:  moving around a lot keeps you alive longer.  This is pretty much the same story as 2016.  And 2015.  And every year since 1936, which was the last year that medical science was concerned that vigorous activity would disturb the bodily humours which could only be dispelled by large amounts of opium, radium, and linoleum.

The story is evolving.  Even if you’re fit in all other ways, for the last several years it’s been reported that the data now appears to say that if you sit for long periods of time?  You’re going to die.

Well, die sooner.  We’re all gonna die.  It’s all a matter of if you get to see “Game of Thrones” end, right?  Who needs to see 2019?

The markers appear to say that if you rest for longer than twelve and a half hours per day, and more than 10 minutes per session . . . you’re going to die sooner.

And the reasons?  All of the reasons:

• Cardiovascular disease
• Cancer
• Depression/anxiety
• Backaches

Okay, backaches are generally not fatal.  But the rest of them certainly can be.

And, like I mentioned before, absolutely zero of these stories are new – it seems to be a story that the media trots out every September and March.  It might have something to do with when new journalists emerge from their cocoons after their larval stage as sons and daughters of investment bankers who can afford surgery to make them attractive.  My prediction?  Pumpkin-spice latte stories in our near future as the journalists develop into their final glorious form:  commentators.  Ahh, the beauty of the circle of life, from weathergirl to Cokie Roberts.

But I digress.  Actually, the first time I recall reading about the dangers of sitting was around 2000.  Neal Stephenson, one of my favorite authors, wrote about it in an essay in 2012 called . . . “Arsebestos.”

Mr. Stephenson compares sitting to asbestos, since both lead to early death, hence . . . Arsebestos.  He made the point that future employees will be able to sue based on being required to sit all the time at work.  Basis of the case?

Butt brutality?  Heine horrors?

But one of the reasons I love Mr. Stephenson is that he’s got skin in the game.  He put his lifestyle where his mouth is:  he started working on a treadmill desk, which is a big deal, as a loveseat addicted author with a glass of pinot noir in his hand can attest.

Mr. Stephenson’s results are well documented here at this (LINK) of the 416 days he spent working on a treadmill desk at the time he wrote the article.  He did run into some problems with going too slow – the pace wasn’t natural and he lurched from side to side.  When he pushed his speed back up to 1.8 miles per hour, all of the physical problems associated with the treadmill dropped away.

So, the short message of this post?

Get up and move.  Now.  Dance like you’re a crazy fool!  It will save your life.

Unless you’re running a crane at a construction site.  And then?  For heaven’s sake sit down and do your job!  You could kill someone . . . .

“Undercover insects?  Talking iguanas?  This isn’t a research station, it’s a three ring circus.  You should charge admission.” – Star Trek, Voyager

Pugsley bravely researching a high-carb diet. The Sugar Research Foundation® thanks him for his bravery!

In 1967, a member of the Board of Directors of the Sugar Research Foundation® (yes, that was a real thing) published a statement that noted there were significant flaws in studies that linked high sugar consumption to heart problems.  The Sugar Research Foundation© paid for the work that went into backing up the statement.  No problems, right?

Perhaps the Official Song of the Sugar Research Foundationâ„¢?

The statement came from (in part) the Chairman of Harvard®’s Public Health Nutrition Department, and was published as research in the New England Journal of Medicine©.  From what I’ve read, his position at the Sugar Research Foundation™ and their funding of the study wasn’t mentioned.  Surely no bias from a Harvard© man?

This study resulted (at least partially) in the Low Fat/High Carb craze, and increasing amounts of obesity and heart disease.  So, to recap history:

• 1967: Carbs Good
• 1972: Atkins – “Not so fast.”
• 1978: Carbs Good
• 1981: Atkins – “Really, dudes, you’re wrong.”
• 1980’s and 1990’s: WE SAID LOW FAT.  Oh, and bread works like sugar, so have as much sugar as you want.  A Milky Way® is like six pieces of bread.  Or a potato.
• 1999: Atkins – “Dudes, not working.  Chill and have a steak.”

I could keep going.

Is it just me, or does medical research follow the model shown in the video?

Right now it seems as though the tide has finally turned in Dr. Atkins favor, probably for good, though the Wikipedia for “Atkins Diet” reads like the ghost of the Sugar Research Foundation® lurks over it to this very day.

Let’s think about cows.  Hmmm, first time I’ve ever written that sentence.

Prior to being turned into tasty steaks, cattle are taken to a feedlot, which is just that, a lot where they feed the cows.  A lot, as in mass quantities.  A cow will enter the feedlot weighing 700-800 pounds, and exit 400 pounds heavier in 4 months.  That math is easy – 100+ pounds a month (that’s like 6,000 kilograms an hour).  What do they feed the cows?  Lots of high energy grain, combined with a little bit of protein and a little bit of fat.  And they gain massive amounts of weight.

Had Harvard™ (a location where they seem to be confused) just checked the Hereford (a cattle breed) heifers (a specific cattle descriptor) then they would have known that it’s clear how to make someone gain weight, and it’s precisely the diet he suggested is better than Grandma’s steak and eggs.

What cows might look like to a Chairman of Harvard®’s Public Health Nutrition Department.  At least they’re mammals?

Let’s talk about salt.  Here are two headlines about salt consumption health effects from August, 2017:

• High Salt Diet Can Double Risk of Heart Failure
• Pass the Salt: The Myth of the Low Salt Diet

There are Similar debates on statins (do they do anything but mess with your muscles OR are they a miracle?), B vitamins (generally good for you OR increase risk of cancer) and eggs.

Eggs used to be a miracle food.  Then, in the 1970’s?  Evil death in the full shell.  Now?  The kind of cholesterol in an egg isn’t the kind of cholesterol in your body.  Eggs are eggsactly what a body needs!  Today, anyway.

This has led me to two conclusions:

• Journalists will write up anything for a Friday deadline if it gets them to Bennigan’s© faster so they can have a Bloomin’ Onion® and a scotch and soda before going to the fedora store. (I may have messed this metaphor up, but I’m working on a Friday deadline . . . .)  If they read the medical studies, most of them don’t remotely have sufficient background in biology or statistics to understand it, because the tough math tests at journalism school allow them to take their socks off so they can use their toes for counting.
• Medical research is (shudder) even worse than journalism about medical research.

I’ll concentrate on the last point.

Doug Altman wrote an article for The BMJ.  What is The BMJ?  It used to be called the British Medical Journal, but the password got hacked and it was renamed by a group of 12 year old boys.

Back in 1994, Altman wrote an article for The BMJ called The Scandal of Poor Medical Research.  It’s behind a paywall, and I think it’s better if I just make up the content anyway.  Actually, Richard Smith gives a pretty good synopsis of the article in The BMJ Blog (LINK).  Much of the research was bad because “. . . of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.”  And, presumably, he thought that medical research had an ugly, fat mother, too.  And that’s the positive news.

It gets worse.  Career interests (like our Harvard Sugar Daddy) influence research.  And, to quote an article in The Lancet, “85% of medical research dollars are wasted.”  Presumably that ($240 billion in 2010) would pay for a lot of pantyhose and elephant rides.  I think in layman’s terms that means the researchers either evil, stupid, or evil AND stupid.

And remember, medical research isn’t Scottish . . . it’s crap.

So, medical research is horribly broken.  What about medicine?

My general theory when it comes to doctors is to avoid them.  I got sick for the first time in about eight years last month.  Rather than go into a doctor (respiratory thing that was moving into my lungs) for a prescription, I was able to log onto a website and talk to a doctor.  My wait time as I was sitting in my basement in a fever-induced cold sweat?   Five minutes.  Visit duration?  Five minutes.  Cost?  $60.  The amoxicillin that cured me?  $20.  Genius.

What about hospitals?  Don’t go there – people die there!  And my theory is backed up by data.

What does the data say?

That some facets of medical science are getting to be amazing:

• Trauma medicine, such as treating car accident victims, firearms victims, et cetera has saved tens of thousands of lives.
• Medical imaging has allowed better diagnosis, and antibiotics have saved millions.
• Bandaids® are much more colorful and have cartoon images on them.

However:

More people are killed by doctors than by guns.  Not on a rate basis, on an absolute basis.  It appears that the best estimate that the Internet has of those killed in the United States accidently by their doctors is somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000.  Every year.  Since only about 10,000 deaths a year from guns are not suicides, that means doctors kill 25 to 40 times more people than guns every year.

Wow.  And I thought that Clint Eastwood was tough.

Young Doctors in Love, yup, the urine sample scene.  Bonus?  Sean Young before the crazy hit her.

I know, these are accidents, the people were sick, and some of them might not have made it anyway.  Sure.  But for numbers this big to exist there really is a problem in the system.  And I’m pretty sure that all of the things we’ve done over the last twenty years have made it worse, not better, with a medical system that pits insurance against doctor against malpractice attorney in a constantly escalating struggle of money and power.

Is there another model?  Sure.  Canada, with rationed care?

Also, there are places like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (LINK).  They don’t take insurance, but they have a fixed price list on the Internet.  Need a pacemaker?  $11,400. (Average cost after Medicare?  $20,000+.)  Knee replacement?  $15,499.  (Average cost after Medicare?  Hard to tell.  Probably $10,000 to $15,000.)

Downside?  You have to visit Oklahoma.

I know that our current system of insurance was driven by government wage and price controls during World War II – you couldn’t offer someone more money to come to work for you, but you could offer them insurance and pensions.  Note that these are precisely the systems that are exploding right now and distorting our economy to the point where they are consuming more resources in both the private sector and the public sector.

The Mrs.’ solution?  Outlaw insurance.

It sounds better and better every day.  Have a steak while you’re waiting.

Note That John Wilder is NOT a doctor so for heaven’s sake, DO NOT follow my advice without talking to your doctor.  Or Shaman.  Or whatever groovy stuff you do.  Also, I am long a company that makes Statins, but they’re not gonna be helped by this article.  I don’t plan on selling it anytime soon since the yield is pretty good (this is NOT investment advice, I’m just sayin’ and disclosin’).  I don’t plan on taking any positions in any company over the next four or five days, and haven’t recently.

 

“Now there’s a girl who gives the word ‘hippy’ a whole new meaning.  Move over, Mama Cass!  Move out of the way, sweetie.  You’re blocking my light.  Is it an eclipse?  No, Edwina’s in the room.” – Absolutely Fabulous

This is the dolphin that Bonnie Raitt Tyler will ride when she sings “Total Eclipse of the Heart.”

On March 1, 1504, Christopher Columbus was in the middle of really difficult negotiations.  Columbus was looking for the native inhabitants of the island we now call Jamaica (I believe they called it “home”) to provide him free food, and work for him in repairing his wormy old boats day and night.  In return, he was offering nothing.

Not a great negotiating position.

Columbus did have one advantage: he carried an almanac with him, and knew that there was going to be a lunar eclipse.  A lunar eclipse is really valuable if you have no idea where you’re going (or even how big the world is) like Columbus.

Why?

During a lunar eclipse, as long as you’re on the night side of the Earth, you see the Earth’s shadow start to block the light from the Sun shining on the full Moon.  And that happens for everyone at the same time – even if you’re in London, or in Spain, or in . . . Jamaica.

And that’s valuable, since, clocks in 1504 are really crappy.

It’s really easy to tell how far north or south you are on the Earth.  You can measure with just a quick sighting on a star.  But telling how far east or west?  Not happening, unless you know what time it is.  And since you know EXACTLY when the lunar eclipse starts, you know, at that point, exactly what time it is.

Knowing that, you if you measure the time from the eclipse to dawn, you know exactly how far east or west you are.

But Columbus had a different plan.  He told the natives he was going to take away the Moon, or, rather God was.  He made a big deal of praying.  When the Moon was in shadow, Columbus knew exactly how long the eclipse was going to last – and it was a really tense 45 or so minutes that Columbus timed out with an hourglass.  Tense for the natives.

Columbus said he’d prayed, and then told the natives that, hey, God was gonna put the Moon back in the sky.  But you’d better help us out.

Don’t make God angry.

The native Jamaicans complied, since if you’re negotiating with really no bargaining power, it’s nice to have a full range of supernatural powers at your disposal . . .

But that was a lunar eclipse.  And the eclipse that’s going to hit Monday is a solar eclipse – the Moon will totally block out the Sun only for a thin, moving swath of the United States.

But, this is a Friday post, and it’s really supposed to be about health.  So, how do you combine health and the eclipse?

Don’t stare at the Sun.  See, that was simple.  But on Sunday every news story will mention that.  And Bonnie Raitt Tyler.  Who will be droning about wanting Bright Eyes to turn around in some boat somewhere.

I swear, this is the creepiest video every made.  Altar boys with glowing eyes flying through the air?  Check.  Conan looking dudes with furry loincloths?  Check.  Bonnie Raitt Tyler.  Check.  Yeah, creepier than Ozzy singing “Bark at the Moon” in Illinois during the eclipse.

So, don’t stare at the Sun.  It’s not that hard.

Well, kinda?  Isaac Newton, the scientist who formulated the laws of motion, of optics, and who invented calculus just to disprove a baseball trivia question about the infield fly rule, once stared at the Sun with one eye until he could only see reds and blues.  His eye recovered, but he experienced after images for months.

But even though the Smartest Man Who Ever Lived got better, I wouldn’t bet on you getting better.  There was even story about a guy who, since 1960-whatever, was still blind in one eye from staring at that eclipse back when Kennedy was still chasing starlets.

And there’s no reason for it nowadays since large numbers of eclipse glasses were/are available for free, or for a buck or two if the library is somehow toxic to you.  Unless you buy fake ones, which the news also seems to be upset about, or maybe the journalists are just reaching for something.  Nah.

Hint – if they spelled ‘eclipse’ wrong on your eclipse glasses and you can see your living room at night through them, those are bad signs.

I think that China has been preparing eclipse glasses for us since February 26, 1979, so they really are/were everywhere.

February 26, 1979 is the last time that a total eclipse passed over even part of the US.  Where I was at the time was only 83% covered, but, for some reason, I got sent to the office (which required me to go outside, since the art building was kept at a reasonable and safe distance from the main building) during the eclipse.  Since school administrators didn’t want to have to explain the whole “entire school is blind” phenomenon that might accompany a middle school during an eclipse, all of the classes were kept in session.  It was weird being out there, alone, even when I wasn’t under the path of totality.  The light was . . . different.  And, yes, I snuck a peak at the Sun.  Quickly.

If you’re under the path of totality (and only during totality) you’re okay to look straight up.  Pull off the glasses and enjoy the cool day as the Moon completely obscures the Sun’s healthful yet deadly rays and the stars peak through the day.

But that’s not the only health challenge on the day of the eclipse.  At least one group is claiming that a rogue planet, obscured only by the Sun’s healthful but yet deadly rays, will smack straight into the Earth during the eclipse.  What a coincidence!  What are the odds!  I’ve heard of being late, but it’s over four years since the world ended the last time in 2012.

I know, it seems unlikely, but you have to admit that one planet smacking into another at fifty miles per second would probably be a day where there might be some larger, “being crushed by a rogue planet” health problems showing up.  I imagine school bus routes would even be delayed the next day.

But, there might be a small chance that you can take advantage of the eclipse.  Let’s say you’re negotiating with the most poorly informed car salesman in the United States on Monday in Salem, Oregon who has NO idea that there’s going to be a total solar eclipse.

At 10:18AM Pacific Daylight Time, that’s when you should start with the hardball negotiation on that used Hyundai®.  Tell him you’ll bring back the Sun’s healthful yet deadly rays if he gives you a free fill-up.

Worked for Columbus.

Note:  John Wilder is not even a TV Doctor. DON’T STARE AT THE SUN!

 

“Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how’d you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.” – Monty Python and the Holy Grail

The Mrs. took this picture when we visited San Francisco to see the renowned economist Ludwig Von Miller. 

Economics has been called “the dismal science,” which, really only contains one lie (hint, economics is “dismal” but economics is not “science”).  Much of the pain and suffering felt throughout the twentieth century, and continuing to today is the result of a clash of economic systems – Marxism and state-sponsored capitalism.  Marxism has huge numbers of supporters, which I could understand if it were the Marx Brothers, but in this case it’s the “starving while the economy burns” type of Marxism.

Capitalism, strangely, is much less popular.  One of the key proponents of an open, market economy was the Denver Bronco® football player, Ludwig Von Miller.

LUDWIG VON MILLER

Von leads the league in quarterback sacks and in economic theory.

Okay, that’s not really true.  The economist in question was Ludwig Von Mises.  He was Austrian, and is credited with a fairly rigorous study of economic theory, but, like most economists, really sucked at playing defensive end.  Also like most economists, Ludwig takes a good twenty pages of material and stretches it into nearly a thousand pages (more in some editions) of his book “Human Action.”  You know me – I’ll get you a superficial look at the good parts pretty quickly complete with cat illustrations.  There is no way I can recommend that you buy a book where the STUDY GUIDE is nearly 400 pages.

One of the things that economists miss is that people are human, and are not constructs that follow equations in the choices they make.

I recall back in macroeconomics class in college, the Hungarian teacher was attempting to explain the concept of utility, using pizza and beer.  If beer were cheap and pizza were expensive, he reckoned, you’d buy a lot of beer and not much pizza.

I had to nod at that point.

He then pointed at the other end of the graph where beer was expensive and pizza cheap and pointed at me, “Zo, if you ver goink to buy pizzas, at zis prize, how many vood you buy?”

John Wilder:  “One.  That’s all I can eat.”

Professor:  “No, ze equation zays you vill buy twelve!”

I think I got a “B” in that course.

But the thinking was wrong – pizza is no substitute for beer, and people act for reasons that are generally unrelated to false mathematical quandaries on a chalkboard.  Yes, lots of beer.  No, only one pizza.

What About Human Action?

Von Mises looked at the picture differently.  His commentary was that each action taken by a human was an internally consistent, rational act that followed some pretty simple rules.  Ludwig said that there were three necessary preconditions to any Human Action.  And, as a true economist, I will do it with the aid of Pusheen Cat, the wonderful creation of Belton and Duff (LINK):

• There has to be a vision of a better state. This created the necessary fuel for action.  You have to see a state that’s better than where you are now.  Pizza nearly always meets that goal, unless I’ve just had pizza.

• There has to be a path to get to the better state. Even if it involves riding a unicorn.  Or being a unicorn.

• There has to be belief that your action will result in the outcome, and that by becoming a unicorn you can get that pizza.

Otherwise?  Unless you can see a path you won’t do anything.  Especially if you have don’t have a vision of a better state.

What is satisfied?  You don’t see a better state than the one that you’re in.  Sounds almost like either you’re Self-Actualized (LINK) or you just ate pizza.  Satisfied is a particular condition where you’re okay with everything.  If you look at most advertising (and most social websites (LINK)) you’ll see that companies spend billions of dollars annually to make you dissatisfied with your life, with the big solution being that you can spend your money on their stuff, or in the case of Facebook® you won’t be satisfied unless you see the number of “Likes” that you’d like to see.

And these three conditions for Human Action can come in any order.

It can be Belief-Vision-Path, Path-Vision-Belief, etc.  When I think about some really successful people I know, they got better at their own skills (which makes the path easier) and then finally had their Vision of what they wanted to do, or even just stumbled into their Vision because they found that place they needed to be.  Other people develop the Vision (talkin’ bout you, Elon Musk (LINK)) and follow it through until they’ve created a changed world.

But, John Wilder, is there a Practical Application, or are you Naval Gazing?

But there’s a critical stopping point:  absence of any one of the conditions just stops action dead.

I recall one time I used Von Mises as a business analysis tool at work:

I was in the middle of a project that required cooperation between groups of contractors spread across the country.  The professionals I needed were spread out (literally) among the dozens of states.  And they weren’t producing.  One centralized group was producing about ten times the amount of work per person that the other groups spread all over the continent were producing.  And while being in Arizona might make you lazy, it wouldn’t make you that lazy.

I got on an airplane to go and visit the headquarters of the contractor since walking 500 miles would just take too darn long.  I interviewed the employees working on the project, and, while they understood the project vision, and saw a clear path to get to it (by working on the project) they also didn’t believe that working on my project would help them.  They believed that if they were working on my project, that they’d have to neglect their current customers.  If they neglected their current customers, when my project was over, someone else would be serving their steady customers when they finished my work.

They had belief, all right.  They believed that in helping me finish my project that they’d actually increase their chances of getting fired.  We centralized them for the month, and their management provided personal assurances that they wouldn’t get fired, and they managed to get the work done on time, I got a raise and a hot tub and new khaki pants . . . .

So, Von Mises provided a diagnostic tool for me to evaluate a real-life business situation, save my company over two million dollars, and get me several nice bonuses, since I had a real belief that failing would lead to my career being derailed.

So this Vision-Path-Belief Thing is Always Good?

No.  These three conditions also don’t require that what you’re doing be a good thing.

A heroin addict sees a better state with having heroin, sees a path to rob a house to get money to buy heroin, and believes that their action on the path will get them to that heroin.

Von Mises didn’t judge – just described the conditions required for human action.  People will be what they want – Stanford and marshmallows showed us that (LINK).

What about Marxism?

Marxism (except the Groucho kind) does judge.  It declares that people, at some point, somewhere, will overcome Von Mises’ laws of Human Action and do what’s in the best interest of the collective, regardless of their own best interest – From Each According to His Ability, To Each According To His Needs.  That might work in small groups like families, and kindergarten groups, and maybe even in bigger groups in the short run when the Vision (defeating Hitler and Tojo) is big enough, but besides that?  Not so much.

People work in their own interests.  And that’s okay.  It might be messy, but, in general, it leads to the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people, huge opportunity, and tremendous innovation as people compete to create great stuff so they can have your money.

I’m just glad that Ludwig Von Miller got his strip sack against Karl Marx and made MVP at Super Bowl® 50, all while working on the implications of voluntary economic transactions on the credit cycle!