Everything normal
Successful business career
Great to be alive
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Friday, November 13, 2015
Adjusting My Voice On LinkedIn, Without Sarcasm
Sarcasm has long been one of my favorite accents. It can be appropriate in sparing amounts. It can also be too much of a good thing. Branding myself as all sarcastic, all the time, in front of all audiences has outlived its usefulness. Observing my personal brand through someone else's eyes made me realize it needs some polish.
I made some significant wording changes to my LinkedIn profile. I removed all of the sarcastic references to my former employers in finance and my alumni associations. I re-worded those experiences to describe my roles there in a more balanced way. I cannot be angry forever. Permanent anger is not a healthy way to see the world or approach people. It no longer matters whether privileged people treated me poorly. Bad people will always exist and they do not belong in my life. The bitterness I reserved for them on my LinkedIn profile allowed them to remain as burdens in my life. It is time to move on to greener pastures.
Readers will still see my Financial Sarcasm Roundups every week or so on this blog. I can still reserve my sharpest barbs for news makers whose affronts are too egregious for polite commentary. It is a weapon I should use sparingly rather than habitually. Maybe someone important will surprise me by making a smart decision for a change.
Public image is a component of leadership. Consider two different US Army generals in World War II: Joseph Stilwell and Dwight Eisenhower. Gen Stilwell's nickname was "Vinegar Joe" due to his penchant for sarcastic, prejudiced comments. Historians regarded him as marginally successful leading the China Burma India Theater, but he could have accomplished much more if he had gotten along with others. Gen. Eisenhower spent years cultivating an optimistic, confident outlook. His personal skills paid off in building the multinational coalition that liberated Europe. Gen. Stilwell is mostly a historical footnote today. Gen. Eisenhower's victories live forever in glory. How they viewed themselves and the world determined how they led their people.
One of the Internet memes going around is built on Ayesha A. Siddiqi's great Twitter quote, "Be the person you needed when you were younger." A growing child doesn't need a steady diet of vinegar. Optimism and confidence are much healthier.
I made some significant wording changes to my LinkedIn profile. I removed all of the sarcastic references to my former employers in finance and my alumni associations. I re-worded those experiences to describe my roles there in a more balanced way. I cannot be angry forever. Permanent anger is not a healthy way to see the world or approach people. It no longer matters whether privileged people treated me poorly. Bad people will always exist and they do not belong in my life. The bitterness I reserved for them on my LinkedIn profile allowed them to remain as burdens in my life. It is time to move on to greener pastures.
Readers will still see my Financial Sarcasm Roundups every week or so on this blog. I can still reserve my sharpest barbs for news makers whose affronts are too egregious for polite commentary. It is a weapon I should use sparingly rather than habitually. Maybe someone important will surprise me by making a smart decision for a change.
Public image is a component of leadership. Consider two different US Army generals in World War II: Joseph Stilwell and Dwight Eisenhower. Gen Stilwell's nickname was "Vinegar Joe" due to his penchant for sarcastic, prejudiced comments. Historians regarded him as marginally successful leading the China Burma India Theater, but he could have accomplished much more if he had gotten along with others. Gen. Eisenhower spent years cultivating an optimistic, confident outlook. His personal skills paid off in building the multinational coalition that liberated Europe. Gen. Stilwell is mostly a historical footnote today. Gen. Eisenhower's victories live forever in glory. How they viewed themselves and the world determined how they led their people.
One of the Internet memes going around is built on Ayesha A. Siddiqi's great Twitter quote, "Be the person you needed when you were younger." A growing child doesn't need a steady diet of vinegar. Optimism and confidence are much healthier.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Saturday, November 07, 2015
When To Trade Dollars For Hours
Productive people do not have enough hours in the day to accomplish all that they need to do. The cheapskates among them, including me, will push non-urgent tasks off to the next day. The more rushed or spendthrift among them will splurge for outside help. There may be a way to optimize the decision point prompting someone to choose spending money that saves time.
The idle rich have both money and time on their hands. Paying someone to do work they could easily learn to do themselves gives them even more time. It also gives them the psychological satisfaction of pushing around people who are far beneath them on the socioeconomic scale and bragging about it to their peers. I have met people like this in San Francisco and I do not ever want to be like them. The behavior is self-reinforcing and enhances class solidarity among the only social class that matters. It also carries moral peril. Devaluing human life is easy when the handiest measuring tool available is a checkbook.
Most outsourcing decisions are thankfully practical and born of necessity rather than luxury. Spending for expertise or other outside help makes sense if it obtains an otherwise remote level of quality. Opportunity costs are useful here. The cost of acquiring a skill or asset on one's own may be greater than the cost of hiring a ready-made capability.
I host my website with a cloud provider. It is far cheaper than buying my own server, learning to be a sysadmin and DBA, and running a dedicated 24/7 high-speed connection just so the Alfidi Capital website is available all the time. I spent a smaller amount of money because the cloud's scale delivers a very efficient solution. We make the same decisions when we buy groceries instead of raising our own crops. Trading dollars for hours is easy when the benefit is immediately clear.
The choice is less difficult after calculating the DIY cost. If I absolutely cannot easily do something myself, and the cost of learning a new skill takes too much time away from my real money-making activities, then paying for an outside solution is acceptable to me. The choice is even easier if I don't have to directly engage a human being. I prefer that others do whatever they are meant to do in their lives. Their time should matter as much as mine.
The idle rich have both money and time on their hands. Paying someone to do work they could easily learn to do themselves gives them even more time. It also gives them the psychological satisfaction of pushing around people who are far beneath them on the socioeconomic scale and bragging about it to their peers. I have met people like this in San Francisco and I do not ever want to be like them. The behavior is self-reinforcing and enhances class solidarity among the only social class that matters. It also carries moral peril. Devaluing human life is easy when the handiest measuring tool available is a checkbook.
Most outsourcing decisions are thankfully practical and born of necessity rather than luxury. Spending for expertise or other outside help makes sense if it obtains an otherwise remote level of quality. Opportunity costs are useful here. The cost of acquiring a skill or asset on one's own may be greater than the cost of hiring a ready-made capability.
I host my website with a cloud provider. It is far cheaper than buying my own server, learning to be a sysadmin and DBA, and running a dedicated 24/7 high-speed connection just so the Alfidi Capital website is available all the time. I spent a smaller amount of money because the cloud's scale delivers a very efficient solution. We make the same decisions when we buy groceries instead of raising our own crops. Trading dollars for hours is easy when the benefit is immediately clear.
The choice is less difficult after calculating the DIY cost. If I absolutely cannot easily do something myself, and the cost of learning a new skill takes too much time away from my real money-making activities, then paying for an outside solution is acceptable to me. The choice is even easier if I don't have to directly engage a human being. I prefer that others do whatever they are meant to do in their lives. Their time should matter as much as mine.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Liberty And Engaged Citizens
Prosperity and liberty go together well in cultures that tolerate experimentation and respect for the individual. Writing about investment theories and market action is probably not enough to galvanize support for the enabling culture of economic prosperity. Two writers who may be able to help have recently crossed my radar. Charles Murray, author of By the People, and Larry Gerston, author of Reviving Citizen Engagement, recently spoke at the Commonwealth Club about how to re-energize Americans' concern for public life. I will offer my own thoughts below.
Mr. Murray approaches freedom from the conservative / libertarian right. Curtailing the intrusive power of government regulation would indeed be a boon to the US economy. I suggest he put his ideas to the free market test and crowdfund his proposed legal defense fund. I am generally not fond of those who thumb their noses at the rule of law, but Dr. Martin Luther King elevated it to a moral necessity in the face of unjust laws. Funding his legal defense while he contemplated action in Birmingham's jail would clearly have been a morally correct action. I must also caution those who think human history is an unbroken line of progress to higher states of maturity, freedom, and organization. Things do collapse sometimes despite the best efforts of well-meaning leaders.
Mr. Gerston arrives from the progressive left to critique Americans' disengagement. I agree with him that corporate tax loopholes and the erosion of economic security for workers are bad for prosperity and freedom. I would add that they are just as bad as over-regulation. I am totally on board with his idea for mandatory national service. A couple of years in the US military or a community service program would teach many otherwise entitled Americans that their rights come with civic obligations. Tax reform would work if it dramatically simplified the tax code but I doubt Mr. Gerston's proposed tax increase would pay for the unfunded GAAP liabilities of our entitlement programs. He would benefit from reading David Stockman's critiques of income inequality before he offers solutions emphasizing wealth redistribution.
I recently blogged about what a just society means. Real solutions throughout American history have come from both the right and the left at various times. Diagnosing social problems and working for solutions requires a citizenry engaged in guarding its own liberty. I would very much like to see my fellow citizens assume the task.
Mr. Murray approaches freedom from the conservative / libertarian right. Curtailing the intrusive power of government regulation would indeed be a boon to the US economy. I suggest he put his ideas to the free market test and crowdfund his proposed legal defense fund. I am generally not fond of those who thumb their noses at the rule of law, but Dr. Martin Luther King elevated it to a moral necessity in the face of unjust laws. Funding his legal defense while he contemplated action in Birmingham's jail would clearly have been a morally correct action. I must also caution those who think human history is an unbroken line of progress to higher states of maturity, freedom, and organization. Things do collapse sometimes despite the best efforts of well-meaning leaders.
Mr. Gerston arrives from the progressive left to critique Americans' disengagement. I agree with him that corporate tax loopholes and the erosion of economic security for workers are bad for prosperity and freedom. I would add that they are just as bad as over-regulation. I am totally on board with his idea for mandatory national service. A couple of years in the US military or a community service program would teach many otherwise entitled Americans that their rights come with civic obligations. Tax reform would work if it dramatically simplified the tax code but I doubt Mr. Gerston's proposed tax increase would pay for the unfunded GAAP liabilities of our entitlement programs. He would benefit from reading David Stockman's critiques of income inequality before he offers solutions emphasizing wealth redistribution.
I recently blogged about what a just society means. Real solutions throughout American history have come from both the right and the left at various times. Diagnosing social problems and working for solutions requires a citizenry engaged in guarding its own liberty. I would very much like to see my fellow citizens assume the task.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Brief Thoughts On A Just Society
I attended a lively philosophical discussion last night at the Commonwealth Club under the auspices of its Socrates Cafe. We discussed what a just society meant, and many highly intelligent people weighed in on fairness, equality, and love. I threw my own thoughts into the mix a few times. I want to note a couple of things here that may benefit others who aren't privy to such discussions.
I believe John Rawls' A Theory Of Justice clarifies how modern societies can be fair to all of their members. His two major principles address political liberties and socioeconomic opportunities separately. The implied task for American citizens is to build a society that maximizes these two principles for as many of our fellow citizens as possible. Building a just society along these lines requires metrics that show us what success will look like. I believe the application of Big Data in a globalized economy can now bring the just society within reach.
My longtime readers know that I use widely regarded development indexes to evaluate country-specific investment risks. The best are Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index and the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. I believe Transparency's index corresponds well with Rawls' first principle for political liberties and the Heritage index works for his second principle on economics. In other words, these Big Data repositories enable Americans to benchmark their society's fairness against other countries.
We don't have to stop with two measuring tools. The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index supports stronger jurisprudence in countries with weak legal traditions. The National Center for Access to Justice publishes a Justice Index for states within the US. Our Constitution promises every state a republican form of government, implying a strong rule of law and a fair legal system. Every American deserves to live in a society that delivers as much justice as is humanly possible. Fixing our systems means first measuring them to see where they need repair.
I believe John Rawls' A Theory Of Justice clarifies how modern societies can be fair to all of their members. His two major principles address political liberties and socioeconomic opportunities separately. The implied task for American citizens is to build a society that maximizes these two principles for as many of our fellow citizens as possible. Building a just society along these lines requires metrics that show us what success will look like. I believe the application of Big Data in a globalized economy can now bring the just society within reach.
My longtime readers know that I use widely regarded development indexes to evaluate country-specific investment risks. The best are Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index and the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. I believe Transparency's index corresponds well with Rawls' first principle for political liberties and the Heritage index works for his second principle on economics. In other words, these Big Data repositories enable Americans to benchmark their society's fairness against other countries.
We don't have to stop with two measuring tools. The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index supports stronger jurisprudence in countries with weak legal traditions. The National Center for Access to Justice publishes a Justice Index for states within the US. Our Constitution promises every state a republican form of government, implying a strong rule of law and a fair legal system. Every American deserves to live in a society that delivers as much justice as is humanly possible. Fixing our systems means first measuring them to see where they need repair.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
The Haiku of Finance for 06/27/15
Couple gets married
For richer and for poorer
But sign pre-nup first
For richer and for poorer
But sign pre-nup first
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Sunday, August 24, 2014
The Limerick of Finance for 08/24/14
People can't afford to retire
When their financial straits are too dire
Those who refused to save
Dug themselves a nice grave
It's too late to pull out of that fire
Saturday, August 16, 2014
The Haiku of Finance for 08/16/14
Finer things in life
Only wealth can afford them
Start saving up now
Only wealth can afford them
Start saving up now
Monday, March 24, 2014
Gullibility, Distractibility, And Availability In Undue Influence
Dr. Patrick O’Reilly, author of Undue Influence: Cons, Scams and Mind Control, shared his wisdom today at the Commonwealth Club. I learned enough about three major definitions - gullibility, distractibility, and the availability heuristic - to reduce my own chances of getting ripped off.
Gullibility is our natural state during periods of emotional vulnerability. We accept presented information less critically when we are weakened by stress or trauma. Distractibility from noise, crowds, and everyday details diverts our attention from critical thinking. The availability heuristic is the human tendency to accept vivid imagery that has an emotional impact. These biases combine with other forces to enable con artists to rip people off. Read Undue Influence for more details on fallacies and traps.
This line of work is relevant to me for a couple of reasons. I first encountered multilevel marketing (MLM) scams during my active duty military service in the mid-1990s. I knew enough about how these schemes worked from the junk mail I used to receive in college. Several fellow officers pitched me MLM ideas of various stripes, all of which I rejected once I realized what they were. I was very disappointed that people who pledged to live honorable lives were trying to prey on people junior to them in rank. I was very polite and professional when I declined all further contact with these losers.
My most severe encounter with fraud came a few years ago in San Francisco. One very charming but disgusting veteran wore falsified valorous decorations on his uniform while defrauding donors who supported veterans organizations. American Legion Post 911 in San Francisco was the vehicle for this scam. That post's continued existence brings shame to the veterans' community of San Francisco. The victims and incurious dupes who continue to enable the primary con artist's fraud don't strike me as particularly vulnerable or easily distracted. They are mostly accomplished professionals, making their continued collaboration with a scammer all the more inexplicable. Social proof probably plays a role among people who can't bring themselves to admit being hoodwinked over cocktails at their private club. I accept that they don't want to explain themselves to me. They will eventually have to explain themselves in court.
Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme proved that even successful investors fail to perform due diligence when someone in an affinity group possesses asymmetric information. That's the best explanation I can find for high-profile fraud among the elite. Extraordinary claims of fantastic results may seem completely plausible to high achievers who are accustomed to obtaining extraordinary results themselves. It takes a Herculean effort to show them the truth. I'm up to that challenge and I have facts on my side. Bring on the "Mickey Mouse" opposition.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, April 06, 2012
People Lie About Wanting Financial Advice From Ex-Military
I don't enjoy being angry. I read something today that made me boiling mad. Some survey claims that Americans value military veterans as financial advisers, and that this estimation increases with a respondent's affluence. I need to state for the record that nothing could be further from the truth.
I spent over a year as a financial advisor at a major wealth management firm. I worked harder than I ever have in my life to acquire clients. Every prospect I encountered - with two exceptions - completely ignored my military experience as a selling point for my abilities. The two exceptions were unique; one had very little liquid net worth to invest and the other was a phony who had zero net worth. All of the other prospects regarded my military background as something to disregard.
People with serious money to invest want it managed by someone who's achieved a comparable level of success. I find it telling that the Edward Jones survey above mentioned households with incomes of $100K or so. I hate to break this to the 1300 ex-military advisors they employ, but their careers will be short if they focus on acquiring people at that income level. Wealth management firms are increasingly discarding advisors who pursue clients with net worth under $1M. Making $100K/year isn't going to get anyone to millionaire status in an America beset by price inflation, equity overvaluation, creeping hyperinflation, and a rapacious elite bent on regulatory capture and financial repression.
I employed all of my military-acquired skills to establish trust, build rapport, demonstrate an extreme work ethic, prove my integrity, and persevere in the face of adversity. All of those traits turned off people with serious money. All of those attributes got me terminated. Most veterans hired as financial advisors don't realize that they're just filling an affirmative action quota and will be gone in a year. That's why brokerages can afford to brag that some percent of their sales force is comprised of veterans. They know that annual turnover for lack of production enables them to keep hiring and firing unsuspecting veterans over and over again. Americans who say they want military veterans as financial advisors probably don't make enough money to afford an advisor in the first place. Too many people just don't know what they're talking about.
I spent over a year as a financial advisor at a major wealth management firm. I worked harder than I ever have in my life to acquire clients. Every prospect I encountered - with two exceptions - completely ignored my military experience as a selling point for my abilities. The two exceptions were unique; one had very little liquid net worth to invest and the other was a phony who had zero net worth. All of the other prospects regarded my military background as something to disregard.
People with serious money to invest want it managed by someone who's achieved a comparable level of success. I find it telling that the Edward Jones survey above mentioned households with incomes of $100K or so. I hate to break this to the 1300 ex-military advisors they employ, but their careers will be short if they focus on acquiring people at that income level. Wealth management firms are increasingly discarding advisors who pursue clients with net worth under $1M. Making $100K/year isn't going to get anyone to millionaire status in an America beset by price inflation, equity overvaluation, creeping hyperinflation, and a rapacious elite bent on regulatory capture and financial repression.
I employed all of my military-acquired skills to establish trust, build rapport, demonstrate an extreme work ethic, prove my integrity, and persevere in the face of adversity. All of those traits turned off people with serious money. All of those attributes got me terminated. Most veterans hired as financial advisors don't realize that they're just filling an affirmative action quota and will be gone in a year. That's why brokerages can afford to brag that some percent of their sales force is comprised of veterans. They know that annual turnover for lack of production enables them to keep hiring and firing unsuspecting veterans over and over again. Americans who say they want military veterans as financial advisors probably don't make enough money to afford an advisor in the first place. Too many people just don't know what they're talking about.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Contraction In Financial Careers Long Overdue
I can get pretty darn ornery when the subject of careers in finance makes the news. BofA's plan for throwing away a big chunk of its workforce gives rise to a whole bunch of discussion on how far it will go. That article makes me giggle when I read that "anybody who could walk and talk" could have landed a job in the middle of the last decade. Folks, I had an MBA from a pretty good school and I had to settle for entry-level jobs that paid next to nothing, and I went completely without job offers for several years after getting that now-worthless MBA. Add "family pedigree" to the walking and talking criteria and you've got a viable MBA job candidate.
The article is generally correct that hiring in finance has been overdone for years and will now permanently contract to a more sustainable level. That also means that MBA enrollments should contract, since the workforce won't need so many MBA-certified people to replace existing employees. The MBA degree will eventually revert to what it was decades ago, when the top 20 programs were a rite of passage for blue-bloods destined to keep publicly held companies under the control of private families.
Let this be a warning to anyone considering an MBA as a prerequisite for a career change. Don't do it, people. You don't need it to get the entry-level jobs of the future that will be available in farming, recycling, and suburban deconstruction.
The article is generally correct that hiring in finance has been overdone for years and will now permanently contract to a more sustainable level. That also means that MBA enrollments should contract, since the workforce won't need so many MBA-certified people to replace existing employees. The MBA degree will eventually revert to what it was decades ago, when the top 20 programs were a rite of passage for blue-bloods destined to keep publicly held companies under the control of private families.
Let this be a warning to anyone considering an MBA as a prerequisite for a career change. Don't do it, people. You don't need it to get the entry-level jobs of the future that will be available in farming, recycling, and suburban deconstruction.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Initial Design Photo Of Seasteading City Demands Ridicule
Two days ago I posted some mild criticisms of the Seasteading Institute's floating city plan. Now I'm adding more fuel to my fire. This article displays a concept model of this artificial island for billionaires. I'll republish the photo below.
Do you see something wrong here? Check this out. That's a container ship parked next to an offshore platform. The offshore platform has no cranes, no piers, no material handling equipment, or anything else that is absolutely required to make an economically viable effort at getting those containerized goods off the ship and into the hands of the platform's wealthy denizens. Seasteaders need a crash course in supply chain management. They should hire me as a consultant. I'll raise my rates just for them so they can brag about paying top dollar for advice.
I'll offer yet another item to my litany of nonviability. This city-state has no way to feed itself. You can't live without food no matter how many billions you have in your Swiss account or how fast your satellite broadband connection zips around the world. Are they going to have dedicated fishing fleets prowling local waters? A steady diet of nothing but cod, tuna, and king crab will bore these urban transplants to death in no time. Most American city supermarkets require replenishment every few days, depending on inventory turnover and spoilage. How many supermarkets can fit on a floating platform? I'm guessing just one, and it will be about the size of a typical Trader Joe's in San Francisco. How will it be supplied? Remember, there are no plans yet for the cranes and dock space necessary to make any trade in goods, let alone food imports, physically possible. Maybe Whole Foods can deliver risotto by airdrop (*snicker*).
I've figured out the mentality behind this effort. It's a stab at creating a gated community to reflect the exclusive status the creators of this stupidity feel they deserve. The thing about gated communities on land is that they're already connected to the infrastructure for energy, water, waste disposal, and transport that makes them livable. There won't be enough space on an ocean-going platform to make all of that possible. Check out the cramped quarters on an aircraft carrier for the only existing model of how thousands of people can live at sea. Note that the carrier needs to replenish its nuclear reactor's fuel every few years (in drydock, on land, which will negate our seasteaders sovereignty!) and is never self-sufficient in food or material goods. The carrier's residents have little personal space, let alone enough space for a hundred billionaire condos. The mentality of rich folks who expect Jeeves to rush into the parlor with a cocktail every time they ring a silver bell from Tiffany's doesn't transplant to a cramped offshore platform. Some rich people apparently aren't satisfied with seceding from society; they want to secede from reality as well.
Have at it, seasteaders. You'll never get off dry land. Oh, if you need some more material for future designs, look no further than fiction.
Here's a final bit of free advice. Focus these platforms on fulfilling an unmet need for energy production from waves, tides, and offshore windfarms and you'll have an excuse to park them within sight of the shore. Proximity to shore means you can build causeways wide enough for trucks or trams and not worry about the lack of space for containerized trade I mentioned above. Get them approved as special economic development zones and you'll have reason to build things into them that would otherwise raise NIMBY objections. There may even be enough room for a dozen or so billionaire bachelor pads if they can stand the noise from all of the energy-generating infrastructure. Once they're profitable, maybe the residents can install a country club on the side of the platform facing the ocean. That will give them the illusion of turning their back on landbound commoners and seceding from reality, which is what they obviously want anyway. I'd love to see these things operating near San Francisco, as the backers intend, but I'll help them keep the endgame in mind. Hire me now before my rates go up again.
Full disclosure: I think this whole idea is stupid.
Do you see something wrong here? Check this out. That's a container ship parked next to an offshore platform. The offshore platform has no cranes, no piers, no material handling equipment, or anything else that is absolutely required to make an economically viable effort at getting those containerized goods off the ship and into the hands of the platform's wealthy denizens. Seasteaders need a crash course in supply chain management. They should hire me as a consultant. I'll raise my rates just for them so they can brag about paying top dollar for advice.
I'll offer yet another item to my litany of nonviability. This city-state has no way to feed itself. You can't live without food no matter how many billions you have in your Swiss account or how fast your satellite broadband connection zips around the world. Are they going to have dedicated fishing fleets prowling local waters? A steady diet of nothing but cod, tuna, and king crab will bore these urban transplants to death in no time. Most American city supermarkets require replenishment every few days, depending on inventory turnover and spoilage. How many supermarkets can fit on a floating platform? I'm guessing just one, and it will be about the size of a typical Trader Joe's in San Francisco. How will it be supplied? Remember, there are no plans yet for the cranes and dock space necessary to make any trade in goods, let alone food imports, physically possible. Maybe Whole Foods can deliver risotto by airdrop (*snicker*).
I've figured out the mentality behind this effort. It's a stab at creating a gated community to reflect the exclusive status the creators of this stupidity feel they deserve. The thing about gated communities on land is that they're already connected to the infrastructure for energy, water, waste disposal, and transport that makes them livable. There won't be enough space on an ocean-going platform to make all of that possible. Check out the cramped quarters on an aircraft carrier for the only existing model of how thousands of people can live at sea. Note that the carrier needs to replenish its nuclear reactor's fuel every few years (in drydock, on land, which will negate our seasteaders sovereignty!) and is never self-sufficient in food or material goods. The carrier's residents have little personal space, let alone enough space for a hundred billionaire condos. The mentality of rich folks who expect Jeeves to rush into the parlor with a cocktail every time they ring a silver bell from Tiffany's doesn't transplant to a cramped offshore platform. Some rich people apparently aren't satisfied with seceding from society; they want to secede from reality as well.
Have at it, seasteaders. You'll never get off dry land. Oh, if you need some more material for future designs, look no further than fiction.
Here's a final bit of free advice. Focus these platforms on fulfilling an unmet need for energy production from waves, tides, and offshore windfarms and you'll have an excuse to park them within sight of the shore. Proximity to shore means you can build causeways wide enough for trucks or trams and not worry about the lack of space for containerized trade I mentioned above. Get them approved as special economic development zones and you'll have reason to build things into them that would otherwise raise NIMBY objections. There may even be enough room for a dozen or so billionaire bachelor pads if they can stand the noise from all of the energy-generating infrastructure. Once they're profitable, maybe the residents can install a country club on the side of the platform facing the ocean. That will give them the illusion of turning their back on landbound commoners and seceding from reality, which is what they obviously want anyway. I'd love to see these things operating near San Francisco, as the backers intend, but I'll help them keep the endgame in mind. Hire me now before my rates go up again.
Full disclosure: I think this whole idea is stupid.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Floating Civilization Adrift On An Ocean Of Dreams
Ask any seagoing folk - career sailors, merchant mariners, professional yachtspersons - about life on the ocean and they'll tell you it's grand. Out at sea, you can commune with nature on a daily basis and fantasize about chasing Moby Dick or exploring Davy Jones' locker. You can also live as a permanent expatriate in exotic ports of call, with adventures in Polynesia and the Mediterranean beckoning.
You can also fantasize about creating your own civilization from scratch, if you have lots of time and money on your hands. Serial entrepreneurs with libertarian ideals have those resources in spades. Some of them are willing to take a stab at creating a floating nation. New business models always need to be tested against the real world and this is no less important than for a new model of nationhood. The folks at the Seasteading Institute should consider how the following topics affect their plans.
Economic viability. A floating colony of a few hundred people will not have a diverse economy. The types of people who are attracted to this lifestyle and can afford it are knowledge workers. Hedge fund managers and media consultants can probably afford to buy a plugged-in condo on a twenty-story semi-submersible platform. They will also be uniquely vulnerable to the kind of downward pressure on compensation from global wage arbitrage that is offshoring white-collar intellectual work to China and Southeast Asia. Speaking of Southeast Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong are densely packed urban centers with vibrant knowledge economies, just like our imaginary seaborne civilization. They also have world-class port facilities and plenty of infrastructure for high-tech manufacturing. Putting any of that infrastructure onto a floating platform on the scale needed to make a viable economy is probably impossible. It will also require a whole bunch of workers with skill sets completely alien to our effete urban wannabe platform dwellers.
Sovereignty. Here's a sticky subject. Floating platforms periodically need maintenance to remain functional. The entire "city" will probably have to be towed to the nearest shipyard dry-dock every few years for months of maintenance. Your precious homestead will be jacked out of the water for hull inspections, barnacle scraping, systems retrofitting, and all kinds of upgrades and services that are absolutely necessary to ensure the enterprise does not sink while it's on the water. This raises a very important point besides the livability of the platform while it's in drydock. A platform parked on land is subject to the laws and regulations of the nation where it's parked. That means the enterprise's sovereignty will most likely be erased when it pulls into port. The platform's residents will have to vacate their homes while the superstructure is undergoing maintenance, so once they're on land they are fair game for the local government. The libertarian fantasy of permanent life at sea bumps into the hard reality of periodic maintenance.
Physical security and safety. Building a whole town on the same superstructure as a semi-submersible drilling rig exposes the residents to the kinds of risks oil workers have taken for decades and adds some new ones. Will the structure have enough lifeboats moored in case something happens to render the thing unstable? What happens to one of these floating communities if a hurricane or tsunami comes its way? Today's oil drilling platforms have to be towed to shore upon notice of inbound hurricanes, as in the Katrina disaster. A tsunami would leave even less time to evacuate, so the rig would be stuck while residents scramble into lifeboats that will then be carried away by the tsunami's force. Ask yourself if you're in for the ride of your life. "All aboard the tsunami express - woooooo!" Daisy-chaining a few dozen platforms together to make an archipelago holds the entire civilization hostage to a structural failure on one platform. Think about that one: You look out your twentieth floor window and watch one of your neighboring platforms sinking, knowing your platform is chained to it by permanent infrastructure. Your twentieth floor view will be an underwater view in about five minutes. Ask anyone who's ever evacuated a sinking ship or drilling rig - like the Deepwater Horizon after it blew out in April 2010 - just how difficult it is to get into a lifeboat in a pitching sea. The people who survive those things are tough, trained marine technology experts; one disaster rehearsal with a bunch of transplanted urbanites will convince quite a few of them that ocean life isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Self-defense. This is closely related to the above paragraph on safety during structural failures. Security against natural disasters is hard enough without throwing malice and international intrigue into the mix. A floating rig full of rich, influential Westerners is a tempting target for blackmail by a rogue state. Think Somali pirates are tough? Try deterring a whole flotilla from a starving country hostile to the West without the protective umbrella of your own military. The aggressor wouldn't even need a WMD. They could just park an autonomous underwater vehicle loaded with high explosives under one of the platform's submerged pontoons. The floating city-state's mayor would then get the following call on his satellite phone: "Hello, this is Kim Jong Il, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. You will wire $US100mm to my account in Zurich or I will blow your city out of the water. Cast your eyes out two miles at 15 degrees north latitude for a demonstration explosion. (BOOM!) See that spray cloud? That's you if I don't get your money. My hackers have already identified your account numbers so all you have to do is hand it over. You have one hour to complete the transaction or you sleep with the fishies. Thank you in advance for your business." Laugh all you want at the James Bond-type brinkmanship. Dictators are amoral psychopaths who will salivate at the target presented by a bunch of wealthy idealists aimlessly riding the waves. Try calling the nearest U.S. Navy carrier battle group if you need help in a pinch.
There's nothing wrong with testing the viability of permanent, autonomous floating communities. Private investors are welcome to do anything they like with their money. Nothing in the concept mandates that the communities be ocean-going. I suspect that the most viable application of this concept is a series of connected platforms moored very close to shore, no more than a mile or two out. They could hold a kind of special economic status (like Hong Kong, or other countries' designated high-tech zones for foreign direct investment) that would incentivize investment and give residents plenty of autonomy short of full independence. Tethering them to shore makes connecting infrastructure for energy input, waste output, and movement of people and goods much easier.
The genesis of the concept makes me wonder about people who wander outside their circle of competence (hat tip to Warren Buffett). Launching and managing a business model that focuses on shooting electrons between e-commerce portals like EBay and PayPal requires advanced skills in computing and electrical engineering. Those skill sets are not identical to those required to move and sustain physical structures in the chaotic real world where human life and property must be safeguarded from accidents and malice. Please tell Thomas Friedman that the world is not flat.
Nota bene: I have no desire to start my own brand new civilization offshore. I'm busy trying to save the one that's onshore.
You can also fantasize about creating your own civilization from scratch, if you have lots of time and money on your hands. Serial entrepreneurs with libertarian ideals have those resources in spades. Some of them are willing to take a stab at creating a floating nation. New business models always need to be tested against the real world and this is no less important than for a new model of nationhood. The folks at the Seasteading Institute should consider how the following topics affect their plans.
Economic viability. A floating colony of a few hundred people will not have a diverse economy. The types of people who are attracted to this lifestyle and can afford it are knowledge workers. Hedge fund managers and media consultants can probably afford to buy a plugged-in condo on a twenty-story semi-submersible platform. They will also be uniquely vulnerable to the kind of downward pressure on compensation from global wage arbitrage that is offshoring white-collar intellectual work to China and Southeast Asia. Speaking of Southeast Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong are densely packed urban centers with vibrant knowledge economies, just like our imaginary seaborne civilization. They also have world-class port facilities and plenty of infrastructure for high-tech manufacturing. Putting any of that infrastructure onto a floating platform on the scale needed to make a viable economy is probably impossible. It will also require a whole bunch of workers with skill sets completely alien to our effete urban wannabe platform dwellers.
Sovereignty. Here's a sticky subject. Floating platforms periodically need maintenance to remain functional. The entire "city" will probably have to be towed to the nearest shipyard dry-dock every few years for months of maintenance. Your precious homestead will be jacked out of the water for hull inspections, barnacle scraping, systems retrofitting, and all kinds of upgrades and services that are absolutely necessary to ensure the enterprise does not sink while it's on the water. This raises a very important point besides the livability of the platform while it's in drydock. A platform parked on land is subject to the laws and regulations of the nation where it's parked. That means the enterprise's sovereignty will most likely be erased when it pulls into port. The platform's residents will have to vacate their homes while the superstructure is undergoing maintenance, so once they're on land they are fair game for the local government. The libertarian fantasy of permanent life at sea bumps into the hard reality of periodic maintenance.
Physical security and safety. Building a whole town on the same superstructure as a semi-submersible drilling rig exposes the residents to the kinds of risks oil workers have taken for decades and adds some new ones. Will the structure have enough lifeboats moored in case something happens to render the thing unstable? What happens to one of these floating communities if a hurricane or tsunami comes its way? Today's oil drilling platforms have to be towed to shore upon notice of inbound hurricanes, as in the Katrina disaster. A tsunami would leave even less time to evacuate, so the rig would be stuck while residents scramble into lifeboats that will then be carried away by the tsunami's force. Ask yourself if you're in for the ride of your life. "All aboard the tsunami express - woooooo!" Daisy-chaining a few dozen platforms together to make an archipelago holds the entire civilization hostage to a structural failure on one platform. Think about that one: You look out your twentieth floor window and watch one of your neighboring platforms sinking, knowing your platform is chained to it by permanent infrastructure. Your twentieth floor view will be an underwater view in about five minutes. Ask anyone who's ever evacuated a sinking ship or drilling rig - like the Deepwater Horizon after it blew out in April 2010 - just how difficult it is to get into a lifeboat in a pitching sea. The people who survive those things are tough, trained marine technology experts; one disaster rehearsal with a bunch of transplanted urbanites will convince quite a few of them that ocean life isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Self-defense. This is closely related to the above paragraph on safety during structural failures. Security against natural disasters is hard enough without throwing malice and international intrigue into the mix. A floating rig full of rich, influential Westerners is a tempting target for blackmail by a rogue state. Think Somali pirates are tough? Try deterring a whole flotilla from a starving country hostile to the West without the protective umbrella of your own military. The aggressor wouldn't even need a WMD. They could just park an autonomous underwater vehicle loaded with high explosives under one of the platform's submerged pontoons. The floating city-state's mayor would then get the following call on his satellite phone: "Hello, this is Kim Jong Il, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. You will wire $US100mm to my account in Zurich or I will blow your city out of the water. Cast your eyes out two miles at 15 degrees north latitude for a demonstration explosion. (BOOM!) See that spray cloud? That's you if I don't get your money. My hackers have already identified your account numbers so all you have to do is hand it over. You have one hour to complete the transaction or you sleep with the fishies. Thank you in advance for your business." Laugh all you want at the James Bond-type brinkmanship. Dictators are amoral psychopaths who will salivate at the target presented by a bunch of wealthy idealists aimlessly riding the waves. Try calling the nearest U.S. Navy carrier battle group if you need help in a pinch.
There's nothing wrong with testing the viability of permanent, autonomous floating communities. Private investors are welcome to do anything they like with their money. Nothing in the concept mandates that the communities be ocean-going. I suspect that the most viable application of this concept is a series of connected platforms moored very close to shore, no more than a mile or two out. They could hold a kind of special economic status (like Hong Kong, or other countries' designated high-tech zones for foreign direct investment) that would incentivize investment and give residents plenty of autonomy short of full independence. Tethering them to shore makes connecting infrastructure for energy input, waste output, and movement of people and goods much easier.
The genesis of the concept makes me wonder about people who wander outside their circle of competence (hat tip to Warren Buffett). Launching and managing a business model that focuses on shooting electrons between e-commerce portals like EBay and PayPal requires advanced skills in computing and electrical engineering. Those skill sets are not identical to those required to move and sustain physical structures in the chaotic real world where human life and property must be safeguarded from accidents and malice. Please tell Thomas Friedman that the world is not flat.
Nota bene: I have no desire to start my own brand new civilization offshore. I'm busy trying to save the one that's onshore.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Time Is Precious And Fleeting
Permit me a brief departure from finance into philosophy. I tend to do this sometimes.
My time is precious. I have wasted far too much of my limited life on people who aren't worthwhile. I simply cannot afford to do that as I grow older. I've learned enough through trial and error about whom I must avoid.
I do not wish to meet jackals, hyenas, troglodytes, psychic vampires, fools, idiots, mental defectives, ding-dongs, ding-a-lings, morons, losers, idiots, numbskulls, arrested development adolescents, and others of their ilk.
I sure do love living in San Francisco. It's hard to reconcile that with my desire to avoid insanity but I'm always up for a challenge. :-)
My time is precious. I have wasted far too much of my limited life on people who aren't worthwhile. I simply cannot afford to do that as I grow older. I've learned enough through trial and error about whom I must avoid.
I do not wish to meet jackals, hyenas, troglodytes, psychic vampires, fools, idiots, mental defectives, ding-dongs, ding-a-lings, morons, losers, idiots, numbskulls, arrested development adolescents, and others of their ilk.
I sure do love living in San Francisco. It's hard to reconcile that with my desire to avoid insanity but I'm always up for a challenge. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)