Category: Economics

Walking Down Main Street, USA

I was at Disney World recently. I’ve been to Disney world many, many times over the last decade and a half. Not that long in the scheme of things, I grant you, but long enough to have an impression and an opinion on how things ought to be. Enough to recognize the difference between when Disney lives up to their advertising, and when it falls short. This last trip, it seemed to fall short.

Unlike other times where some catastrophe has wrecked part of my trip, there wasn’t a singular issue. Rather, it was the collective effect of many little issues. Things like “Bell Services was slow” or “the app was buggy” or “there weren’t enough servers working the kiosks.” Little annoyances that, individually excusable, collectively undermine the experience. For another vacation, I might not even mention them. After all, these things happen. But Disney advertises itself as being a cut above the rest precisely because it supposedly smooths these issues over through its trademark pixie dust and monopolistic panopticon of an area the size of Manhattan. 

The blame, according to people who follow Disney religiously, lies with the new executives. In trying to squeeze more profit from the parks, they have stripped things down to the bare bones. Cast members are overworked, overstretched, and underpaid, and the result is burnout and absenteeism. Thus, the usual layer of pixie dust becomes a bit spottier. It’s a compelling story, which is part of why I doubt it. It’s a little too quaint, a little too storybook, with a simple villain making bad choices, to explain systemic breakdowns.

Of course, that doesn’t make the story untrue. Disney has been cutting costs. Like any large institution, there is a measure of redundancy within the organization, at which the new executives seem to be taking aim. The new thinking seems to be that theme parks can still sell merchandise without needing a gift shop at every ride, so a lot of shops are being closed and the workers reassigned. But what happens when you keep cutting? The rides still function, but the lines are longer. The cast members, who are covering more people, are just a little less bubbly. Luggage takes a little longer to arrive. Food is just a little less fresh. The shelves aren’t restocked as quickly. 

But if the answer is Disney’s CEOs, why is the same true everywhere across the country? If the reason for so many shops at Disney’s Hollywood Studios being closed is Disney corporate strategy, why are shops closing in my hometown? Why are the ingredients at my local grocery store less fresh, and the mail running late, and the store shelves restocking so slowly? You could say something like “supply chain issues” or “worker shortages” but really this only pushes the problem back a step. Why is the supply chain struggling now? Where have all the workers gone? 

What seems more remarkable is that no one wants to mention the obvious answer. We’re in the midst of a pandemic that killed more than a million Americans before many states just stopped counting. Millions more have been sickened, and are unable to work to the same capacity. Others are restricted from working in order to support people in the former group. And this is only the disruption to the United States, not even touching the dislocation caused by disruption to global supply chains and migration. 

The idea that society- any society -can shrug off upwards of a million excess deaths and millions more disabled, without any kind of social or economic disruption, is a fantasy far beyond anything at Disney World. The idea that workers will be just as eager to compete for the same wages, despite the increased danger of infectious disease, coupled with the pressure of having to cover for sickened or dead colleagues, likewise ignores the basic tenets of supply and demand. When this happened during the bubonic plague, it was the beginning of the end of feudalism, as high-demand workers gained more leverage and began to upend traditional hierarchies. The decades after the 1918 Influenza Pandemic were a high point of labor unrest and economic turmoil in the United States, which only began to dissipate after the New Deal fundamentally restructured the American economy. 

Disney continues, as it long has, to be a microcosm of American society at large. Price hikes, staff shortages, shorter business hours, longer lines, are all making themselves known. And likewise, some of the early attempts to grapple with the issue are on display. In response to a more competitive labor market, in addition to tightening time off policies, Disney has been forced to look to new demographics, expanding and accelerating its college recruitment program. At the same time, since it cannot afford to lose the talent it has, the company has been compelled to become more inclusive in its rhetoric. 

Which, if you consider the ongoing spat between the right wing Florida state government and Disney, is hilarious. It is the head-in-the-sand public health policies, coupled with xenophobic protectionist immigration controls that have pushed Disney to embrace a more liberal political stance to attract talent. If this pattern ripples out to the wider American economy, and without aggressive government intervention in the labor market and public health, it almost certainly will, it will be a reversal of fortunes worthy of the Disney storytelling tradition.

On Social Distancing Vis a Vis Communism

I wish to try and address some of the concerns raised by protests against measures taken to protect public health in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Cards on the table: I think people who are going out to protest these measures are, at best, foolhardy and shortsighted. It’s hard for me to muster sympathy for their cause. Still, calling someone names doesn’t often win hearts and minds. So I’m going to try and do that thing that people tell me I’m good at; I’m going to write about the situation from where I stand, and try to understand where these people are coming from, in the hopes that I can, if not change behaviors, at least help people understand who may be equally mystified and apoplectic at my position as I am at theirs. 

I’m not going to address any conspiracy theories, including the conspiracy theory that these measures are part of some ill-defined plan of a shadowy elite to seize control. Mostly because, from where I stand, it’s a moot point. Even taking all of the claims about evil motivations at face value, even if we assume that everyone in government secretly wants to live in a totalitarian dictatorship and they see this as their chance, that doesn’t really affect the reality. The contents of my governor’s soul is between him and God [1]. He says he wants to save lives, and he’s put in place policies to mitigate the spread of disease. People are dying from COVID-19; maybe slightly more or fewer people than the numbers being reported, but definitely people [2], including people I know. 

For context, since the beginning of this episode, I have had friends and acquaintances die, and other friends and acquaintances friends go from being student athletes, to being so sick that they can’t sit up to type on a laptop. My university campus- the places where I learn, interact with others, and often write these posts -is split between being field hospitals, quarantine lodgings for hospital workers, and morgues. Because there aren’t enough staff, undergraduate students, even freshmen like me, who have any experience in nursing or medicine, are called on to volunteer as emergency workers, and facing the same conditions, often without proper equipment, that have claimed so many lives. Every night, from my own bedroom, I hear the sirens of ambulances rushing back and forth from the retirement village to the hospital. We’re not even the epicenter, and things are that bad here. 

So the virus is very real. The toll is very real. The danger is real. We can quibble over who bears responsibility for what later. There will be plenty of time for anger, grief, and blame; plenty of time to soberly assess who overreacted, who under-reacted, who did a good job, and who ought to be voted out. I’m counting on it. In the now, we know that the virus spreads by close and indoor contact [2][3]. We know that there are only so many hospital beds, and we have no way to protect people or cure them [4][5]. It stands to reason that if we want to save lives, we need to be keeping people apart. And if we believe that a function of government is looking out for and protecting lives, which even most libertarians I know agree on, then it stands to reason that it’s the government’s job to take action to save as many lives as possible. Yes, this will require new and different exercise of powers which might in another context be called government overreach. But we live in new and different times. 

Not everyone is able to comfortably come to terms with change. I get it. And if I’m really honest, I’m not happy with it either. A lot of people who argue for shutdowns try to spin it as a positive thing, like a children’s television episode trying to convince kids that, hey, cleaning up your room is actually fun, and vegetables are delicious. Look at the clear skies, and the dolphins in the Hudson River. Staying at home makes you a hero; don’t you want to feel like a hero? And yeah, there are silver linings, and reasons why you can look on the bright side. For some people looking for that bright side is a coping mechanism. But truth be told, mostly it sucks. Not being able to hug your friends, or eat out at a restaurant, or just hang out in public, sucks. You’re not going to get around that. And a lot of people are angry. People feel deprived and cheated.
And you know what? That’s fine. You’re allowed to feel angry, and cheated. Being upset doesn’t make you a bad person. Your experiences and feelings are valid, and you’re allowed to pout and stomp and scream and shout.

That’s fine. Let it out, if you think it’ll make you feel better. You’re right, it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair, good people are suffering, and that’s infuriating. Unfortunately (and I do mean this sincerely), it won’t change anything. The virus has made it abundantly clear that it doesn’t care about our feelings, only our behavior. However we feel, if we want to save people, we need to stay apart. If we support the idea that governments should look out for people, we should insist that they lend their power to these measures. We can still hate being cooped up. But we need to understand that this is the lesser of the evils. Whether it takes a week, a month, or even a year, the alternative of massive death needs to be ruled out.

Some people have raised the argument that, even though we care about human lives, Americans need to work. The implication that Americans need to work, as opposed to, say, just kinda wanting to work, implies a kind of right. Maybe not as absolute as free speech, or as technical as the right to a trial by a jury of peers, but maybe something akin to a right to privacy; a vague but agreed upon notion that we have a general right to strive for something. Of course, no right is truly absolute. Even free speech, the one that we put first in our bill of rights, and generally treat as being the most inviolable, has its limits. As a society we recognize that times of war, rebellion, or public danger, our rights are not absolute. The police don’t have to mirandize you to ask where the bomb is, or stop chasing an armed suspect because they ran into a private home [6]. 

Hopefully, even if we may, as a matter of politics, quibble on where the exact lines are, we can all concede that rights are not absolute, and having exceptions for a larger purpose is not advocating tyranny. This same line of reasoning would apply to any previously undefined right to work as well. And I think it’s pretty clear the basis for why the current pandemic constitutes such an exception. We can have respectful disagreements about what measures are useful in what areas, but when the overarching point is that we need to minimize human contact for public safety, it seems like that covers most things in dispute. Again, you don’t have to like it. You’re welcome to write a response. But do so from your own home. If you’re feel compelled to protest something specific, then protest safely, but don’t sabotage the efforts of people trying to make this go away.

Maybe you’re thinking: Okay, that sounds nice, but I actually need to work. As in, the bills don’t stop coming, and this stimulus check isn’t going to cut it for longer. Life doesn’t stop for illness. Even in localities that have frozen certain bills and have good food banks, there are still expenses. In many places, not enough has been done to allow people who want to do the right thing to be able to do so. Not everyone can work from home, and in a tragic irony, people who live paycheck to paycheck are less likely to be able to work from home, if their jobs even exist in a telecommuting economy. For what it’s worth, I’m with the people who say this is an unfair burden. Unfortunately, as we know, life isn’t fair, and there’s not a way to reconcile saving lives and letting everyone work freely. As an aside, though I don’t think anyone genuinely believes in sacrificing lives for GDP, I’ll point out that more people getting sick and dying actually costs jobs in the long run [7][8]. Economists agree that the best way to get everyone back to work is to devote as much of our resources as possible to fighting this virus.

People say we can’t let the cure be worse than the disease, and although I disagree with the agenda for which this is a talking point, I actually agree with the idiom. Making this a choice between working class families starving, and dying of disease is a no-win scenario, and we do need to weigh the effects of cutting people off. That doesn’t make the virus the lesser of the evils, by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, we haven’t actually ruled out the “Millions of American Deaths” scenario if we go back to regular contact patterns, we’ve just put it off for now. That’s what flattening the curve means; it’s an ongoing process, not a one and done effort [9]. Saving lives is a present tense endeavor, and will be for some time. Still, a cost-benefit analysis requires that we understand the costs. People are losing jobs, and suffering for it, and government policy should take that into account. 

Here’s where I diverge from others: keeping things shut down does not necessarily have to mean that people go hungry. Rather than ease lockdown restrictions, this is where I would say governments, both state and federal, need to be doing more while they’re telling people to stay home. It’s not fair to mandate people stay at home while their livelihoods depend on getting out and working; agreed, but there’s more than one way to neutralize that statement. The government could scale up the stimulus checks, giving every American an emergency basic income. Congress could suspend the debt limit and authorize special bonds akin to war bonds to give unemployment and the Payroll Protection Program as much funding as they need, removing the bottleneck for businesses. Or, you could attack the problem from the opposite end; mandate a halt on payments for things like rent, mortgages, utilities, and so on, and activate emergency nutrition programs drawn up by the pentagon to keep Americans fed during a nuclear winter. Common carriers such as utilities, telecoms, delivery companies, and other essential services could be placed under temporary government control through existing emergency powers if necessary. 

Such a mass mobilization wouldn’t be unprecedented in American history. The world wars the the New Deal show that it can be done while maintaining democratic governance. The measures wouldn’t need to be permanent, just for the duration of the crisis created by the pandemic. There’s a good historical case that a strong response would benefit our economic recovery once this passes [8]. You wouldn’t necessarily need to do all of the things I mentioned; you could tailor it to fit demands in specific areas. The point is, people don’t need to starve. The trade off only exists in the system we’ve constructed for ourselves. That system is malleable, even if we don’t often view it as such, because we so rarely get to a point like this. The lockdown is easier to see as malleable, because it’s recent, and we can remember a time before it, but there’s a much stronger scientific basis for why we need to keep it in place, at least for now.

I’ll address one more point, and that is the argument that, material need or no, people have a deeper need, and by implication a right, to get out and try to make a living in the world. This is subtly different than the idea that people have a default legal right to do as they will, as covered earlier. By contrast this strikes at a deeper, philosophical argument that people have a need to contribute positively. The idea that people simply go stir crazy, and television and video games lack that certain element of, as Aristotle put it, Eudaimonia, the joy achieved by striving for a life well lived [10]. I think this is what people are getting at, at least, the people who have really sat down and thought about it, when they decry increasing government dependence while life is under quarantine. They probably understand that people need to eat, and don’t want anyone to die, but deeper than any legal right, are concerned that if this state of affairs drags out, that people will stop striving, and lose that spark that drives the human spirit. People need to be able to make their own lives, to give them meaning. 

Expressed in philosophical terms, I’m more sympathetic to this argument than my politics might suggest. I agree that people need meaning in their lives. I even agree that handouts don’t provide that meaning the same way that a successful career does. It is human nature is to yearn to contribute, not just survive, and for a lot of people, how they earn money outside the home is what they see as their contribution; the value they add and the proof of their worth. Losing that is more than just tragic, it’s existentially terrifying. I remember the upheaval I went through when it became clear I wasn’t going to be able to graduate on time with my disability, and probably wouldn’t get into the college on which I had pinned my hopes and dreams as a result. I had put a lot of my value on my being a perfect student, and having that taken away from me was traumatic in its way. I questioned what my value was if society didn’t acknowledge me for being smart; how could I be a worthwhile person if society rejected the things I put my work into. Through that prism, I can almost understand how some people might be more terrified of the consequences of a shutdown than of the virus.

The idea that work gives human life meaning isn’t new. Since the industrial revolution created the modern concept of the career, people have been talking about how it relates to our philosophical worth. But let’s tug on that threat a little longer. Before any conservative pundits were using the human value of work to attack government handouts, there was a German philosopher writing about the consequences of a society which ignored the dislocation and alienation which occurred when the ruling class prevented people from meaningful work. He used a German term, Entfremdung der Gattungswesen, to describe the deprivation of the human soul which occurs when artificial systems interfere in human drives. He argued that such measures were oppressive, and based on his understanding of history would eventually end in revolution. 

That philosopher was Karl Marx. He suggested that industrial capitalism, by separating the worker from the means of producing their livelihood, the product of their labor, the profits thereof, and the agency to work on their own terms, the bourgeoisie deny the proletariat something essential to human existence [11]. So I guess that protester with the sign that “social distancing = communism” might be less off the wall that we all thought. Not that social distancing is really communist in the philosophical sense, rather the contrary; social distancing underlines Marxist critiques of capitalism. True to Marxist theory, the protester has achieved consciousness of the class iniquities perpetuated by the binding of exploitative wage labor to the necessities of life, and is rallying against the dislocation artificially created by capitalism. I suspect they probably wouldn’t describe themselves as communist, but their actions fit the profile. 

Here’s the point where I diverge from orthodox Marxism. Because, again, I think there’s more than one way to neutralize this issue. I think that work for meaning doesn’t necessarily need to be work for wages. Suppose you decoupled the drive of material needs from the drives for self improvement and worth, either by something like a universal basic income, or the nationalization and dramatic expansion of food banks, rent controls, and utility discount programs, such that a person was able to survive without working. Not comfortably, mind you, but such that starving is off the table. According to Marx this is most assuredly not communism; it doesn’t involve the worker ownership of the means of production. People still go to work and sell their labor, and market mechanisms dictate prices and reward arbitrage. 

What this does, instead, is address the critique of our current system raised by both Marx, and our protester. In addition to ensuring that no one goes hungry, it also gives the opportunity, indeed, an incentive, for individuals to find socially useful and philosophically meaningful work beyond the market. Feeling useless sitting at home? Go get on video chat and tutor some kids in something you’re good at. Go mow lawns for emergency workers in your area. Take an online class, now that lots of them are free. Make some art; join the trend of celebrities posting videos of themselves singing online. If you have any doubts that there is plenty of unpaid but necessary and useful work around the house, ask a housewife. Rather than protest the lack of a particular task, we should take this opportunity to discover what useful and meaningful work we can accomplish from home. 

The dichotomy between opening and starving is a false fabrication, as is the dichotomy between deference to scientific and philosophical principles. Those who protest one or the other appear either to represent a fringe extreme, or misunderstand the subtleties of the problem and the multitude of measures which we may take to address it. Our individual freedoms reflect a collective responsibility and commitment to self moderation and governance, which we must now demonstrate, by showing the imagination, foresight, and willingness to sacrifice for a greater cause which has defined our human struggle. In this moment, the responsibilities to our fellow human beings outweigh some of the rights we have come to take for granted. This exigency demands a departure from our norms. We must be prepared to suspend our assumptions, and focus on what really matters. Now is the time to find meaning in things that matter to us. To demand better from our government than platitudes and guidelines. To help ourselves and our fellow human being without prejudice. 

Works Consulted

[1] Matthew 7:1, KJV

[2] “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.

[3] “Coronavirus.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.

[4] “ Over the past several weeks, a mind-boggling array of possible therapies have been considered. None have yet been proven to be effective in rigorously controlled trials”“Pursuing Safe and Effective Anti-Viral Drugs for COVID-19.” National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 17 Apr. 2020, directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/04/17/pursuing-safe-effective-anti-viral-drugs-for-covid-19/.

[5] “ There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19. Current clinical management includes infection prevention and control measures and supportive care”“Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 Patients.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Mar. 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html.

[6] Burney, Nathan. “The Illustrated Guide to Law.” The Illustrated Guide to Law, 17 Apr. 2020, lawcomic.net/.

[7] Pueyo, Tomas. “Coronavirus: Out of Many, One.” Medium, Medium, 20 Apr. 2020, medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-out-of-many-one-36b886af37e9.

[8] Carlsson-Szlezak, Philipp, et al. “What Coronavirus Could Mean for the Global Economy.” Harvard Business Review, 16 Apr. 2020, hbr.org/2020/03/what-coronavirus-could-mean-for-the-global-economy.

[9] Ferguson, Neil M, et al. “ Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand.” Imperial College of London, 16 Mar. 2020, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf

[10] Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics.” The Internet Classics Archive, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html.

[11] Marx, Karl. “The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” Marxists Internet Archive, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm.

World Health Day

The following message is part of a campaign to raise public awareness and resources in light of the global threat posed by COVID-19 on World Health Day. If you have the resources, please consider contributing in any of the ways listed at the end of this post. Remember to adhere to current local health guidelines wherever you are, which may differ from those referenced in this post. 

Now that the world has woken up to the danger that we face in the Covid-19 pandemic, and world leaders have begun to grapple with the problem in policy terms, many individuals have justifiably wondered how long this crisis will last. The answer is, we don’t know. I’m going to repeat this several times, because it’s important to come to terms with this. For all meaningful purposes, we are living through an event that has never happened before. Yes, there have been pandemics this bad in the long ago, and yes, there have been various outbreaks in recent memory, but there has not been a pandemic which is as deadly, and as contagious, which we have failed to contain so spectacularly, recently enough to use it is a clear point of reference. This means that every prediction is not just speculation, but speculation born of an imperfect mosaic. 

Nevertheless, it seems clear that unless we are willing to accept tens of millions of deaths in every country, humanity will need to settle in for a long war. With the language of the US President and Queen Elizabeth, the metaphor is apt. Whether “long” may mean a few months, or into next year will depend on several factors, among them whether a culture which has for many decades been inculcated with the notion of personal whimsy and convenience is able to adapt to collective sacrifice. The longer we take to accept the gravity of the threat, the weaker our response will be, and the longer it will take us to recover. Right now all of humanity face a collective choice. Either we will stubbornly ignore reality, and pay the price with human tragedy of hitherto-fore unimaginable proportions, and repercussions for decades to come, or we will listen to experts and hunker down, give support to those who need it, and help each other through the storm. 

For those who look upon empty streets and bare shelves and proclaim the apocalypse, I have this to say: it is only the apocalypse if we make it such. Granted, it is conceivable that if we lose sight of our goals and our capabilities, either by blind panic or stubborn ignorance, we may find the structures of our society overwhelmed, and the world we know may collapse. This is indeed a possibility, but a possibility which it is entirely within our collective capacity to avoid. The data clearly shows that by taking care of ourselves at home, and avoiding contact with other people or surfaces, we can slow the spread of the virus. With the full mobilization of communities, we can starve the infection of new victims entirely. But even a partial slowing of cases buys us time. With that most valuable of currencies, we can expand hospital capacity, retool our production, and focus our tremendous scientific effort towards forging new weapons in this fight. 

Under wartime pressure, the global scientific community is making terrific strides. Every day, we are learning more about our enemy, and discovering new ways to give ourselves the advantage. Drugs which prove useful are being deployed as fast as they can be produced. With proper coordination from world leaders, production of these drugs can be expanded to give every person the best fighting chance should they become sick. The great challenges now are staying the course, winning the battle for production, and developing humanity’s super weapon.

Staying the course is fairly simple. For the average individual not working essential jobs, it means staying home, avoiding contact as much as possible, and taking care to stay healthy. For communities and organizations, it means encouraging people to stay at home by making this as easy as possible. Those working essential jobs should be given whatever resources they need to carry on safely. Those staying at home need to have the means to do so, both logistically and psychologically. Logistically, many governments are already instituting emergency financial aid to ensure the many people out of work are able to afford staying home, and many communities have used volunteers or emergency workers such as national guard troops to support deliveries of essentials, in order to keep as many people as possible at home. Psychologically, many groups are offering online activities, and many public figures have taken to providing various forms of entertainment and diversion.

Winning the battle for production is harder, but still within reach. Hospitals are very resource intensive at the best of times. Safety in a healthcare setting means the use of large amounts of single-use disposable materials, in terms of drugs and delivery mechanisms, but also personal protective equipment such as masks, gowns, and gloves. If COVID-19 is a war, ventilators are akin to tanks, but PPE are akin to ammunition. Just as it is counterproductive and harmful to ration how many bullets or grenades a soldier may need to use to win a battle, so too is it counterproductive and harmful to insist that our frontline healthcare workers make do with a limited amount of PPE. 

The size and scope of the present crisis, taken with the amount of time we have to act, demands a global industrial mobilization unprecedented during peacetime, and unseen in living memory. It demands either that individuals exhibit self discipline and a regard for the common good, or central authorities control the distribution of scarce necessities. It demands that we examine new ways of meeting production needs while minimizing the number of people who must be kept out at essential jobs. For the individual, this mobilization may require further sacrifice; during the mobilization of WWII, certain commodities such as automobiles, toys, and textiles were unavailable or out of reach. This is the price we paid to beat back the enemy at the gates, and today we find ourselves in a similar boat. All of these measures are more effective if taken calmly in advance by central government, but if they are not they will undoubtedly be taken desperately by local authorities. 

Lastly, there is the challenge of developing a tool which will put an end to the threat of millions of deaths. In terms of research, there are several avenues which may yield fruit. Many hopes are pinned on a vaccine, which would grant immunity to uninfected, and allow us to contain the spread without mass quarantine. Other researchers are looking for a drug, perhaps an antiviral or immunomodulator which might make COVID-19 treatable at home with a pill, much like Tamiflu blunted the worst of H1N1. Still others are searching for antibodies which could be synthesized en masse, to be infused to the blood of vulnerable patients. Each of these leads requires a different approach. However, they all face the common challenge of not only proving safety and effectiveness against COVID-19, but giving us an understandable mechanism of action.

Identifying the “how and why” is not merely of great academic interest, but a pressing medical concern. Coronaviruses are notoriously unstable and prone to mutation; indeed there are those who speculate that COVID-19 may be more than one strain. Finding a treatment or vaccine without understanding our enemy exposes us to the risk of other strains emerging, undoing our hard work and invalidating our collective sacrifices. Cracking the COVID-19 code is a task of great complexity, requiring a combination of human insight and brilliance, bold experimentation, luck, and enormous computational resources. And like the allied efforts against the German enigma, today’s computer scientists have given us a groundwork to build off.

Unraveling the secrets of COVID-19 requires modeling how viral proteins fold and interact with other molecules and proteins. Although protein folding follows fairly simple rules, the computational power required to actually simulate them is enormous. For this, scientists have developed the Folding@Home distributed computing project. Rather than constructing a new supercomputer which would exceed all past attempts, this project aims to harness the power of unused personal computers in a decentralized network. Since the beginning of March, Folding@Home has focused its priorities on COVID-19 related modeling, and has been inundated with people donating computing power, to the point that they had to get help from other web services companies because simulations being completed faster than their web servers could assign them.

At the beginning of March, the computing power of the entire project clocked in at around 700 petaflops, FLOPS being a unit of computing power, meaning Floating Point Operations Per Second. During the Apollo moonshot, a NASA supercomputer would average somewhere around 100,000 FLOPS. Two weeks ago, they announced a new record in the history of computing: more than an exaflop of constant distributed computing power, or 10^18 FLOPS. With the help of Oracle and Microsoft, by the end of March, Folding@Home exceeded 1.5 Exaflops. These historic and unprecedented feats are a testament to the ability of humanity to respond to a challenge. Every day this capacity is maintained or exceeded brings us closer to breaking the viral code and ending the scourge. 

Humanity’s great strength has always lay in our ability to learn, and to take collective action based on reason. Beating back COVID-19 will entail a global effort, in which every person has an important role to play. Not all of us can work in a hospital or a ventilator factory, but there’s still a way each of us can help. If you can afford to donate money, the World Health Organization’s Solidarity Fund is coordinating humanity’s response to the pandemic. Folding@Home is using the power of your personal computers to crack the COVID-19 code. And if nothing else, every person who stays healthy by staying home, washing hands, wearing homemade masks and keeping social distance is one less person to treat in the ICU. 

Re: John Oliver

So I had a bunch of things to say this week. I was actually planning a gag where I was going to shut down part of the site for “Internet Maintenance Day“. Then stuff happened that I felt I wanted to talk about more urgently. Than more stuff happened, and I had to bump back the queue again. Specifically, with regards to that last one, John Oliver released a new episode that I have to talk about.  

If you don’t care to watch, the central thesis of the episode is, in a nutshell, that our medical device regulation system sucks and needs to be more robust. And he’s not wrong. The FDA is overstretched, underfunded, strung up by political diktats written by lobbyists, and above all, beset by brain drain caused by decades of bad faith and political badmouthing. The pharmaceutical and biotech lobby has an outsized influence on the legislation (as well as executive orders and departmental regulations) that are supposed to govern them.

But, and I’m going to repeat this point, the system isn’t broken. Don’t get me wrong, it’s hardly functional either, but these problems are far more often ones of execution than of structure. 

Let’s take the 510(k) exemption that is so maligned in the episode. The way it’s presented makes it seem like such a bad idea, that surely this loophole must be closed. And I’ll agree that the way it’s being exploited is patently unsafe, and needs to be stemmed. But the measure makes sense under far narrower circumstances. To use an example from real life, take insulin pumps. Suppose a pump manufacturing company realizes that it’s replacing a high number of devices because of cracked screens and cases occurring in everyday use. It takes the issue to its engineers, who spend a few days in autocad making a new chassis with reinforced corners and a better screen that’s harder to crack. The guts of the pump, the parts that deliver insulin and treat patients, are unchanged. From a technical perspective, this is the equivalent of switching phone cases.

Now, what kind of vetting process should this device, which is functionally identical to the previous iteration aside from an improved casing, have to go through before the improved model can be shipped out to replace the current flawed devices? Surely it would be enough just to show that the improvements are just cosmetic, perhaps some documentation about the new case and the materials. This is the kind of scenario where a 510(k) style fast track would be good for everyone. It saves time and taxpayer money for regulators, it gets the company’s product out sooner, and consumers get a sturdier, better device sooner. This is why having that path is a good idea.

Not that the FDA is likely to apply section 510(k) in this scenario. Insulin pumps tick all the boxes to make them some of the most regulated devices in existence, even more so than most surgical implants. Any upgrade to insulin pumps, no matter how inconsequential, or how urgently needed by patients, is subject to months of testing, clinical trials, reviews, and paperwork. The FDA can, and regularly does, send applications back for further testing, because they haven’t proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no risk. As a result, improvement to crucial life support devices are artificially slowed by regulations and the market’s reaction to regulations. 

Here’s the other thing to remember about medical devices: for as much as we hear about the costs of prematurely releasing devices, there is also a cost to delaying them. And frustratingly, the ones which often have the greatest cost to delaying- devices like insulin pumps, monitors, and other life support -tend to be subject to the greatest scrutiny, and hence the longest delays. For while the FDA examines numbers and research data, real patients continue to suffer and die for want of better care. We might prevent harm by slowing down the rollout of new technologies, but we must acknowledge that we are also consigning people to preventable harm by denying them newer devices. Some argue that this is morally preferable. I staunchly disagree. More than just trying to protect people from themselves, we are denying desperate people the hope of a better life. We are stifling innovation and autonomy for the illusion of security. This isn’t only unhelpful, and counterproductive, but I would argue it’s downright un-American. 

Rest assured I’m not about to go and join the ranks of the anarchists in calling for the abolition of regulatory agencies. The FDA is slow, inefficient, and in places corrupt, but this is as much as anything due to cuts in funding, usually made by those who seek to streamline innovation, which have limited its ability to fulfill its mandate as well as ironically made processing applications slower. A lack of respect for the agency, its job, and the rules it follows, have inspired unscrupulous companies to bend rules to their breaking point, and commit gross violations of scientific and ethical standards in pursuit of profit. Because of the aforementioned lack of resources, and a political climate actively hostile to regulatory action, the FDA and the agencies responsible for enforcement have been left largely unable to follow their own rules. 

Cutting regulations is not the answer. Improving and reforming the FDA is not a bad idea, but the measures supported by (and implied to be supported by) John Oliver are more likely to delay progress for those who need it than solve the issues at hand. A half-informed politically led moral panic will only lead to bad regulations, which aside from collateral damage, are likely to be gutted at the next changing of the guard, putting us back in the same place. I like to use the phrase “attacking a fly with a sledgehammer”, but I think this is more a case of “attacking a fly with a rapier”, in that it will cause massive collateral damage and probably still miss the fly in the end.

So, how do we do it right? Well, first of all, better funding for the FDA, with an eye towards attracting more, better candidates to work as regulators. If done right, this will make the review process not only more robust, but more efficient, with shorter turnaround time for devices. It might also be a good idea to look into reducing or even abolishing some application fees, especially for those applications which follow high standards for clinical trials, and have the paper trail to prove ethical standards. At present, application fees are kept high as a means to bring in revenue and make up for budget cuts to the agency. Although this arguably does good by putting the cost of regulating on the industry, and hopefully incentivizing quality applications, it constrains the resources available to investigating applications, and gives applying companies undue influence over application studies.

Second, we need to discard this silly notion of a regulatory freeze. Regardless of how one feels about regulations, I would hope that we all agree that they should at least be clear and up to date in order to deal with modern realities. And this means more regulations amending and clarifying old ones, and dealing with new realities as they crop up. There should also be greater emphasis on enforcement, particularly during the early application process. The penalties for submissions intentionally misclassifying devices needs to be high enough to act as a deterrent. Exceptions like section 510(k) need to be kept as exceptions, for special extenuating circumstances, rather than remaining open loopholes. And violating research standards to produce intentionally misleading data needs to be treated far more seriously, perhaps with criminal penalties. This requires not only regulatory and enforcement power, which already exist on the books, but the political will to see abusers held to account. 

Third, there needs to be a much greater emphasis on post-market surveillance; that is, continued testing, auditing, and review of products after they reach consumers. This seems obvious, and from conversations with the uninitiated, I suspect it’s where most people believe the FDA spends most of its effort. But the way the regulations are written, and certainly how they’re enforced in practice, post-market surveillance is almost an afterthought. Most of it is handled by the manufacturers themselves, who have an alarming amount of latitude in their reporting. I would submit that it is this, the current lack of post-market surveillance, rather than administrative classifications, that is the gaping hole in our medical regulatory system. 

This is also a much harder sell, politically. Industry hates it, because robust surveillance often prevents them from getting away with cutting manufacturing costs after approval, when reducing costs would lead to reduced product quality, and it means they have to keep on extra QA staff for as long as they remain in business. It’s also expensive for industry because of how the current setup puts most of the cost on manufacturers. Plenty of politicians also hate post market surveillance, since it is a role that is ideally redundant when everyone does their jobs. When something goes wrong, we say that it shouldn’t have been sold in the first place, and when nothing goes wrong, why would we pay people to keep running tests? 

Incidentally, from what I have been led to understand, this is a major difference between US and EU regulatory processes. Drugs and devices tend to come out in the EU commercially before the US, because the US puts all of its eggs in the basket of premarket approval (and also underfunds that process), while the EU will approve innovations that are “good enough” with the understanding that if problems show up down the line, the system will react and swoop in, and those at fault will be held accountable. As a result, European consumers have safe and legal access to technologies still restricted as experimental in the US, while also enjoying the confidence that abusers will be prosecuted. Most of those new devices are also paid for by the government healthcare system. Just saying. 

The Paradox Model

Editing note: I started this draft several weeks ago. I’m not happy with it, but given the choice between publishing it and delaying again during finals, I went with the former.

In the past few years, I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole of Paradox grand strategy games. Specifically, I started with Cities: Skylines before making the jump to Hearts of Iron IV. Following that, I was successfully converted to Stellaris. I haven’t touched the Victoria, Europa Universalis, or Crusader Kings franchises, but sometimes I think it might be awesome to try out the fabled mega-campaign, an undertaking to lead a single country from the earliest dates in Paradox Danes through to the conquest of the galaxy in Stellaris. 

But I don’t want to talk about the actual games that Paradox makes. I want to talk about how they make them. Specifically, I want to talk about their funding model. Because Paradox makes really big games. More than the campaigns or the stories are the enormous systems with countless moving part, which, when they gel together properly, serve to create an intricate and finely tuned whole, which seems like a self-consistent world. At their best, the systems paradox builds feel like stepping into a real campaign, constrained not by mechanics themselves, but by the limits of what you can dream, build, and execute within them. They don’t always hit their mark, and when they miss they can fall into incomprehensible layers of useless depth. But when they work, they’re a true experience, beyond mere game.

The problem, besides the toll this takes on any device short of a supercomputer, is that building something with that many moving parts is a technical feat. Getting them to keep working is a marvel. And keeping them updated, adding new bits and pieces to deal with exploits as players find them, making sure that every possible decision by the player is acknowledged and reflected in the story of the world they create, adding story to stop the complexity from breeding apathy, is impossible, at least in the frame of a conventional video game. A game so big will only ever have so many people playing it, so the constant patches required to keep it working can’t be sustained merely by sales. 

You could charge people for patches. But that’s kind of questionable if you’re charging people to repair something you sold them. Even if you could fend off legal challenges for forcing players to pay for potential security related fixes, that kind of breaks the implicit pact between player and publisher. You could charge a monthly flat fee, but besides making it a lot harder to justify any upfront costs that puts more pressure to keep pushing out new things to give players a reason to stick around, rather than taking time to work on bigger improvements. Additionally, I’m not convinced the same number of people would shell out a monthly fee for a grand strategy game. You could charge a heck of a lot more upfront. But good luck convincing anyone to fork over four hundred dollars for a game, let alone enough people often enough to keep a full time development team employed. 

What Paradox does instead of either of these is sell their games at a steep, but not unseen by industry standards, price, and then release a new DLC, or Downloadable Content package, every so often that expends the game for an additional price. The new DLC adds new approaches and mechanics to play around with, while Paradox releases a free update to everyone with bug fixes and some modest improvements. The effect is a steady stream of income for the developers, at a cost that most players can afford. Those that can’t can wait for a sale, or continue to play their existing version of the game without the fleshed out features. 

I can’t decide myself whether I’m a fan of this setup. On the one hand, I don’t like the feeling of having to continue to pay to get the full experience of a game I’ve already purchased, especially since in many cases, the particulars of the free updates mostly serve to make changes to enable the paid features. I don’t like having the full experience one day, and then updating my game to find it now incomplete. And the messaging from Paradox on this point is mixed. It seems like paradox wants to have a membership system but doesn’t want to admit it, and this rubs me the wrong way. 

On the other hand, with the amount of work they put into these systems, they do need to make their money back. And while the current system may not be good, it is perhaps the best it can be given the inevitable of market forces. Giving players the option to keep playing the game they have without paying for new features they may not want through a paid membership is a good thing. I can accept and even approve of game expansions, even those which alter core mechanics. It helps that I can afford to keep pace with the constant rollout of new items to purchase. 

So is Paradox’s model really a series of expansions, or a membership system in disguise? If it’s a membership system, then they really need to do something about all the old DLCs creating a cost barrier for new players. If my friend gets the base game in a bundle, for instance, it’s ridiculous that, for us to play multiplayer, he either has to shell out close to the original price again for DLCs, or I have to disable all the mechanics I’ve grown used to. If Paradox wants to continue charging for fixing bugs and balancing mechanics, they need to integrate old DLCs into base games, or at the very least, give a substantial discount to let new players catch up for multiplayer without having to fork over hundreds of dollars upfront. 

On the other hand if Paradox’s model is in fact an endless march of expansions, then, well, they need to make their expansions better. If Paradox’s official line is that every DLC is completely optional to enjoying the game (ha!), then the DLC themselves need to do more to justify their price tag. To pick on the latest Hearts of Iron IV DLC, Man the Guns: being able to customize my destroyers to turn the whole Atlantic into an impassible minefield, or turning capital ships into floating fortresses capable of smashing enemy ships while also providing air and artillery support for my amphibious tanks, or having Edward VIII show the peasants what happens when you try to tell the King whom he can marry, is all very well and good, I don’t know that it justifies paying $20. 

The Business Plot

For about a year now I’ve been sitting on a business idea. It’s not, like, the kind of business idea that makes anyone rich. On the sliding scale from lemonade stand to Amazon, this is much closer to the former. I think it will probably turn a profit, but I have no illusions about striking it rich and launching myself onto the pages of Forbes. Looking at the numbers realistically, I will be pleasantly surprised if I can make enough money to keep myself above the poverty line. It’s cliche, but I’m really not in it for the money, I’m in it for the thing.

My idea is for a board game, and it’s a game that I think is interesting to a wide range of people, and also deserves to be made, or at least attempted. I’m not going to share too many details, because if spending high school economics class watching clips of Shark Tank posted to YouTube has taught me anything, it’s that you don’t show your idea off until you have the legal grounds to sue any copycats into oblivion. 

The obvious question of why I don’t sign it to a board game publisher has a complicated answer that relies on context that I don’t want to share at this time. But the long and short of it is that, if I’m doing this, it’s a project that I’m pursuing for personal reasons, and based on what I’ve heard from people who have gone through game publishing, they’re reasons I have cause to fear a publisher won’t respect, or might try to renege on. And besides that, there’s a part of me that’s tickled by the idea of being an entrepreneur and not having to answer to anyone (except, you know, manufacturers, contractors, accountants, taxes, regulators, and of course, consumers). 

So I have the idea. I have a vague idea of what my end goals and expectations are, and some notion of the path towards them. Whether or not I’m “committed” in the sense that the guides say you need to be to be an entrepreneur, it’s an idea that I’d like to see exist, and I’m willing to throw what money and time I can spare at it. If there was any job that could ever motivate me to wake up early, this project would be one of them. The people I’ve talked to about this privately have told me it’s a good idea, including a business professor who, upon hearing my pitch, immediately endorsed it and tried to convert me to take her class. I think there’s something here.

And that’s about where I got stuck. I managed to make a prototype last summer, shortly after the idea popped into my head, and I’ve been play-testing and reviewing the rules a bit, but this is just circling the problem, and I know it. My next step is that I need to move forward on iterating the prototype towards a sellable product, and on looking into getting some cursory idea of costs. In practice this means getting quotes from manufacturers, which means I need some kind of email account and web presence. 

Theoretically, I could throw up a Gmail account and launch that process off today (well, not today; I have homework, but basically any time). But conducting such business under my own name, or even under an arbitrary trade name is both murky for tax purposes, and depending on whom you consult, somewhat legally risky, since it puts all the liability squarely on your head. It’s also less clean than setting up a proper web platform with a fancy custom URL and a logo to handle everything centrally. It’s the same reason I have a patreon already set up for this blog- even if I’m not raking in the big bucks today, I’d rather be prepared for that day with the proper infrastructure than have to scramble if I suddenly go viral. 

But setting up a website and branding materials effectively demands that I have, at the very least, an established brand name that can be trademarked. And doing that requires that I have the relevant paperwork filed to incorporate a business. It’s something of a point of no return, or at least a point past which returning becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. To this end I have spent quite a few free hours perusing the available information on starting up a startup and building a business. And let me just say, for as much talk that’s made about making life easy for small businesspeople, and lip service paid encouraging entrepreneurship, I expected it to be a heck of a lot more straightforward. Even the Small Business Administration, whose entire mandate is to make starting new businesses as painless as possible, is a convoluted and self-contradictory mess.

The problem isn’t so much a lack of available information as a lack of concrete information I can act upon. The website can’t seem to decide whether it wants to be written for laypeople or lawyers, and in failing to pick a side is decipherable to both. Most government websites are difficult to navigate, but I would’ve expected an agency whose sole job is to make life easier would be less egregious. 

But it’s not that I can’t find a form to fill out. Again, I could always pick a name and a business structure out of a hat and plow forward. The differences between a partnership and an LLC at the size I’m looking at, while not irrelevant, are perhaps less of the deciding factor that they’re made out to be. The problem is figuring out a way to start this project that lets me keep my dependent status and hence my health insurance. Because while I’m willing to throw time and money and endure paperwork for this idea, I’m not willing to go without life support. Or rather, I’m not able to go without life support. 

I think there’s a loophole that lets me have my cake, and also not die an agonizing death. But I’m not an expert on this field, and this isn’t a risk I want to take. If it’s a question between starting a business that I earnestly believe will change the world for the better, if only incrementally, and getting my life support, I’m going to pick the latter. This is really frustrating. I mean, I’m still head and shoulders above the people that have to pick between medicine and food, but choosing between medicine and chasing an opportunity is grating. 

But what really gets me is the fact that this isn’t a problem in other countries, because other countries have guaranteed healthcare, so that potential entrepreneurs can try their hand without risking their lives. Many of these countries also have free education, transport infrastructure, and in some cases free government advisors for new businesses, all of which lower entry barriers for startups. But in the land of the free markets, we apparently hate entrepreneurs. 

I digress. The point is, I’ve hit an entirely political roadblock, and it’s extremely discouraging. I haven’t set this project aside yet, because despite everything I still believe in it. Part of the reason I’m writing this is to remind myself of the excitement I feel to see this through. My hope is that I’ll be able to make some progress on this before summer. But we’ll see what’s possible for an entrepreneur in this allegedly business friendly country.

Fully Automated Luxury Disk Jockeys

Here’s an interesting observation with regards to automation- with the exception of purely atmospheric concerns, we have basically automated the disk jockey, that is, the DJ, out of a job. Pandora’s music genome project, Google’s music bots, Apple’s Genius playlists, and whatever system Spotify uses, are close enough for most everyday purposes. 

Case in point- my university got it in their heads that students were becoming overwhelmed with finals. This is obviously not a major revelation, but student stress has become something of a moral and political hot issue of late. The purported reason for this is the alarmingly high rate of suicides among college students- something which other universities have started to act on. Canada, for instance, has added more school breaks throughout the year during the weeks when suicide rates peak. Other schools have taken more pragmatic measures, like installing suicide nets under tall bridges. 

Of course, the unspoken reason for this sudden focus on mental health is because the national political administration has made school shootings a matter of mental health prevention, rather than, say, making guns harder to get. My university, like my hometown, lies in the shadow of Newtown, and plenty of students here lost people firsthand. Most of us went to schools that went on lockdown that day. The university itself has had two false alarms, and police teams clad in armor and machine guns already patrol the campus regularly. So naturally, the university is throwing money at mental health initiatives. 

Rather than do something novel, like staggering exam schedules, routine audits to prevent teachers from creating too much work for students, or even abolishing final exams altogether as has been occasionally proposed, the powers that be settled on the “Stress Free Finals Week” Initiative, whereby the school adds more events to the exam week schedule. I’m not sure how adding more social events to a time when students are already pressed to cram is supposed to help, but it’s what they did. 

As a commuter and part time student, most of this happens on the periphery for me. But when, through a series of events, I wound up on campus without anything to do nor a ride home, I decided I may as well drop by. After all, they were allegedly offering free snacks if I could find the location, and being a college student, even though I had just gorged myself on holiday cookies and donuts at the Social Sciences Department Holiday Party, I was already slightly peckish. They were also advertising music.

I got there to find the mid-afternoon equivalent of a continental breakfast- chips, popcorn, donuts, and cookies. Perhaps I had expected, what with all the research on the gut-brain connection, that an event purporting to focus on mental health would have a better selection. But no matter. There was a place to sit away from the sleet outside, and free snacks. The advertised DJ was up front blasting music of questionable taste at a borderline objectionable volume, which is to say, normal for a college campus.

Except the DJ wasn’t actually playing the music. He didn’t interact with any of the equipment on the table during the time I watched, and on several occasions he surrendered any pretense of actually working by leaving the table to raid the snacks, and then sat down at another table to eat while the music handled itself. No one else seemed to think this strange, but it struck me to think that for all I know, he might have just set up a YouTube Music playlist and let the thing run, and earned money for it. Heck, he wouldn’t even have to select the playlist manually- bots can do that part too. 

There are two takeaway observations here. The first is that computer automation is happening here and now, and the first wave of that automation is hitting now. I feel it worth noting that this isn’t just manual labor being made obsolete by mechanized muscle. While it might not exactly be white collar, a modern DJ is a thinking job. Sure, it doesn’t take a genius to hit shuffle on iTunes, but actually selecting songs that match a mood and atmosphere for a given event, following up with an appropriate song, and knowing to match the differing volumes on recordings with the desired speaker volume takes at least some level of heuristic thinking. We’ve made it fairly low-hanging fruit for bots in the way we label songs by genre already, but the fact we’re already here should be worrying for people that are worried about automation-driven mass unemployment. 

The second takeaway is a sort of caveat to the first, namely; even if this guy’s job was automated, he still got paid. An argument can be made that this is a function of bureaucratic inefficiency and an enterprising fellow playing the system in order to get paid to be lazy. And while this would be a fair observation, there’s another interpretation that I think is yet more interesting. Because the way I see it, it’s not like the university misunderstood what they were buying. They advertised having a DJ. They could have found any idiot to hook up an iPhone speaker and press shuffle, but instead they hired someone. 

There was a cartoon a while back that supposed that in the future, rather than automation causing a total revolution in man’s relationship with work, that we would simple start to put more value into more obscure and esoteric commodities. The example provided was a computer running on “artisanal bits” – that is, a Turing-complete setup of humans holding up signs for ones and zeroes. The implication is that increasing wealth inequality will drive more artificial distinctions in patterns of consumption. Rich people become pickier the richer they get, and since they’re rich, they can drive demand for more niche products to provide work for the masses.

This hypothesis would fit with current observations. Not only would it explain why institutions are still willing to hire human DJs in the age of music bots, but it would explain why trends like organic foods, fair trade textiles, and so on seem to be gaining economic ground. It’s an interesting counter argument to the notion that we’re shaping up for mass unemployment.

I still think this is a horribly optimistic outlook. After all, if the owning minority can’t be bothered to pay living wages in the process of making their wealth in the first place, why would they feel a need to employ a substantial number of people after the fact? There’s also a fundamental limit on how much a single person can consume*, and the number of people who can be gainfully employed in service of a single person’s whims has a functional limit, after which employment stops being accurately described as work, and is more like private welfare. Which makes this not so much a repudiation of the problem of the problem of automation induced mass unemployment, as another possible solution. Still, it’s a thing to keep in mind, and for me, a good reminder to pay attention to what’s actually happening around me as well as what models and experts say should happen.

*Technically, this isn’t true. A person with infinite money could easily spend infinite money by purchasing items for which the prices are artificially inflated through imposed scarcity, speculative bubbles, and other economic buzzwords. But these reflect peculiarities in the market, and not the number of people involved in their production, or the quality of their work. 

Project Clearinghouse

What’s the value of ten dollars? The question seems obvious. Ten dollars is exactly ten dollars, or a thousand cents. The effect would be much the same as asking how long a meter is.
Except that’s a meaningless tautology, and doesn’t address the core problem. Ten dollars is just a collection of symbols on paper, or more frequently today, a series of numbers on digital records. This would still be true if the United States were on the gold standard, or even used gold coinage directly; gold may restrict the supply of money, the scarcity of which safeguards against the most egregious fluctuations in value, but having money made of shiny metal rather than elaborate paper and plastic sheets, or ones and zeroes does not give it inherent value.
But I digress with my monetary musings. My focus is not on the dollar, but on the ten. What is ten dollars, relative to one, five, or a hundred? All of these are, after all, positive amounts of money which on any given day I would be happy to receive. I could easily spend any of these amounts without much planning. And perhaps most crucially, none of these amounts would make the difference in being able to afford my medication, and hence paying my bills, an activity which happens on the scale of tens of thousands of dollars.
This is, of course, uncoupled from the reality, which is that, whether or not any of those amounts would cover my cost of living entirely, all of them certainly add up, and all need to be accounted for. Losing track of that- losing touch with the value of money as one spends it -is a surefire way to fritter away one’s savings and wind up deep in debt. This maxim remains fundamentally true regardless of the size of one’s own net worth and budget.
Just as I link to think myself intelligent, I like to think myself reasonably adept at money management. After all, with only my $5/month allowance, occasional birthday checks, and sporadic income from babysitting, recycling, and other side ventures, I have managed to amass a nest egg which puts me snugly in the top quartile for net worth in my age group. But this paints a very one-sided picture, particularly given that the prevailing financial strategy which got me to where I am today consists principally of never paying for anything myself for which I can have someone else foot the bill.
As I have mentioned before, our household is chiefly a gift economy, where one’s purchasing power is not so much a matter of labor as social credit. If something is needed, it is bought without question or particular regard for the price. If something is merely wanted, it is considered and debated at length, until either it is bought on some special occasion, or it is forgotten about.
It is expected that in due course each person will be given or will be allowed to purchase out of the common household funds, a certain amount of luxury items or other frivolities. Those who exceed their share, or misbehave, are forbidden from making new purchases, or else receive fewer gifts on the relevant occasions. In comparison to the social credit aspect, the actual dollar price is almost trivial.
The actual finances of the house are handled quietly and efficiently without public discussion. For as much as I know my parents pride themselves on having passed on their frugality and money management skills, I know precious little about the actual financial situation of our household. This creates the awkward situation where money seems to just appear, and expenses charged to credit cards handle themselves.
Naturally, despite the insistence of my parents that I needn’t worry about it, I do keep a budget, meticulously tracking dollars spent, correlating receipts, and ensuring that the bank statements I do see- my personal savings account that I’ve kept since before I could sign my own name -match my own records. But with the stakes only ever as high as the occasional extra milkshake, or upgrade to a larger coffee, this is essentially a kind of pantomime game.
There are two things about this situation that scare me. The first is that a lack of exposure to expenses beyond what can be expressed in playground pocket money terms. I know how much a milkshake costs at the place I usually buy milkshakes, but couldn’t tell you the cost of the groceries that go into making it. I am dimly aware in the abstract that shopping at the grocery store is more cost effective than eating out, but I don’t know what would constitute a bargain in either case. This makes me dangerously vulnerable to price gouging.
I am also concerned that the money I do have saved doesn’t feel real. After all, price has almost never been a primary consideration, and my rigid saving has meant that almost every amount over a hundred dollars has gone into the bank. Though this is obviously the superior financial decision, as in a savings account at least my money can generate interest greater than the dust and lint it accumulates sitting in the house, it also means that I can no longer feel the paper currency in my fingers while spending it, but have to construct an abstraction around digits on a page.
Yes, I can imagine money in terms of the things which I may use it to purchase, but in addition to being merely another layer of abstraction, it is difficult to parse this in a meaningful way. At present there are no expenses, or even products that I feel a particularly pressing need to own, on a scale that is helpful. The primary luxuries I buy for myself are all in the $10-$20 dollar range, and many of these are foodstuffs, which I would buy even if I weren’t financially stable because of my medical diet. Even so, imagining an unusably large number of pizzas is not particularly more helpful than imagining ones and zeroes.
Besides which, it ignores the larger point: what stops me from going out and draining my bank account isn’t strictly frugality so much as social pressure. I’m not afraid of starving because I know that for almost any financial trouble I could get into short of setting out to lose money, my parents will bail me out. And if I was suddenly cut off, the meager sum in my account wouldn’t put a dent in my medical expenses for a single month, so I have very little incentive not to squander it before it gets seized by creditors. Rather, what stops me is that household social credit system; I don’t buy more for myself than I do for others because that would unbalance the whole regime.
What scares me isn’t that I can’t handle today’s financial problems. Rather I am afraid that someday off in the future, as I become responsible for handling my own matters more and more, that I will lose my benchmarks for understanding what purchases are necessary and what justifies what amount of spending, and the taboos that keep me in line today will erode and shatter. Then I will find myself with a lot of ones and zeroes, and lots of ways to spend them, and not a whole lot of idea how to manage them.
At some point after that, I fear, with no firm guidelines and only a vague grasp on what things should cost, I will be adrift without a reference point. And if, on that day, I don’t learn up from down and so forth very quickly, I will get a crash course in finance the hard way- by hitting rock bottom. There is then the risk that I will find myself unable to afford my medical regimen, and will either wind up deep in debt which will take an inordinate amount of time to repay, or suffer serious, possibly even fatal, health effects.
This idea of losing everything, despite my starting advantages, because of something that is intrinsic to others, but which I lack, either due to my disabilities or my unusual upbringing, is one of my greatest recurring fears; as is no longer having the resources to pay for my life support. Now, I don’t expect that this scenario is imminent by any stretch of the imagination.but of late it has begun to seem just a little too believable; just slightly too easily imaginable; for comfort. I could perhaps brush these bothersome anxieties off, but for the increase in rhetoric directed at me to the effect that, at my age and stage in life, I ought start making more moves towards future independence.
Being nothing if not prudent, I have already begun implementing measures to hopefully safeguard against the most deleterious effects of this scenario. To start, I have acquired another credit card from my parents, which I intend to use to build up a credit score with which to acquire a credit card under my own name. I have also opened up a checking account under my own name, through which I intend to centralize more of my finances such that I shall be able to more easily review spending habits, and hopefully expand my current budget from a mere exercise to an actual working financial plan.
For the purposes of this particular project, which I have chosen to call Project Clearinghouse for obvious reasons, I am opting to stick with option that are simplified at the possible expense of some small financial benefit. So, for my checking account, I chose a bank that is well known, widespread, and has plenty of online options over one that might possibly give me a better deal in the short term. The reasoning is twofold: first, that I am trying to set up infrastructure that will work for the next several years, and rather than try to divine the future, it is better to stick with options that allow me that strategic flexibility. Secondly, I am attempting to circumvent a scenario in which I become detached from financial reality, and it strikes me as more likely that this will happen if I am made to navigate a byzantine codex of regulations.
There’s a third reason, and that is that over the past few years, I have begun to realize the extent to which I can get in my own way if I am permitted to overthink things, as is my habit. This analysis paralysis is arguably as great a danger as the possibility that I will neglect planning entirely. Even ignoring the long term, if I were to permit myself to agonize over the minute differences in interest or fees for a week, there is a better than even chance that I would defer any decision for another week to think it over, and so forth.
In any case, what’s done is done. The account is set up, the first checks (despite having now spent as long in the United States as I did in Australia, I am still tempted to refer to them as cheques) have cleared and I have managed to, near as I can tell successfully, enable their mobile app and mobile payment system. I’m not entirely sure how the shift towards online payment and electronic checking, which is being openly encouraged by many of the institutions with which I deal, will impact my own designs, but that’s another topic for another time.
Getting my ATM/debit card activated has proven to be quite the ordeal, with the phone tree system not working, and the human operator to whom I was redirected was locked out of making any changes to my account after I gave my phone number, which despite being the very same number at which I have received from them the security codes to log into their app, and which I am quite positive I put down upon opening my account, did not apparently match their records, and therefore my identity was not proven. I was then told that I would have to proceed to activate my card in person.
I am left hoping that I shall one day look back on these present frustrations as worthwhile and helpful. Since I am undertaking this project not to solve a current ill, but to prevent future ones, I can do no more than guess at which is the best course of action. This is particularly troubling to me, as my track record is severely mixed at best. Nevertheless, it seems like the best course at present.

A Witch’s Parable

Addendum: Oh good grief. This was supposed to go up at the beginning of the week, but something went awry. Alas! Well, it’s up now.

Suppose we live in colonial times, in a town on an archipelago. The islands are individually small and isolated, but their position relative to the prevailing winds and ocean currents mean that different small islands can grow a wide variety of crops that are normally only obtainable by intercontinental trade. The presence of these crops, and good, predictable winds and currents, has made those islands that don’t grow food into world renowned trade hubs, and attracted overseas investment.

With access to capital and a wide variety goods, the archipelago has boomed. Artisans, taking advantage of access to exotic painting supplies, have taken to the islands, and scientists of all stripes have flocked to the archipelago, both to study the exotic flora and fauna, and to set up workshops and universities in this rising world capital. As a result of this local renaissance, denizens of the islands enjoy a quality of life hitherto undreamt of, and matched only in the palaces of Europe.

The archipelago is officially designated as a free port, open to ships from across the globe, but most of daily life on the islands is managed by the Honorable South India Trading Company, who collect taxes and manage infrastructure. Nobody likes the HSITC, whose governor is the jealous brother of the king, and is constantly appropriating funds meant for infrastructure investment to spend on court intrigue.

Still, the HSITC is entrenched in the islands, and few are willing to risk jeopardizing what they’ve accomplished by attempting insurrection. The cramped, aging vessels employed by the HSITC as ferries between the islands pale in comparison to the new, foreign ships that dock at the harbors, and their taxes seem to grow larger each year, but as long as the ferry system continues to function, there is little more than idle complaint.

In this town, a local woman, who let’s say is your neighbor, is accused of witchcraft. After the debacle at Salem, the local magistrates are unwilling to prosecute her without absolute proof, which obviously fails to materialize. Nevertheless, vicious rumors about men being transmogrified into newts, and satanic rituals conducted at night, spread. Local schoolchildren and off duty laborers congregate around your house, hoping to get a glimpse of the hideous wretch that legend tells dwells next door.
For your part, you carry on with your daily business as best you can, until one day, while waiting at the docks to board a ferry to the apothecary, a spat erupts between the woman in question and the dock guard, who insists that he shan’t allow her to board, lest her witchery cause them to become shipwrecked. The woman is denied boarding, and since the HSITC run all the ferries, this now means that she’s effectively cut off from rest of the world, not by any conviction, but because there were not adequate safeguards against the whims of an unaccountable monopoly.
As you’ve probably guessed, this is a parable about the dangers posed by the removal of net neutrality regulations. The internet these days is more than content. We have banks, schools, even healthcare infrastructure that exist solely online. In my own case, my life support systems rely on internet connectivity, and leverage software and platforms that are distributed through open source code sharing. These projects are not possible without a free and open internet.
Others with more resources than I have already thoroughly debunked the claims made by ISPs against net neutrality. The overwhelming economic consensus is that the regulations on the table will only increase economic growth, and will have no impact on ISP investment. The senate has already passed a bill to restore the preexisting regulations that were rescinded under dubious circumstances, and a house vote is expected soon.
I would ask that you contact your elected representatives, but this issue requires more than that. Who has access to the internet, and under what terms, may well be the defining question of this generation, and regardless of how the vote in the house goes, this issue and variants of it will continue to crop up. I therefore ask instead that you become an active participant in the discussion, wherever it takes us. Get informed, stay informed, and use your information to persuade others.
I truly believe that the internet, and its related technologies, have the potential to bring about a new renaissance. But this can only happen if all of us are aware and active in striving for the future we seek. This call to arms marks the beginning of a story that in all likelihood will continue for the duration of most of our lifetimes. We must consult with each other, and our elected representatives, and march, and rally, and vote, by all means, vote. Vote for an open internet, for equal access, for progress, and for the future.

Shiny

Alright, listen up Pandora, Diamonds International, Tiffany & Co., and other brands of fancy upscale jewelry that I can’t be bothered to recall at this time because I’m a guy. I’m about to talk about an idea that could help you dodge a bullet and get ahead of the next big thing.

Let’s face it, jewelry is seen as feminine. This is true to a place where guys feel out of place in a jewelry store; not just lost, but in many cases subtly unwelcome. This is a problem for you, because, as businesses, you want to be able to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. And perhaps more to the point, you don’t want to be marked as being too much part of traditional gender roles in the minds of the younger generation.
To your credit, you’re clearly trying, with your displays of cuff links, tie clips, and other implements of haberdashery. There’s just one problem- I have only the vaguest idea what a cuff link or a tie clip is supposed to do for me. As far as I know for sure, cuff links are the little pieces that hold the two wrist parts in handcuffs together, and tie clips are part of a wardrobe organizational system that prevent ties from becoming creased in a way that’s noticeable. And I’ll wager a lot that I’m far from the only guy for whom this holds true.
So you need something more obvious in its application. Something that I can walk up to the display and immediately surmise and articulate precisely why it is I need to own that thing, instead of needing a sales representative to explain to me how back in the olden days, fancy shirts didn’t used to come with buttons on their cuffs, and why I should care to replace mine with something more expensive and less practical.
Like, say, a wristwatch. It’s obvious why I would want to have a watch to tell me the time, and if I’m going to be wearing one anyways, a convincing argument can be made that I ought to treat myself to the finest and shiniest, which, I will be told, has been perfectly painstakingly custom engineered by the best in alpine watchmaking tradition. I may not have any use for such a watch today, but at least it’s a defensible reason for me to indulge myself to peruse shiny and expensive objects.
Except wristwatches are dying. Not just fancy and expensive models that use gratuitous amounts of valuable metals and stones, which have been slowly getting replaced by smaller, lighter, digital models that can also tell me the date, weather, set alarms, and act as a stopwatch since the calculator watches of the 1970s, but even these are being edged out. In some cases by smart watches, which can do everything listed previously, and then also take over several functions of a phone. But in most cases, watches are simply disappearing and being replaced by… nothing.
That’s because the need for a watch has been steadily eroded as young people have decided that they can just use their phone to tell the time. The smartphone didn’t kill the wristwatch, but the cultural shift towards having the action of glancing at one’s phone as casually acceptable as looking at one’s watch will. The more accepted having phones out becomes in polite company, the faster watches will disappear.
So, how do watches compete? It is still marginally easier to glance at a watch than to take a phone out from a pocket and look at it. But when a phone can also do so much more, to the point that pulling out a phone is a routine action anyways (to check texts, news alerts, and the like), the watch is still going to lose. The watch has to be able to take over some tasks from the phone in the same way that the phone can from the watch.
Modern smart watches already meet this threshold. On my own pebble smartwatch, I can receive text messages and other notifications, and decided whether I need to respond without ever having to touch my phone. I can screen incoming calls, and route them through my headphones. I can play and adjust my music, all without ever having to unlock my phone. It does exactly what I need it to, which is why it is an essential part of my essential kit.
There’s just one problem. My smartwatch is made of clunky looking, albeit durable and relatively cheap, plastic components. It stands out like a sore thumb in a formal outfit. Moreover, smart watches aren’t accepted in the same way that smartphones are.
So, jewelry companies: you need a trend you can cash in on with young men? Try smart watches. Cast them in silver and gold, with sparkling diamonds on the menu buttons, and custom engravings. Or heck, cut out watches entirely and go straight to phone cases. The important part is embracing this paradigm shift rather than stubbornly insisting that I still need a miniature grandfather clock on my wrist because my wearable computer isn’t fancy enough.