Reticent Man

We start with the libertarian or anracho-capitalist maxim that absolute utility of all economic activity is maximized by having no government interference at all.  Every coercive or governmental interference is a net negative.  Although I take this as true, I draw different conclusions from it than true anarchist because of other considerations which I will detail.  You can have some very interesting theoretical arguments about whether a true anarcho-capitalist society is economically stable, in which it will be argued that the incentives are aligned such that no entity grows powerful enough to take the place of government.  But I consider these arguments to be only theoretical because of psychological considerations.  Humans will submit to a hierarchical power structure against their best interests and incentives, due to our instincts and genetic makeup.  Therefore there will always and everywhere be government.

Taking these two points together we are left with what Thoreau paraphrased from others "That which governs least governs best".  I will get back to governing best in a minute.

In microeconomics 101 you will learn that there is a surplus to trading.  If I value your object at $20 and you value it at $10, I can give you $15 for it and we have both gained $5 in value.  You will also learn that in a perfectly competitive market, businesses will earn a market rate return on investment of capital, and labor will earn a market rate of pay, and all additional surplus will go to the consumer.  We take this simple model as true, but note that government interference makes the markets no longer perfectly competitive, and by doing so has impacts in two ways.  Firstly as discussed above it will reduce the total surplus available to all parties through its interference.  This effect can be very large (choking the market to nothingness) or very small.  Secondly, government interference can change the distribution of who receives the surplus and who even participates in the market and receives any surplus at all.  Note that no one receives negative surplus over time... instead they just stop participating in the market (see the choking comment above).   Therefore government interference over all markets will necessarily change the ROI of capital, the price of labor, and the surplus from trade to everyone.

Let's get back to governing best.  In order to decide how we want to govern best we need to define what 'best' is.  What are our goals?  Morally I want everyone to live comfortably if they are willing to work if able, and don't commit crimes against others. but I also want as much additional surplus above that as possible, and for it to be distributed somewhat in proportion to those who generate it, and somewhat to everyone.  This is a vague goal, but being more specific will not be helpful so I don't need to be.  It is enough that I can tell if any change is moving us closer to, or farther away from that goal.

Now that we have our goal, and a simple understanding of economics and government, it is simple to say that the way to govern best is to evaluate all government through two aims.  To minimize interference so as to maximize the surplus available to all.  And to direct the interference so that we are distorting the market in the direction of our goals.  This is the framework with which one could improve government.

How do we fail currently?  Virtually everyone agrees that our current government is massive failure.  That's why the easiest way to generate support is to be pro-change.

I believe the largest pathway of failure is the tendency for the rich to get richer.  As noted, governmental interference has the power to change the distribution of surplus gains from trade.  For example the people on the capital side of the equation can use the government to distort the market so that capital retains the lion's share of the surplus from trade... keeping labor and consumer's share small.  But it's not just capital vs labor. Skilled laborers and capital can both combine to keep the price of unskilled labor down, increasing income inequality.

On the flip side, attempts to increase the share of the less well off are usually clumsy and heavy-handed, and sometimes downright counterproductive.  You always run the risk decreasing the size of the surplus by more than you can redistribute to the poor.

But all is not lost.  Government can tip the scales towards my stated goal.     How it can do so is the subject for another post.

Labels: Thoughts

Misc thoughts:

It doesn't make sense for the Sox to trade Ellsbury.  He's very hard to evaluate, but I'd put him at maybe 3-3.5 WAR.  He has just 2013 under team control at arb 3, probably making $8.1M.  So you're talking about maybe $10M in surplus, which won't net a prospect that sax fans would expect.  Better to just keep him and see what he does... trading him midseason if he's playing well and they're out of the race.

I'm blown away by how nearly universal the disdain for Victorino at 3/39 is, when I have it as a steal to the tune of $15M surplus or so.  No one gives any numbers based reasons, but there must be something going on here.  If he pulls 3 WAR again I'll look good.

Likewise the Pagan signing is being greeted as fine when I think it's another huge steal.  I expect Greinke to be overpaid, and Anibal to be way overpaid.  I love the Meyer for Span trade.  The Scutaro signing I have as fine.

Labels: baseball

BJ Upton signed with Atlanta. I plugged him into my sheet with 3.5WAR for next season and it hit almost 0 surplus on the first shot.  ($340K but that's way inside the margin of error).  So it seems like a solid deal.  This is also a good first validation of my assumptions.

In response to an article by Dave Cameron at fangraphs about reports of talks involving Will Myers for either John Lester or James Shields.  This is my reply

I have both Shields and Lester with about $14-15M surplus value on their contracts. Myers is certainly a top 10 prospect right now, probably in the top 5, which puts his value around $45-50M or so. While there’s an enormous margin of error in those numbers, clearly there’s a mismatch here.

Labels: baseball

Maybe I'm back.  Well here's more content anyway.  I'm just going to write things.
Baseball.... I think there's a gap in analysis right now of taking every contact signed and looking at the basic parameters to figure out what the market value of a win really is.  I set up a spreadsheet template.  The main parameters are Rate (I'm using 5%) Current $/war (I'm using $5.5M), and decline (I'm using 95% through age 30 and -0.5 WAR per year after 30).  So far there aren't many interesting contacts to test it, but it will be interesting to see what shakes out with more data.

Here are some initial rough data points.

Longoria initial contract value: $73M surplus
Longoria extension value: An additional $17M surplus

David Wright breakeven: 7/130 6/120

Gian Stanton value: $82M
Matt Cain value: $18M
Nick Swisher breakevev: 4/60 5/68
Zack Greinke breakeven: 6/120

Labels: baseball

Feeling better.  I did resolve that dissatisfaction.  I'm just enjoying my free time, playing wesnoth, which is a good game.  Friday we had a pretty good pickup, but I couldn't bring any intensity, which was a shame but not a surprise.  Friday not I played out for the Otters in our consolation game and had a hat trick... that was fun.  Then watched a nice final with the Old-Timers upsetting the Intangibles in a shootout.
Going to relax and play today.  Got a call for a San Jose CC game at 5:45.  I'm conflicted about it.  Cons: CC is a little low, I'm playing tomorrow and maybe monday and could use the rest. Pros:  The matchup is decent but not perfect, I could use the increased familiarity with San Jose and the confidence boost of playing well there.  I have nothing else important to do.

I still have a lingering dissatisfaction.  I think it's because I just can't reconcile whether I'm suppose to be being productive right now.  On the one hand I feel I should be, because I certainly have many things longterm that need to be done.  On the other hand, there are so many confounding factors on the things I need to do, most involving money/job status.  I need to just clarify every situation so I can be at peace, able to relax and enjoy my free time.  I'm not going to plan for Ian's wedding until I get the invitation. At this very minute the only things I need to do are:
1) Carkey, which at this time I cant do until tomorrow, but should.
2) re: Grace, which I will do now
3) Straighten up, which I will do now

I'm worn out today.  Played goalie pickup yesterday afternoon with very little energy.  Then watched the Wednesday keg game, played in the 930, stupidly blocked a shot with the side of my foot.  I need to do a better job of regulating how hard I'm going to try and how much I care about the outcome and how much I care about what other people are doing.  There's no reason to get annoyed while playing these games for fun.  Part of it is that I'm annoyed that my play isn't meeting my expectations, and of course when unfocused I transfer that annoyance onto others.  The question is whether my play isn't meeting expectations because I'm in a slump or whether it's because I let a streak of good/lucky play raise my expectations unrealistically.  Unfortunately all the Geckos bailed on the 1045 game, which was disappointing, and poor Tony showed up just to play 3v3 with random guys.  I was wasted by the end of the day though, and easily slept 9 hours.

Back to Tuesday, the keg game was quite fun.  My team had a good lineup with AJ and Brian and Jason, and I was confident.  We beat them 9-1, although it was 4-1 going into the 3rd.   I did face quite a few shots, although many from sharp angles.  I played fairly well and also fairly lucky, although I did a good job of remembering not to mention that this time.  I've been on a huge upswing recently in goalie luck and it's nice.  So it's 6 keg wins in I think 13 IO seasons combined.  4 for 9 in goal, and 2 for 4 skating.  Not bad at all.

So little to do right now.  I'm not going to play poker... I'm waiting to hear from PI.  So the logic is to make sure I'm where I want to be when I start working so I don't lose too much.  Like I said before, health and body I'm fine and figure to stay fine... I have a freezer full of meat.  I've got plenty of hockey to play, as much as I can handle, and I will upgrade the equipment as soon as the money rolls in.  I have some long term projects to work on, piano, chess, my visits, and possibly guitar, photo, and wardrobe.  Most of those are waiting for money.  So it's communication focus.

Still to do:
Carkey program.
Ian's wedding.

Better today.  Got up at 10:00 to start forcing myself back on a good sleep schedule.  Talked to Arnold for a bit.  He doesn't have anything for me right now but there is a possibility down the road.  Who knows how it will work out with the PI thing. Booked Ian's bachelor party trip.  Laundry and relaxing, waiting for hockey.

Wasted day.  I'm a little down now because I don't seem to have anything productive that I want to do.  At least tomorrow I have Arnold, and then Ian Bach and then hockey.


Current to do:
Plans for Ian Bachelor party
Plans for Ian wedding
Get hockey equipment from IO
CarKey program

scheduled
Hear about job next week
Re: Arnold Tuesday 27
Tuesday keg game 27
Wednesday pickup 28
Wednesday geckos 28 1045
Friday pickup 30 
Friday Otters 30 700

Relaxing day and I feel very good.  Subbed in a couple goalie games for Art Wong.  The Vallco game was nice but that rink sucks.  What to do this week?  Well I should be hearing about the job but probably not starting yet.  Several hockey games and a lot of free time.

Today:
Chess: some vids. a3 against comp, beat 1200 pretty easily.  1-2 mistakes midgame.... no focus on won endgame.

General focus is on remembering and focusing on awesomeness in public.  Voice volume.  In phil, nothing to think about.  At this point politics, philosophy, and sociology are just time wasters.  I know the answers, I don't need to reread the details.  Short term life goals are wealth accumulation, mental stimulation, and physical/mental enjoyment.  Long term goals are increasing public character, building family, and continuing short term goals.  Sporting, health, and body are maintain status quo.  I don't need to be ripped and in 100% best shape.  I will get to a good maximum at hockey and enjoy it and then decline.  My body and image are fine as is, wardrobe could improve.

Current to do:

Plans for Ian Bachelor party
Plans for Ian wedding
Get hockey equipment from IO
dishes
straighten

scheduled
Hear about job next week
Re: Arnold Monday 26
Tuesday keg game 27
Wednesday pickup 28
Wednesday geckos 28 1045
Friday pickup 30 
Friday Otters 30 700

Ongoing to do:
Play chess
piano
poker
visit

Longterm
wardrobe
hockey equip
photo?
guitar?

A new start.  I've been trapped in a games/slump cycle for quite a while but I'm finally out.  I have goals.  Here are some not too ambitious physical ones.
1) Be able to regularly finish most V2s at PG
2) Do Abs 3x week
3) Play consistent high level softball with more speed
4) Play consistent pro level hockey with 80-100% focus level every time

And non-physical
1) Use all current knowledge to drive an efficient powerful job search
2) Increase ongoing focus for communication skills

Let's see how that goes.

This morning I feel less groggy than usual.  Heading to PG right away.

Revolutionary Road  Boooooring.  This film is excellently made and very unentertaining.  I get it, the suburbs are a soul-crushing living death.  The main characters are annoying people I don't want to root for.  And they have stupid dreams that they fail to achieve.  Nothing more to say really.  The insane guy was great.  Acting 7, Story 1, Style 4. 

Revolutionary Road 3/10

Doctor Zhivago  I think my parents favorite movie, or at least my mother's.  It's an epic romance but in a weird way because the long between the romantic couple is surprisingly underdeveloped considering the length of the movie.  In place of that there are many developed characters and intertwining plotlines.  It's somewhat interesting in total, but not incredibly so.  And there's somewhat of a feeling and the end of whole sections of the movie not having meant a whole lot. Quoting the ebert review "the plot of "Doctor Zhivago" lumbers noisily from nowhere to nowhere".  Still, I did enjoy it.  Acting 6, Story 5, Style 7.

Doctor Zhivago 6/10



The Fountainhead This is a philosophical movie about a philosophy I love, so it's a little hard for me to be objective about it (get it?).  As Rand cowrote the script, it's no surprise that it plays as a distillation of philosophy, very explicitly laid out for you.  The characters are as broad as they are meant to be.  It's been called campy because of that style, but as I see the intention I didn't find it so.  The one criticism I agree with is that Gary Cooper was not good in the main role.  I read that he didn't understand the material and if it was so it showed.  The rest of the actors seemed good.  Redeeming Cooper was the presentation of the main romance.  One of the best I've seen on film.  It's a feminists nightmare, but then Rand certainly wasn't a feminist.  It was also the few scenes where Cooper's acting jived with the material... he probably knew all about being a real man to a woman.  The book, despite being so incredibly long, is actually a great story for a movie, and it was done very well here.  I had goose-bumps for most of my viewing.  Acting 6, Story 10, Style 8 with a bump for anti-feminism and another for philosophical content.

The Fountainhead 9/10

Iron Monkey  A pretty simple review.  This is a solid modern kung fu movie.  It's not a beautiful sweeping story like Crouching Tiger, nor is it as stylistic as hero.  It's just a fun, entertaining kung fu movie.  Acting N/A, Story 5, Style 9

Iron Monkey 7/10

Rescue Dawn  The main character was a fairly unique presentation that I enjoyed in many ways.  He was wildly uneven in almost every aspect, disarmingly funny one moment and also on the edge disturbing the next,  and I believe he was meant to be just that way.  Also it's done with a subtlety that managed not to take you out of the characterization.... a credit to Bale and the director.  The story is certainly intense, although I think I found it less intense than it was meant to be, which is my only real gripe with the movie.  Since there isn't a lot there, what is there needs to be particularly intense, and it fell just short.  Still, it's eight tenths of a great movie.  Acting 10, Story 7, Style 7

Rescue Dawn 8/10

Quills Held my attention, but just barely.  I have two major problems with this movie.  One is that it just wasn't terrible interesting throughout the movie.  For as promising a subject as it is, I'm surprised I wasn't titillated more than I was.  The other is that the whole tone/theme seems to change a bit from the first three fourths of the movie to the ending.  However I'd describe the ending if you asked me 3/4 of the way through the movie if that's the kind of movie I was watching I would have said not really.  That kind of thing could conceivably be a good thing if the change rocks your world, but in this case it just kind of made me say "huh"?  The good is that the acting was excellent and the other production values are good.  It was still mildly entertaining.  Acting 8, Story 4, Style 4.

Quills 5.5/10

Observe and Report.  Weird movie.  Seemed like they billed it as a comedy but it's way past the deep end of dark comedy and into just dark, disturbing, and uncomfortable.  There are just a couple funny parts in there.  From that perspective it's pretty hit and miss.  A little too much uncomfortable and not enough deep payoff. Still it's mildly interesting.  Acting 6.5, Story 3.5, Style 5

Observe and Report 4.5/10

1984.  This movie may suffer from having been outdone at the same thing since.  It's a really barren film, with lots of silence and thought.  I appreciate that it stayed true to the book, although I couldn't really remember the book that well having read it 15 years ago.  But there just isn't enough there... it didn't grab me and hold me in its bleak grip.  Acting 7, Story 5, Style 3

1984 5/10

Breakfast at Tiffany's  Well.  An interesting romance movie.  I see a lot of this particular phenomenon recently where a story has so much feminism in it, but yet it's a dark or sad story, the characters are mostly failures.  So is it still feminist?  Or is it anti-feminism?  I can never resolve this.  I really got into the movie, but I kind of think that I was really just into Audrey Hepburn rather than the movie itself, which doesn't really hold up to analysis.  Her character is really a train-wreck of wisdom but yet I can't stay away.  What is it about me and so many others that wants to save this poor beautiful creature?  I need to see more Audrey Hepburn movies before I'll really know how I feel about this one.  Acting 9, Story 5, Style 8.5

Breakfast at Tiffany's 7.5/10

The Killing Gene.  More feminist torture porn.  Swell.  This is a derivative splicing (get it?) of Seven, Saw, and F/M.  To all involved I say fuck you.  Acting 2, Story 0, Style 0.

The Killing Gene 1/10

Harsh Times  Meh. This movie shows the Christian Bale is a great actor, but I already knew that.  The other redeeming quality of this movie is the rarely captured essence of masculinity.  Of course it's portrayed negatively as you would expect, but at least it's portrayed well.  But that's about it.  The story isn't particularly interesting, and when it is it isn't particularly believable.  The nightmare sequences are pretty lame.  Oh and in case you didn't already know, women are smarter and better than men. Still it's no unwatchable, it's mildly entertaining.  Acting 9/10 Story 1/10 Style 6/10 minus a lot for F/M.

Harsh Times 4/10

The Shining.  I don't think I even know yet how much I love this movie.  I need to see it at least 4 more times.  I spent about 6 hours reading analysis about this movie right after seeing it and I could read more.  Kubrick is the man.  I could tell even on first viewing that there were two levels to this thing... that the surface narrative of the haunted hotel is not the real meaning.  But after reading thorough discussion I realized just how amazing the second level is.  This movie is intricately designed essentially frame by frame to carry a very complicated but complete second narrative below the surface.  I need to rewatch other Kubrick movies multiple times just to get to their second levels.  Even the surface narrative is a good movie by itself, very spooky and visually enthralling.  Acting 8/10 Story 10/10 Style 10/10

The Shining 9.5/10

Sunday/Monday.  Watching a lot of TV, hockey, baseball.  By the end of Monday I finally at least got somewhat caught up on chores to where I feel I'm back in the swing of things after a long slump.  Hopefully I'll be able to work out and then make it to work tomorrow.  Heard from Arnold about SESI, seems it's still a ways away if it happens at all.  Still feeling good about my body but now I'd like muscle definition. 

Body of Lies  I'm just copying this other guy's review because I agree with it completely, and it's the fairly unanimous viewpoint on this movie. Ridley Scott infuses his movie with his slick, professional touch, and the proceedings are never quite boring, but certain things begin to grate, even if you largely agree with the film's politics -- the juxtaposition of Russel Crowe's boorish CIA official against Mark Strong's smart Jordanian counterpart is loud and obvious, the love story feels like the device that it becomes, and the third act comes off as more implausible the closer it hews to its spy thriller genre conventions. A certain rawness and despairing urgency is never quite achieved for the message the film wants to deliver, and so it remains a well-intentioned, well-produced, yet generally unmemorable entertainment.  Acting 7, Story 3, Style 9.


Body of Lies 6.5/10.

End of Days  This movie isn't nearly as bad as the general consensus.  Yes it has major plot holes throughout the story, and it is somewhat corny in places (although not nearly as much as I expected.  But it has redeeming qualities.  Some of the plot points and symbolism are actually pretty cool.  The dialogue is not bad in there are some great lines.  The acting is decent quality for an action/thriller, and the action is also decent and not overdone.  It seems for most the plot holes were too much and took people out of the movie... for me it was close, but I was still able to mostly enjoy it.  Bonus for resistance to feminism.  Acting 6, Story 5, Style 6.

End of Days 6/10