In my life I have come to realize for every possible opinion on any topic you can find someone convinced what they believe is what God wants.
To me that is a hallmark of someone who can't distinguish God from their own ego. The world is populated with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Buddhists and other smaller religions, and various subgroups within each major religion. In every religion with which I have some personal experience I have known believers who use their religious faith to build loving families and successful lives based on shared community. Equally, it seems, in every religion there are ideologues who foment discord and sometimes condone or even encourage violence.
It seems patently obvious to me there are many paths to God. Those who claim ownership of the only path to God, are usually seeking to profit from selling God.
It is also patently obvious from the evolution of human society that God gave us the brains we have to use our brain to chose how we live our lives. God wants us to chose respect and love. But we cannot make a choice when a particular outcome is forced on us. God can handle choosing the proper response to our bad choices. God doesn't deputize enforcers, those who claim to be deputized to judge the sins of others, who advocate methods to forcibly change behavior of others, are false prophets.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
On "expert" financial advice
This is a short summary of some points made in a Buttonwood column from the Economist 6/9/12, page 80. The column was sparked by a research paper "Why to people pay for useless advice? Implications of Gamblers and Hot-Hand fallacies in False-expert Setting" - Institute for the Study of Labor, May 2012
While there are some basic bits of financial advice that research has shown reliably improves portfolio performance, those bits of proven advice are few, and one only needs to be reminded of them from time to time. Not nearly often enough to generate enough fee's to make a living as a financial advisor. So a huge industry exists of financial advisor's churning out research to predict short term market trends - research that historically is most notable for its lack of predictive utility.
Studies have shown that financial guru's on average do no better than, and often worse than index funds. Sometimes a financial guru will have a couple really good years, but those years are usually followed by really bad years.
Why do people rely on financial advice when the data says it is often basically wasting money? Avoid responsibility for making mistakes? Not have to face the fact there is much that is random in the investing world? Not willing to accept that patience is more important to long term investment success than cleverness?
While there are some basic bits of financial advice that research has shown reliably improves portfolio performance, those bits of proven advice are few, and one only needs to be reminded of them from time to time. Not nearly often enough to generate enough fee's to make a living as a financial advisor. So a huge industry exists of financial advisor's churning out research to predict short term market trends - research that historically is most notable for its lack of predictive utility.
Studies have shown that financial guru's on average do no better than, and often worse than index funds. Sometimes a financial guru will have a couple really good years, but those years are usually followed by really bad years.
Why do people rely on financial advice when the data says it is often basically wasting money? Avoid responsibility for making mistakes? Not have to face the fact there is much that is random in the investing world? Not willing to accept that patience is more important to long term investment success than cleverness?
Monday, September 3, 2012
Red State / Blue State - Does Ideology matter?
In some respects the US is a great laboratory for testing ideology. 50 states all abiding by the same rules on the Federal level, but setting many of their own rules on the State level. Here is some data I would like to see - anyone willing to help?
The 5 most Red statesbased on historical voting patterns
Top three industries in the state economy
The 5 most blue states based on historical voting patterns
Top three industries in the State Economy
For each of these 10 states data on:
Lifespan -
Infant mortality -
Health care expense per capita -
Percentage without health insurance -
average income
percent below the Federal poverty line
Per student spending
elementary
college
Average School ranking
The 5 most Red statesbased on historical voting patterns
Top three industries in the state economy
The 5 most blue states based on historical voting patterns
Top three industries in the State Economy
For each of these 10 states data on:
Lifespan -
Infant mortality -
Health care expense per capita -
Percentage without health insurance -
average income
percent below the Federal poverty line
Per student spending
elementary
college
Average School ranking
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Policy Conundrum - Unemployment insurance
There are two sides of unemployment, Republicans always focus on one, Democrats always focus on the other.
Republicans always see deadbeats on the dole, people who really would rather get a check from the government than go to work. Democrats see victims of circumstance, people who, through no fault of their own are left without a means of support.
Both realities are true - sometimes. I've known people who build unemployment into their long term employment model, fashioning a life with big breaks from work where they draw unemployment, but I have also known people who were victims of circumstances beyond their control, who work hard to find another job and it just doesn't happen for long periods of time.
Why can't unemployment policy reflect the whole reality - weed out the vacationers while protecting the victims of circumstance?
What if all workers earn credits for unemployment as they work, so they bank a certain number of credits each month. Once they lose a job the number of weeks of full benefits is controlled by how many credits they have up to a maximum of - say 13 weeks. Then, if they are still unemployed they can still draw unemployment, at reduced rates, but they have to clock a certain number of hours per week volunteering for some non-profit? The lower their lifetime quota bank, the more hours they have to clock with non-profits. Leave them time to look for work, but get them out in the world, taking on responsibility.
Maybe entitle retiring workers to a repayment of some part of their remaining quota, to add a little extra incentive to work.
Republicans always see deadbeats on the dole, people who really would rather get a check from the government than go to work. Democrats see victims of circumstance, people who, through no fault of their own are left without a means of support.
Both realities are true - sometimes. I've known people who build unemployment into their long term employment model, fashioning a life with big breaks from work where they draw unemployment, but I have also known people who were victims of circumstances beyond their control, who work hard to find another job and it just doesn't happen for long periods of time.
Why can't unemployment policy reflect the whole reality - weed out the vacationers while protecting the victims of circumstance?
What if all workers earn credits for unemployment as they work, so they bank a certain number of credits each month. Once they lose a job the number of weeks of full benefits is controlled by how many credits they have up to a maximum of - say 13 weeks. Then, if they are still unemployed they can still draw unemployment, at reduced rates, but they have to clock a certain number of hours per week volunteering for some non-profit? The lower their lifetime quota bank, the more hours they have to clock with non-profits. Leave them time to look for work, but get them out in the world, taking on responsibility.
Maybe entitle retiring workers to a repayment of some part of their remaining quota, to add a little extra incentive to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)