When this goes live, I’ll be on the road to the Financial Bloggers Conference outside of Chicago. That translates to a day off here.
Monday, I’ll be back with a whole bucket full of bloggy goodness.
Future Me Returns
This is a conversation between me and my future self, if my financial path wouldn’t have positively forked 2 years ago. The transcript is available here.
What would your future self have to say to you?
Obama Signals Change by Appointing Janet Yellen to Run the Federal Reserve
President Barack Obama just announced that he is nominating Janet Yellen to run the Federal Reserve. The announcement heralded one of the most significant decisions in his presidency. Yellen is currently the Vice Chairwoman of the Fed, so her succession would be a natural progression. The White House struggled with the selection, and the joint press conference with Obama and Yellen capped off a contentious deliberation. Ultimately, the new nominee’s reign could signal a series of unexpected changes.
Not the First Choice
Previously, Obama has demonstrated a tendency to be extremely loyal to his inside circle. This practice of favoritism was intended to extend to the Federal Reserve. The president’s primary candidate was Lawrence Summers, who has been a close political ally. Unfortunately, members of Obama’s Democratic Party derailed Summers’ chances by demanding a liberal nominee. After being undermined by his own establishment, Obama had no choice but to pick a Democrat.
Likelihood of Confirmation
The Senate chamber has a Democratic majority, and this coalition has vocalized widespread support for Yellen. Although her initial selection required a little extra luck and patience, she appears to be on the fasttrack to confirmation. Republicans have voiced concerns about her economic philosophy, but they will be powerless to obstruct her path to leadership.
First Chairwoman
The announcement was immediately considered to be a major symbolic victory for womens’ rights across the country. Yellen will be the first woman to operate this crucial organization. This is another convenient boost for Obama’s progressive agenda, especially since his second term cabinet has been unusually lacking in female members.
First Democrat in Decades
For some incongruous reason, the last two Democratic Commanders in Chief both nominated Republicans to head the Fed. Obama reinstated Ben Bernanke, and Bill Clinton appointed Alan Greenspan before him. By finally choosing a Democrat, Obama can help his party reclaim governmental economics. As a result, Yellen will be expected to switch ideological course on a variety of monetary issues. Still, liberals hoping for a grand overhaul will be sorely disappointed.
Financial Consequences
Because she spent her tenure serving under Ben Bernanke, the transition of leadership is expected to be conducted in a seamless fashion. This means that there will not be instantaneous transformations; instead, Yellen is expected to subtly shift the direction of countless economic debates. It will be done is a slow moving manner that remains undetected by the general public. Under the radar, she is expected to facilitate mild increases in inflation to effectively combat unemployment. She also appears more inclined to regulate big banking industries. At least from the start, Yellen will only be making minor adjustments.
Pristine Qualifications
This pragmatic economist has earned doctoral honors from Yale, and she was a professor at Harvard. She had successful experiences operating the Fed in California, and her tenure witnessed a substantial economic turnaround for the region. Now, she has navigated a tenuous stimulus recovery for the entire nation. She will only expand these efforts when she ascends to the top.
Human Interaction
Life may be like a box of chocolates, but it is certainly not a game of Sorry, where one person wins at the expense of all others. It is entirely possible for everyone to win in most voluntary interactions.
For example, if my company gives me a $10,000 raise, it would seem like I win and they lose. I’m getting more money, at the expense of their bottom line, right? Maybe. But what if that raise spurs me on to make an extra $100,000 for the company? That makes it a good investment and a Win/Win scenario.
When I’m dealing with one of my side-business customers or an advertiser, I’m definitely pushing for the Win/Win. Of course I want them to pay me as much as possible, but I also want their repeat business, which won’t happen unless they walk away happy. If I insisted that each of my customers pay the absolute top dollar, I may come out ahead in the short-term, but what about next month or next year? It’s much better for both of us if we can find a happy middle ground.
The four basic forms of interaction are:
1. Win/Lose. This is where I win and you lose. Haha! The problem with a Win/Lose is that the loser isn’t going to come back to play next year. He’s not happy and he’ll probably tell his friends how unhappy he is. This is also the interaction that people are mistakenly assuming when they complain about excessive executive interaction. The CEO is making a million dollars while the folks on the assembly line are stuck with $15 per hour? It’s entirely possible that, if the CEO weren’t doing his job, nobody else would have one. That is, like it or not, Win/Win.
2. Lose/Win. This is where I give up everything, hoping you’ll eventually throw me a bone. It’s a cowardly interaction that won’t work well when dealing with someone playing #1. I’ll keep giving, you’ll keep taking. You go home happy, I go home sore. When it’s done, I won’t do business with you ever again.
3. Lose/Lose. Nobody wins. We fight so hard to get what we want, forcing the other side to give up as much as possible, while they are doing the same. At the end of the day, the hatred is flowing so strong, there’s no possibility of a relationship.
4. Win/Win. Yay! Everybody wins! Everybody’s happy! This will involve some compromise, but hopefully we can reach the happy middle ground where we are both smiling. If I’m looking for a deal that involves you paying me $1000 per month, is it better for me to push to get exactly that, or let myself get talked down to $750? If the $1000 is more than you can afford, so you quit with hard feelings after one month, the ongoing $750 is much, much better for both of us. It is actually in my greedy self-interest to give up that 25% to build our relationship.
Winning doesn’t have to be done at the expense of others. If you do it right, we all win.
Thug-cenomics
Recently, a friend of mine told me about a friend of his who was attacked by a flash mob. This was a negative flash mob, not the fun kind.
She was walking down the street with her phone in her hand when around a dozen thugs surrounded her, knocked her down, and stole her phone before running off.
With me being the person I am with the hobbies and side-hustles I have, certain things came to mind.
- This is why standard capacity magazines should never be outlawed. Sometimes, a six-shot revolver just isn’t enough.
- Before anyone complains about #1, when you are beaten to the ground by a pack of violent thugs, the length of your life is up to them, not you. They are the problem.
- Walking down the street while talking on your cell phone is not the best way to stay aware of your surroundings. Would she have been able to get away if she had been paying more attention to the thugs on the corner than her conversation? I have no idea, but it’s certain that talking on a cell phone is a distraction.
- Walking down the street with an expensive gadget in your hand is asking for trouble.
- What were these thugs thinking? Even a $500 cell phone turns into a $50 mp3 player the moment the victim gets to a real phone to call the cell phone company. That’s a generous $50 payout. With 12 people, that’s means everyone gets $4.10 as their share. The federal poverty level is just under $12,000 per year, which means they would have to do this 8 times a day, just to get to barely enough money to survive.
In Minnesota, this is, at a minimum, 3rd degree assault, which carries a possible 5 year sentence and $10,000 fine. That’s 8 public attempts to throw away 5 years of their lives, every day. How can they consider this a good risk.
It was pointed out to me that this thuggery is probably made possible by direct government sponsorship, in the form of welfare checks, so this is probably just a way to pass the time. Somebody should tell those brutes that welfare checks stop when you’re in prison.
So I’m considering launching a basic economics class for thugs and street rats. I want to teach them how to do a risk assessment by comparing the level of loot to the possible outcomes of getting caught.
Possible test questions include:
- I could stab that guy for the $10 in his wallet, but if I get caught, I’m facing 40 years in prison. Should I do it?
- My flash mob makes $50 per phone we steal from defenseless women. Would my buddies rat me out to avoid 5 years of hard time, and do I consider that worth $4?
- Meth makes the faces of my customers dissolve from the inside before killing them. Is it possible to build a sustainable business based on slowly killing my customers? What marketing skills do I need to develop to replace the natural attrition of poisoning my customers?
- Meth labs explode. Is it better to hire my own junkies, or should I outsource that risk and take a smaller profit margin?
- This is a shall issue carry permit state. There are nearly 100,000 carry permit holders here. That’s 1.87% of the total population and 2.6% of the adult population. Statistically, how many people can my friends and I jump before getting justifiably shot? Is that number times the $4 profit considered a good return on investment? What would the ROI have to be to make this a worthwhile career choice?
Anybody know any violent thugs willing to beta test my new class offering?
Counting Cards: How to Cheat At Blackjack
I don’t gamble much. I’ve got this boring kind of luck that let’s me gamble for a really long time on not much money, without ever winning big.
For example, when my wife was very pregnant with our first monster, we took a trip to visit my parents. It’s a 2 hour drive, and she needed a break halfway there. In the truck stop, we bought $5 worth of scratch-offs to pass some time. We turned in the winning tickets for more scratch-offs. And again. And again. Two hours later, we were out of winners, but had never accumulated more than $10.
Another time, we went to the casino to play slots. It took nearly 8 hours to spend $20. That sounds boring, but we had good conversation while we were playing.
I’ve never had a big win or a big loss from gambling, so I’ve always been kind of bored with the idea.
Now, cheating at blackjack, that’s a different matter. Pulling one over on the casino without getting caught…they make movies about that kind of stuff.
To be clear: counting cards in your head isn’t cheating. Legally, the worst that can happen is you can be asked to leave. To get a Hollywood-I-cheated-the-casino-and-got-caught-and-beat-by-the-mob kind of beating, you need to win a lot.
A lot.
To get started, there are a few things you need to know. One of those things is how to play blackjack, but I’m not going to get into the basics. If you don’t know how to hit, stand, or count to 21 without taking your clothes off, this guide may be too advanced for you. Come back later.
Super Basic Strategy
You don’t need to count cards to use this strategy. You will do better than most players if you follow along.
1. The dealer must hit, or take another card, if he has 16 points. If he has 17, he stands.
2. The hole card–the card you can’t see–is always worth 10. Of course, it’s not, but for the purposes of your strategy, assume it is.
That means, when the dealer is showing a 2, you’ll assume he’s got 12 points and will hit. If he’s showing a 7, you’ll assume he’s going to stand. If he’s showing an 8, your goal is to beat 18, not push for 21.
That’s it. If you do that, you’ll come within a couple of points of even odds against the house. Google “blackjack basic strategy” if you want to improve this.
Even odds isn’t good enough.
Card Counting
Counting cards sounds tough. Rain Man tough.
It’s not, but you’ll want to practice at home a bit before you try it in the really real world.
The rules are simple:
1. Cards 2-6 are worth 1 point.
2. The 10, jack, queen, king, and ace are worth -1.
3. For every card that is played, keep track of that score. This is a running score across multiple hands until the deck is replaced or shuffled, so don’t stop at a new deal.
4. Divide the running score by the number of decks remaining in the shoe. If there are approximated 150 cards in the dealer-thingy, that’s 3 decks, so divide by 3. If your running score is 18, that means the number your playing against is 6. If the casino is using a continuous-shuffling thingy, forget counting the cards.
That’s it. You’re never adding or subtracting more than a one, and you’re doing that against a number that tends to stay pretty low.
How do you use that, you ask? Easy.
When the score is up, bet higher. If it’s low or negative, bet lower. The higher the number, the higher your bets. If you’ve got a 5, a 6, or more, bet as much as you are comfortable with. If your playing score is low or negative, bet close to the table minimum.
Why does this work?
A higher score indicates that the main assumption of the super basic strategy is more likely to be true. When you’ve got a score of 10, you know a lot of lower-value cards have already hit the table, so it’s safer to assume that the dealer’s card is worth 10.
You don’t change anything about the way you play each hand, you just change the way you bet each hand. Counting cards doesn’t tell you specifically what’s going to happen during each hand, it just tackles the statistics of the game. It moves the odds in your favor, by up to 2 or 3 percent. Over one hand, this won’t help, so don’t sweat losing a hand here and there. Over an entire shoe of hands, you should be able to steadily win more than you lose.
And, as Brian Brushwood says, in the course of your life, very few things make a cooler story than getting kicked out of a casino for counting cards.
Do you play in casinos? Ever tried to cheat?
