Lions, Tigers and Bears...and Black Swans?

I recently finished reading a book titled "Fooled by Randomness" by Professor Nassim Taleb. Taleb teaches Risk Engineering at NYU and is a former trader. He's a smart guy by any measure.

Taleb has spent most of his adult-life analyzing risk, learning to avoid risk and learning to profit from extraordinary circumstances. In finance they call these events "Black Swans;" the rare combination of a set of extraordinary events unfolding in the perfect order to create massive destruction to financial markets, models and financial plans, even by the most astute investor. For my friends in Western Pennsylvania, think of "Albino deer" or "Pittsburgh Pirates winning a pennant" and you'll understand how rare these occurences happen.

In short, Taleb also has been able to provide some evidence that we humans do a lousy job learning from the past, although we're more than capable of looking backwards after an event and criticizing the participants. If you have any doubt, simply listen to any call in sports show that takes calls from Monday morning quarterbacks analyzing what went wrong. They seldom offer a "how to make it better" solution, though.

Looking around and reading a recent letter addressed to President Obama from Taleb, I think it's time to recognize the Black Swan that might be in the room, cleverly disguised as indebtedness. In his letter, Taleb correctly points out that debt leaves little, if any, room for mistakes even in the best circumstances. Quoting the Roman proverb, "happy is he who owes nothing," I believe that the recent actions taken by all of our legislators have done nothing to stop the Black Swan from having offspring.

When you consider the fact that so much of our world is interdependent upon a million other fragments of society, the ability to identify potential hazards and trickle effects becomes nearly impossible to measure. (Measuring is what I like to do, by the way.) But how can one measure the impact of adding $9 trillion to the ever-expanding debt, which will exceed $20 trillion in ten years or less. How can adding debt to an already precarious position benefit anyone in the long run?

Taleb also correctly points out that many of the 'experts' are the same folks that created models that got us into the current (and most of the past) messes we are in today. Relying upon them to help solve the problem is merely a result of their own arrogance. Guess what arrogance leads to - more black swan events. Arrogance blinds us to our own predisposed prejudices, biases and flaws. Arrogance leads to group-think and herd mentality. Arrogance will lead us off of a cliff.

Cash for clunkers rewarded folks who bought vehicles that got lousy gas mileage. The bank bailouts rewarded Wall Street greed. Mortgage bailouts rewarded folks that bought too much house and speculated that prices would always go up. Auto bailouts rewarded lousy business models. Imagine rewarding your kids with a new car after they crashed the old one because they were drunk driving, or continuing to give your kids an allowance after they spent their savings on pot. You would never do that, would you? So why are we rewarding arrogant, risky behavior now? Because the 'experts' told us too, that's why.

In essence, we are rewarding poor judgement time and again and funding it from the tax payers who continue to play by the rules. Rewarding poor behavior is never a good option, but financing it with long term debt is an even worse solution.

FYI, following simply supply and demand mentality, please recognize that the cash for clunkers is going to hurt the poor. It always hurts the poor, despite our elected officials best intent. If we remove clunkers from the car lots, the supply of used cars will go down. The only folks that cashed in on the program were folks who could afford to buy a new vehicle, right? Of course. The clunkers have to be scrapped, but the number of people demanding them (college students, workers making minimum wage, single parents, etc.) hasn't gone down. Voila! More demand than supplies equals higher prices. Nice.

Urge your congress person to STOP funding risky behavior with your money. Oh, and leave a comment or two if you don't mind. Writing this stuff keeps me up at night.

For the health of it

Ah it's that time of year again. Get the kids on the yellow bus, sit in traffic and think about stuff that bugs you.

Right now, one thing is bugging me (at least more than anything else) - healthcare reform.

Yes, it's controversial and yes, it's annoying but the reality is something is going to happen this year regarding healthcare and insurance whether you like it or not. Apparently to have an opinion differing from those in elected positions makes one 'Un-American' or an extremist.

However, I am going to propose something different with this blog today. I am going to suggest that people can actually have a civil conversation and debate about creative ways to help solve this problem. Here are the rules:

1. No berating an opposing view.
2. Your argument must be supported by facts
3. Please refrain from salty language (that's only allowed by me, the host. It's the only priviledge I get to enjoy.)
4. Have fun and no solution is off limits. (That's called brain storming - something politicians in DC are incapable of doing because it involves having a brain to storm with.)

So here's my idea (yes, my bullet-proof vest is zipped up and I have my big boy pants on.)

Require surgeons to post their performance, or track record, showing how many operations they've performed, the number of medical related issues that resulted from these operations and the years of experience their staff has. Basically a surgeon would be required to give a three year history on patients after the surgery. (Think of it like the label on the back of a breakfast cereal, only something that's easily written on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper.)

Next, after reading the 'prospectus,' allow the patient the chance to either pay A) a price that includes the ability to sue the the doctor for malpractice or B) a price that does not allow the patient to sue for pain and suffering, but only lost wages.

In the auto industry they call this 'tort' or 'no tort.'

Now before you go berzerk on me, consider the following:

According to statistics from Stanford University, in 2005 about 20 million people underwent surgery with anesthesia. 12,000 of those patients died from a surgery that was unnecessary (i.e - plastic surgery, elective surgery, etc.) 106,000 died from medication errors associated with the surgery, 20,000 from hospital errors and 80,000 from infections resulting from the surgery (National Ledger, 8/21/2009.)

Let me do the math for you. That means that .1% of all surgeries resulted in death due to hospital errors during surgery. Other patients that died were a result of surgery that was not elective and required immediacy, such as heart attacks, cancer treatment, horrific accidents, etc. Let's call these things 'unpreventable' and outside of a hospitals ability to 'fix.'

Consider some of these facts, also from the National Ledger and confirmed from other sources such as National Institute on Health.

A study conducted by the AMA revealed that despite spending $3000 more per person on healthcare here in the US compared to Great Britain, twice as many American have diabetes and we also have a higher rate of heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer than our friends across the pond.

What gives?

We're overmedicated folks. A forty-year study conducted by Dartmouth confirmed that as certain areas of the country spent more on healthcare, those folks died a faster pace than areas that spent less on health care. Is less really more?

The World Health Organization in 2008 found that the US has the worst track record compared to other industrialized nations when it came to preventable deaths due to treatable conditions such as bacterial infections and and complications from surgeries (both of which occur in hospitals, I might add.)

Next, cap the number/type of prescriptions one doctor can write. Do we really need auto-refills from an answering machine at the local pharmacy? Shouldn't SOMEONE monitor how the prescriptions are working PRIOR to reordering?

From personal experience, I literally stopped taking medication because I felt better and have eliminated my acid reflux problem. I still have 97 pills left from a 100 pill order, but the auto dialer at the pharmacy called to remind me that my prescription can be refilled and to place my order soon.

I am not an automobile needing an oil change.

Instead, through preventive maintenance NOT induced by drugs (you know, running, eating better and going to bed at a reasonable time) I helped my body heal. Old fashioned approach, but something that works quite well; not just for me but for all of us. We're not unique, folks, despite what people tell us.

So there it is.

We spend twice as much as Britain for care that is worse, so the solution before you and the rest of America is to do what? Spend more money?

Money is not the answer. In fact, money is what got us into this mess. Money for the drug companies, money for the lawyers, money for victims.

No. Remove the monetary element and begin letting people choose.

I anticipate many comments, discussions and ideas. That's what this is all about.

Stimulate this

So Congress is set to throw another $900 billion into the crapper on a stimulus package.

I'd like to spend the next few paragraphs explaining how this stimulus, designed to help Americans, is actually going to have a negative impact.

The stimulus, while containing some details, has one really significant piece of data that shows up - any company taking funds from the stimulus and/or tarp will be required to utilize products and services from American companies. This is being done as a way to create jobs.

Here's where I'm going to get in trouble, especially living in the rust belt.

It's going to KILL the economy rather than stimulate the economy. Here's why.

If a company, let's say Caterpillar, decides to take stimulus funds they are now immediately handcuffed to American suppliers, regardless of price. As a result, and through a really miserable few quarters, the American suppliers will not be required to go through competitive bidding to ensure they are a low-cost provider and high quality provider. This will result in higher priced materials going to Caterpillar.

Now Caterpillar, while certainly concerned about consumers, has also suffered in the past few quarters. Do you think that they will actually swallow the added costs associated with dealing with only a few suppliers? Yeah right. That cost will be passed on to the consumer through higher prices. (this is what we economists and finance folks call "Inflation.")

Given our current unemployment levels of about 7.5%, most real folks would have a hard time swallowing higher prices; especially since they, or someone they know, are probably unemployed.

Now, let's bring in the REALLY big issue with this stimulus. How would you feel if America did this and you were, oh, I don't know, China? Remember that little country that is home to nearly a third of the world's population? Oh yeah. By the way. The own a lot of our debt.

The Chinese Government probably wouldn't take too kindly to not being able to bid on American projects. And while I'm sure they'd like to play nicely together, maybe they'd decide that they would stop accepting bids from American companies. This is not a good scenario, but it is highly likely.

Also likely is the fact that they could literally deflate our currency by 25-40% overnight by simply selling the debt we owe them back into the market. This would create "hyper inflation," which is as scary as it sounds. Think "inflation on steroids" and you'll see my point.

Imagine walking into your grocery store today and paying $1 for a loaf of bread. Three days from now that same bread might cost $1.35. Next week it could be $1.60.

Finally, a good rule of thumb with regard to printing money and giving it away (that's what we're doing) is this: $1 trillion of new debt equals about $3000 per person additionally owed to pay back the national debt. We're currently paying over $1 billion per day in interest on this debt. Guess who gets to pay that? My kids. The cost to a family of four is about $126,000

Leave them alone. They are currently on the hook for about $33,000 (each) toward the debt.

Can't we show SOME responsibility and begin taking control of our financial lives? You CANNOT create consumer demand and solve financial issues by creating additional debt. For crying out loud, that's what got us into this mess in the first place!!!

If this makes you as angry as it makes me, check out the Adam Smith Institute blogsite to learn more about taking control of government finances.

And call your congressional representatives. Don't write them. Call them and wait to talk to a live voice. Tell them enough is enough and to stop spending your kids money.