I.T. Erudio

Author: Les

  • Let us reason …

    … ok, just for fun – consider the ultimate “why” of human motivation

    Happiness and the pursuit thereof

    why does ANYONE do ANYTHING? obviously humans are emotionally complex beings with equally complex motivations – but if we try to get to a “root motivation” for individual actions then (maybe) “happiness” is that “root”

    “Moral reasoning” also plays a big part in that “pursuit of happiness” thing — i.e. if someone THINKS that “getting material object” will MAKE them happy, well, they will never be “happy”

    now, everyone that has ever worked at a job they hated is gonna immediately point out “I hated working at that job, it didn’t make me happy in any form” -> ok, if it didn’t make you happy, why not quit? -> and the answer might be “I needed the money” -> ok, and what did you do with that money? -> paid rent, bought food, survived -> and did that MAKE you happy? -> no, but it was better than being homeless and starving -> so it DID “make you happy”, just at a very low “subsistence” level

    ok, “most folks lead lives of quiet desperation” is always true because MOST folks never sort out what “makes them happy” in the first place – which is where I come back to the old “un-examined life isn’t worth living” line quickly followed by “know thyself”

    of course “happiness” for one person ain’t gonna be “happiness” for another person — and that is probably why we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (you know, just off the top of my head 😉 )

    THEN one of the reasons humans form gov’ments is because folks “pursuing happiness” can come into conflict with each other — SO in an ideal society folks in the act of pursuing happiness wouldn’t hurt/interfere with OTHER folks pursuing happiness

    this is kinda the old “my right to swing my arms ends when my arm swinging starts threatening OTHER people”

    … and if you want to boil THAT concept down then it becomes “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (which is Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperitive”)

    AND THEN THAT statement is really just the old “golden rule” to “treat others the way YOU would like to be treated”

    implementing the mundane details of the grand principle is why the “law codes” contain so much “lawyer-ese” but the principle is easy to understand

    OF COURSE if someone thinks that their “pursuit of happiness” requires injuring other folks – well, they have broken the social contract and need to be corrected – obviously correcting a small child when they throw a temper tantrum because they can’t have or do “whatever” is preferable than incarcerating the adult that commits heinous crimes

    The prisons are full of folks who think that the only “crime” they committed was getting caught. Yes, they (probably) understand the law they broke and why they are incarcerated – but understanding WHY you are being punished isn’t the same as regretting the crime committed.

    Fortunately it isn’t MY job to judge anyone – I’m just making general observations about the human condition.

    Virtue

    Also fun to consider are the differences between “facts”, “information”/”knowledge”, and “wisdom”/”virtue”

    Facts are individual pieces of information – maybe “datum” (singular of “data”) is more precise. THEN if we do something with the facts/data we might call that “information.” THEN doing the “correct” something might be called “wisdom.”

    ok, the semantics aren’t important here – a trivial example might be “it is 20° F outside (datum)” SO “wear a coat it is cold outside” – and choosing the “winter coat” because it is below freezing might be “wisdom”

    SO parents with a 4 year old child will (probably) just put the correct coat on the child when it gets cold outside. By the time the child is 8, they should be able to choose the correct coat to wear by themselves when the parent says “it is cold outside, put on a coat.” Then when they are 16 they should be able to figure out if it is cold outside all by themselves.

    Calling something a “virtue” implies a “moral reasoning aspect” beyond basic self interest. i.e. if it is cold outside and you don’t wear a coat, you will be cold – but the only person being inconvenienced is you. Is NOT wearing a coat “immoral” – well, probably not.

    Of course if you are cold, and then decide to steal someone else’s coat because you are cold – then that becomes a different matter.

    Maybe trying to change a perceived “bad” habit is a better example – e.g. something like stopping smoking cigarettes – someone might KNOW that smoking is bad for their health AND that second hand smoke hurts others so they resolve to stop smoking. If they have to constantly THINK about NOT smoking, then it isn’t a virtue.

    … and one day if someone comes up and offers them a cigarette and they AUTOMATICALLY say “I don’t smoke” – then it has become a “virtue.” They may still be tempted to smoke, but they are no longer a “smoker”

    i.e. the HABIT of “making the correct decision” could be called “virtue.”

    random thought: I’ve never been a smoker, but I’ve known a lot of smokers. A few of them smoked so much that they didn’t even realize they were smoking when they were smoking – which is neither good or bad, just an example of the fact that “lifelong habits” (good OR bad) are hard to break …

    Did I have a point?

    well, to point out the obvious – “happy people” don’t plan and commit murders —

    The person living the un-examined life – PROBABLY feels like a victim most of the time because “things” seem to be happening to them that SEEM to make them unhappy.

    These are the folks that are metaphorically hitting themselves in the head with a “hammer” – and then complaining about the fact that their head always hurts.

    now, those “head hammering” folks can count on the folks SELLING them hammers to blame the headaches on something OTHER than the fact that they are hitting themselves in the head with a hammer

    The “head hammerers” will probably surround themselves with “friends” also engaged in the metaphorical “head hammering” – so THOSE folks aren’t gonna see a problem with hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, after all “everyone is doing it”

    SO if well meaning person comes along and points out that the “head hammerers” probably have headaches because they are all hitting themselves in the head with hammers – what will be the expected reaction?

    well, a “normal distribution” response would probably include a few (10%?) of the “head hammerers” deciding to stop hitting themselves in the head to see what happens. The other extreme 10% would probably respond with anger and attack the “well meaning messenger.” THEN the 80% in the middle would continue on as normal (leading lives of quiet desperation) because they don’t think the information applies to them …

    Values

    “The Matrix” (1999) kind of stumbled onto the above point. MY reaction to the movie when I saw it “back in the day” was that they were making the same point as Socrates and the allegory of the Cave – i.e. MOST people in the matrix have no idea they are prisoners and so they have no concept of a “better” existence or of the need to be “freed.”

    The sequels to The Matrix kinda make me question the amount the reference is intentional – but that isn’t the point

    “Well I know it wasn’t you who held me down
    Heaven knows it wasn’t you who set me free
    So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
    And we never even know we have the key”

    “Already Gone” – On the Border (1974) – The Eagles

    IF we are self-aware beings with free moral agency then the responsibility for our “happiness” is “us.”

    … OR …

    IF we are victims of fate then nothing we do matters and we might as well remain chained to the wall in the cave.

    … BUT …

    Either way we will can’t escape the “values” question.

    EVERYONE has “values.” e.g. The drug addict “values” their next hit – more examples probably aren’t required – just consider why YOU value.

    I’m not telling anyone WHAT their values SHOULD be – but folks that have decided to live together in a “society” by definition are going to share some values. Those “shared values” are kinda what defines a society.

    “An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.”

    -Aldous Huxley

    At the very least – continued membership in polite society requires NOT being violent. i.e. if someone can’t “play nice” with other folks, well, they gotta be forcibly prevented from hurting others.

    JUST IN GENERAL – if someone is attacking you, then defending yourself is acceptable. That defense should be an “appropriate response” to the attack – i.e. if someone accidentally bumps you then pulling out a hand gun and shooting them would NOT be “appropriate response.” — that should all be obvious —

    SO if someone points out that people (in general) hitting themselves in the head with a hammer causes all kinds of bad things an APPROPRIATE response might be to defend the individuals right to live the lifestyle they choose.

    BUT if the “hammer hitting industry” started trying to introduce “hammer hitting” into the elementary school curriculum – well, parents probably wouldn’t be happy.

    Again, no one is saying THEY can’t hit themselves in the head with a hammer, but teaching hammer head hitting to small children would be inappropriate at best.

    … and I’m hitting my point over the head with a hammer at this point.

    You know who doesn’t climb up on roofs and shoot at people? well, people that are happy and healthy don’t just wake up one morning and decide to shoot someone because that someone holds opposing views.

    Famous Assassinations

    Merriam Webster tells me that an “assassination” == “murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons”

    Julius Caesar

    Ancient Rome went a couple hundred years as a Republic before the politicians of their day started murdering each other. Julius Caesar had lead Rome out of a destructive civil war when the members of the Senate decided to assassinate him in 44 BCE.

    random thought: William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” was one of the first of his plays that I read multiple times. I remember reading it in high school, and then reading it the second time in an “Introduction to Shakespeare” class in college.

    The play seemed much more overtly “political” the second time I read it – HISTORICALLY the Romans were passionately opposed to having a “hereditary monarchy” – and Shakespeare drives home that aspect as motivation for the assassins. BUT most of the conspirators are acting out of selfish interest (except for Brutus who was an “honorable man”).

    SO the Senators that assassinated Julius Caesar CLAIMED their motivations was that Caesar planned to make himself “King.”

    Obviously Mr Shakespeare was living under a hereditary monarchy when he wrote his play – so the conspirators can’t be the “good guys.” Was Caesar ambitious? yes. Did he desire power? yes, again. Was he gonna make himself “King?” Maybe.

    BUT what Caesar was or wasn’t planning isn’t the point – the assassins ended up destroying the last remnants of the Republic and starting another round of civil war.

    … and the when Augustus Caesar (Julius Caesar’s adopted son) sorted things out – HE would spend 40 years PRETENDING he wasn’t a “King” – officially he liked to be called “Princeps” which translates to “first citizen.”

    SO Julius Caesar is one of the most famous “assassinations” in world history – did the assassins accomplish what they wanted? did they change world history? no, and ‘probably not.’

    Obviously the Senate assassins ended up bringing about what they were trying to prevent – but the Roman Republic was having other problems before they killed Caesar. SO the names might have been different, but there would have eventually been an “Emperor” even if they hadn’t assassinated Julius Caesar.

    … of course William Shakespeare implies that Julius Caesar would have ruled wisely and Rome would have been better off WITHOUT the assassination – but historical hindsight is always 20/20

    Abraham Lincoln

    John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865. Confederacy “sympathizers” had been trying to assassinate Lincoln for a long time – and if they had managed to assassinate Lincoln early in the “War Between the States” it is probable that the “Union” would have let the Confederacy secede.

    Of course that is just me speculating – it certainly wasn’t a popular war. the Democrats ran General George B. McClellan for POTUS in 1864 – who ran on a “peace” platform. Of course McClellan still wanted to restore the Union, I’m guessing he thought a “negotiated” peace would be possible.

    i.e. if McClellen had become POTUS slavery might have survived as part of a “negotiated peace?” just me speculating …

    The one thing that IS 100% sure is that John Wilkes Booth did NOT achieve what he wanted by assassinating President Lincoln. Not only did he NOT get what he hoped for, he (with metaphysical certitude) made reconstruction WORSE for the South.

    JFK

    I tend to agree with the “lone gunman” theory with the John F Kennedy assassination. Yes, endless conspiracy theories exist – MOST of those theories look (to me) like attempts to deal with the “uncertainty” introduced if one nut job can kill the President of the United States.

    i.e. if one nut job can shoot the POTUS then is anyone “safe?” Well, one of the things Kennedy’s assassin had going for him was that it was hard to imagine someone wanting to shoot the POTUS.

    Obviously Lincoln’s assassination was during a time of war. McKinley’s nut job assassin in 1901 acted at close range. The attempt on Toddy Roosevelt in 1912 also happened at close range (Teddy’s 50 page speech and eyeglass case slowed down the bullet – Teddy gave his speech and THEN got medical treatment. The bullet couldn’t be removed – Teddy Roosevelt died in his sleep 7 years later due to pulmonary embolism – no idea if the bullet contributed to his death …)

    SO previous POTUS assassination attempts had all happened at close range – which was probably what the Secret Service was worried about in November 1963 – not a long distance rifle shot …

    What was the shooters goal in shooting JFK? Well, this is where all the conspiracy theories kick in – MY guess is simply that the shooter was a nut job and he THOUGHT that shooting the POTUS would somehow make him “happy.”

    McKinley’s shooter was some nut job “anarchist” who was lashing out at “governments” in general, Teddy Roosevelt’s shooter was very obviously deranged – he thought McKinley’s ghost was telling him to shoot Teddy? SO JFK’s shooter thinking that he would be “remembered” for shooting the POTUS us just as plausible as those two motives.

    The guy that shot JFK’s assassin wasn’t functioning at a particularly high level either – but that is more speculation on my part …

    Did ANY of those shooters get what they wanted? No.

    Deranged Shooters

    The problem with “deranged shooters” is that they can never be totally eliminated. If someone gets to the point where they think shooting at someone famous or shooting into a school is somehow doing to make them “happy” then they are an obvious danger to society in general.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

    Of course shrugging our collecting shoulders in resignation and/or cowering in fear is the WORST possible option. A little basic security can go a long way with “crowd shooters” – and again, these deranged shooters don’t just wake up one morning and decide to go on a shooting spree.

    SO “de-glamorize” the deranged shooters is obviously step 1. Making it harder for criminals and mentally unstable folks to get firearms is always a good idea.

    Also don’t advertise a lack of security – “gun free zones” have just become an invitation for deranged shooters. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be an emphasis on protecting vulnerable targets – just don’t hang up signs advertising the fact that a bad guy with a weapon won’t have to worry about anyone confronting them.

  • American Biographies

    The Child’s Book of American Biographies

    In every country there have been certain men and women whose busy lives have made the world better or wiser. The names of such are heard so often that every child should know a few facts about them. It is hoped the very short stories told here may make boys and girls eager to learn more about these famous people.

    • George Washington
    • William Penn
    • John Paul Jones
    • John Singleton Copley
    • Benjamin Franklin
    • Louis Agassiz
    • Dorothea Lynde Dix
    • Ulysses Simpson Grant
    • Clara Barton
    • Abraham Lincoln
    • Robert Edward Lee
    • John James Audubon
    • Robert Fulton
    • George Peabody
    • Daniel Webster
    • Augustus St. Gaudens
    • Henry David Thoreau
    • Louisa May Alcott
    • Samuel Finley Breese Morse
    • William Hickling Prescott
    • Phillips Brooks
    • Samuel Clemens Better Known as Mark Twain
    • Joe Jefferson
    • Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    • James McNeill Whistler
    • Ralph Waldo Emerson
    • Jane Addams
    • Luther Burbank
    • Edward Alexander Macdowell
    • Thomas Alva Edison

    Buy on Amazon

  • Little Snow White – pdf

    a pdf with some Gemini generated images

    richest man in babylon pdf

  • Cornbread – a recipe

    Wikipedia tells me:

    “Cornbread is a quick bread made with cornmeal, associated with the cuisine of the Southern United States, with origins in Native American cuisine. It is an example of batter bread.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornbread

    I describe this recipe as a “comfort food” – not so much because it reminds me of th comforts of hearth and home but because it is easy to make and fills my belly.

    Cornbread recipe pdf

  • Grimms Fairy Tales

    pdf in progress

  • Classic Chocolate Chip Cookie

    a video of one of the recipes in the cookbook

    the recipes are collected from “old” cook books.

    It is interesting seeing some of the (minor) changes in recipes over time –

    in this recipe the original instructions started with “7 ounce bars of chocolate” then required chopping those bars into “pea size pieces” —

    SOMEWHERE along the way manufacturers started producing bags of chocolate chips of the appropriate size – and of course the “classic chocolate chip” recipe has been printed on those bags of chocolate chips for years

    The recipe is still very good – and easy enough for the “cooking novice.” The resulting cookie will be superior to “store bought” cookies if done properly – of course the “economics of scale” allow for “cheaper” cookies BUT nothing beats eating warm cookies straight out of the oven …

    The Cookbook

  • Vince Lombardi – Speech 1970

    SO “back in the day” (in another lifetime, in a small town in southwestern Ohio when I might have described myself as an “athlete”) a high school teacher gave me a mimeograph (“ditto sheet”) copy of a speech by Vince Lombardi.

    Yes, that is the “Vince Lombardi” for which the “Lombardi Trophy” is named.

    The speech came to mind because I used the “winning is a habit” line (again).

    Mr Lombardi gave the speech in July of 1970. I’m guessing at the time of the speech he was planning on coaching in the NFL that year, but he died in September 1970 (colon cancer, he was 57).

    The mimeograph copy I had was PROBABLY a transcription of the speech. From a “document” point of view that means that “paragraph breaks” were a little arbitrary – i.e. the “ditto sheet” version was a couple VERY large blocks of text.

    The full speech was probably around 50 minutes (5,000 words, “paid after dinner speech” length) – again, just me guessing after spending 10 years teaching/getting paid to talk.

    I did a little more light editing this morning, changed the font, increased font size for readability, more paragraph breaks. The U.S. Copyright act of 1976 started automatically granting “copyright protection” to any and all “creative works.”

    Before 1976, to get copyright protection you needed to place a “copyright notice” on the work in question – which means I’m 99.99% sure THIS speech is in the public domain


    I want to talk a little bit about attaining a goal, a success what I think it is. I want to say first that I think you’ve got to pay a price for anything that’s worthwhile and success is paying the price. You’ve got to pay a price to win, you’ve got to pay a price to stay on top, and you’ve got to pay a price to get there. Success is not a sometime thing it is an all the time thing. In other words, you don’t do what is right once in a while but all of the time. Success is a habit, just like winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. So it has been the American zeal, gentlemen, to be first in everything that we do and to win and to win and to win.

    Vince Lombardi

    Random thoughts

    There is a lot of “meat” in the speech which is still valid in the 21st century.

    Vince Lombardi often gets depicted as “legendary football coach” standing on the sidelines and yelling. Leadership styles are obviously influenced by personality – and Mr Lombardi was certainly “explosive.”

    BUT his success did not come from “yelling on the sideline.” We could fill up a small library with books “related to” Vince Lombardi – so he made that transition from “Hall of Fame coach” to “cultural icon” at some point.

    I’ve read a few Lombardi biographies so some random thoughts:

    • He was an assistant coach at the U.S. Military Academy West Point when they were still a national football power – under “legendary” coach Earl “Red” Blaik
    • coaching in the NFL was (probably) a second choice – i.e. there were rumors that “major colleges” at the time wouldn’t want to hire an Italian head coach – I’m not making any accusations, but it was a different time.
    • it is easy to forget that “college football” was more popular than the NFL “back then” – the rumor is that Earl Blaik encouraged Vince Lombardi to take an assistant coach job in the NFL
    • Woody Hayes (as the story goes) called Vince Lombardi the best coach he ever met – Mr Hayes is another example of “great football coach” whose “sideline antics” got a lot of press, but had little to do with his success (but a lot to do with his “fall from grace” – umm, ’nuff said)
    • The NY Giants won the NFL championship in 1956 – with Vince Lombardi as offensive coordinator and Tom Landry as defensive coordinator — Mr Landry would win a few games (and 2 Super Bowls) as head coach for the Dallas Cowboys, ’nuff said
    • There was a LOT less money floating around the sport of football “back then” – pro football was NOT a “full time”/year round job for a lot of players from that era – but I wouldn’t over sympathize the lack of money into thinking of that time as some sort of “when the game was pure” era …
    • from an “armchair amateur historian” point of view – the fact that OTHER coaches considered Vince Lombardi a great coach says a lot more than any win/loss record. I’m sure they didn’t all LIKE him, but they RESPECTED him …

    Would Vince Lombardi be successful in 2024?

    Short answer: Yes.

    The game is obviously very different. There is a lot more competition, players make a LOT more money, but (just me guessing) Vince Lombardi would have adjusted.

    Bill Parcells had a very “Vince Lombardi” coaching style and I would describe (waiting to be inducted into the Hall of Fame) Bill Belichick as another example of a “Lombardi like” approach to the game.

    Again “side line personality” is an increasingly small part of the game of football. e.g. You have to pay the price to win.

    Sports Psychology

    Another famous “Lombardi quote” (when he was coaching in Green Bay) was that he wanted players to place the Green Bay Packers “third” on their list of priorities.

    What should be first and second on the list? “God” and “family.”

    This is important as the “balance point” to another famous “Lombardi quote”: “Winning isn’t everything. It is the only thing.”

    From a “practical sports psychology” point of view – those concepts met at a point where “playing performance” is very high.

    i.e. “football” is important, but not the REASON for existence. Relationships OFF the field are MORE important than on the playing field – but those “on the field” duties shouldn’t be neglected.

    Lose a football game and you shouldn’t be happy, but it isn’t the end of the world. The same applies to “winning a game” – yes, enjoy when you win, but it isn’t permanent.

    The “desired performance state” is where the athlete can go at “full speed” but still be in control. That involves “being in the moment” and not worrying about past OR future possibilities.

    Mistakes are going to happen – but don’t let the “last play” (good OR bad) get in the way of the “current play.” e.g. ok, you messed up, don’t spend time apologizing, worry about getting the next one right – there is plenty of time AFTER the game to dissect what went right/wrong

    i.e. save the “After Action Review” for AFTER the action …

    Of course “elite athlete” doesn’t achieve that without a lot of work/practice. They can’t just “show up” and expect to win.

    e.g. You have to pay the price to win.

    If there are “life lessons” to be learned from “sports”, then that is a still a big one …

    Success consists of getting up just one more time than you fall.

    Oliver Goldsmith

    Management Theory

    There is a lot of talk about how “leadership theory” changes between generations.

    Tom Landry once said that when HE played the game, if the coach had told them to lay on the ground while coaches kicked them in the stomach, THEY would have done it.

    The point being that “back then” players didn’t dare question coaches. Of course “coach” was supposed to have a reason for doing what he did – but he wasn’t expected to share that reason with players.

    THAT type of “centralized command and control” was the norm when Vince Lombardi was coaching.

    Obviously trust has to be earned – and no, I don’t think Tom Landry had coaches kicking him in the stomach. I’m guessing that Tom Landry had players asking him “why are we doing this.”

    Of course “American History” is kind of centered on “questioning authority” – but that is a different subject.

    Random thought: One of the “colorful” personalities in American Revolutionary history was Inspector General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben who CLAIMED to be a Prussian officer. He wrote the “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.” The rumor is that General von Steuban complained about “American troops” always wanting to know “why”/asking questions – i.e. as opposed to the obedience of Prussian troops …

    (… btw: the “von” part of his name implies that he was an “aristocrat” – which would have been expected of an “officer” in Prussia/Europe – BUT he probably wasn’t. Like I said he was a “colorful” personality ..)

    MEANWHILE …

    SO Vince Lombardi’s “leadership style” was typical for his generation — but again, he was a “teacher of football.” His view of human nature was that humans are naturally lazy (in general) and need to be “encouraged” to work.

    Of course I’m sure he “encouraged” individual players differently – recognizing that the way “rookie” needs to be “encouraged” is different than they way “veteran player” needs to be “encouraged.”

    Putting a label on his management style isn’t important – the grand “management” concept is ALWAYS that “management equals communication.”

    “Basics of leadership 101” in the 21st Century PROBABLY starts off with the concept that “folks” are going to be better “employees” if they understand the “why” of their job.

    From an “amateur armchair historian” point of view – I would argue that understanding the “big picture” has been the ideal/goal for MOST of human history. It was only after the industrial revolution allowed “management” to “deskill” labor by extreme job specialization that phrases like “that isn’t my job” became possible.

    Random thought: IF I was ever shown a “job description” for a job, there always was an “other duties as assigned” line – which basically meant my job was to do what they told me to do.

    THAT concept might be a good dividing line between “skilled” versus “unskilled” labor – i.e. if they can train your replacement in a short amount of time, you are VERY replaceable.

    How do they learn the “why?” Well, obviously someone needs to teach them – and making sure that happens is “management.”

  • Dumbledore vs Gandalf

    A “social media” post had a poll going about who would win between “Professor Albus Dumbledore” (from the “Harry Potter” books) and Gandalf the grey/white (from The Lord of the Rings – LotR).

    Well, I didn’t bother voting in the poll – I think Dumbledore was winning – but that isn’t the point.

    Polls

    The “winner” of ANY poll is going to based on the survey/poll group. This particular poll is fun because it allows “fans” to be “fans” – i.e. fans of the Harry Potter books are obviously going to choose Dumbledore, and fans of LotR are obviously going to choose Gandalf.

    Short answer: my bias is for Gandalf. BUT there are assumptions to be explained.

    Movies vs Books

    The Harry Potter MOVIES had the luxury of the author still being around. Ms Rowling didn’t write the screenplays – but she provided “assistance”/input to make sure the movies basically kept to the plots of the novels. The point being that “Dumbledore in the books” is pretty much the same as “Dumbledore in the movies.”

    J.R.R. Tolkien died in 1973. Professor Tolkien sold the “film, stage and merchandising rights” to United Artists in 1969. The “internet version” of the story is that he sold the rights because of inheritance tax issues. I have no idea what the deal was – but is sounds like he made a good decision – he got £104,000 (adjusted for inflation around £1.2 million) AND secured royalties for any future productions.

    The “book to movie” translation always comes with “storytelling issues.” What works in “book” can be hard to bring to the screen. Which means there are major differences between “Gandalf in the books” and “Gandalf in the movies.”

    Of course Peter Jackson’s LotR is great – and the “core story” is intact. Both the movies and the books tell an epic story of a battle between good and evil.

    The BIG difference between LotR book and movie is “character arcs.” Professor Tolkien was writing an “epic” with “epic heroes” – you know, big, bold, and confident. While Peter Jackson tried to make the characters a little less “big, bold, and confident” – which of course also allows the actors to “act” …

    SO Gandalf in the movies is not as “powerful” as Gandalf in the books. Ok, Gandalf is obviously not “weak” in the movies – however the character is thousands of years old, he is NOT human. “Wizards” in the LotR are “created beings”/”agents of the divine.”

    Think of the end of The Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf fights the Balrog. In both movie and book Gandalf emerges victorious, In the movies he dies and is reborn as “Gandalf the White” BUT in the books he doesn’t die. The implication in the books is closer to “leveling up” – he gets promoted not “reborn.”

    Man vs the Divine

    For what it is worth: I’m not sure that wizards in LotR can “die.” They have a physical form that can be destroyed e.g. Saruman at the end of The Return of the King (book) – but is that a “permanent death” or just a temporary inconvenience.

    The Iliad (another epic) comes to mind. Hector (the hero of Troy) vs Achilles ( Greek hero) isn’t a fair fight in the original version – i.e. Achilles is part human and part “divine.” SO “mortal vs divine being” is never going to end well for the mortal.

    The “movie” version of the Iliad (Troy – 2004) includes a great fight scene between Achilles (Brad Pitt) and Hector (Eric Bana) – but when Hector meets Achilles in the original text, Hector runs, and Achilles chases …

    What made he ancient Greek “gods” divine was their long life. Which brings up another point – IF “being” is eternal and they get into a disagreement with “mortal” – then all the “eternal” needs to do is wait for the mortal to shuffle off the mortal coil. That is kind of a theme running through the Iliad – but I’m wandering off on a tangent …

    It’s Time!

    Dumbledore vs Gandalf as a contest between skilled professionals (or chess/checkers/pick a game) might be a toss up. Neither is “all powerful”, Dumbledore is a human with “magic powers” – and Gandalf IS a “magic being”.

    Which is probably why the poll caught my attention in the first place.

    Of course Dumbledore can and does die – so in a contrived “battle to the death” then Dumbledore doesn’t have a chance. e.g. Gandalf could go away for 500 years, come back to visit Dumbledore’s grave and say “I win!”

    Voldemort vs Sauron is also a no-contest for the same reasons. What would happen if Voldemort managed to get hold on the One Ring? Sauron feared someone using THE ring against him, but would even an exceptionally powerful mortal have been able to control the ring, or would he simply become a more powerful Gollum?

    The Ring of power might extend life but The Odyssey comes to mind. Odysseus (the man who gave us the Trojan Horse) had the opportunity to stay with Calypso (a nymph/minor goddess) – she even promised him eternal life. Odysseus desperately wanted to get back to his (mortal) wife – but also implied is that he was wise enough to see that unintended consequences are inevitable. i.e. “eternity” in a mortal body that continues to age wouldn’t be any fun (e.g. Tithonus)

    Anyway, if Dumbledore and Gandalf actually met they would probably play chess, drink wine, and swap stories about little folk – not have a fight to the death …

  • value, price gouging, and, monopolies

    Every “introduction to economics” book will have a chart showing the relationship between “supply” and “demand.” Pointing out that as supply (of a manufactured product) goes up, unfulfilled demand goes down probably sounds obvious, but the relationship works both ways — i.e. if “demand” goes down, then “supply” will decrease.

    However the relationship between supply and demand quickly get “weird” in the real world when talking about specific products. The problem isn’t the relationship between “supply” and “demand” – no, the problem in “real world” applications is that there tend to be “alternative choices.”

    For a real-world example just go to the “cereal aisle” of any “supermarket” in these United States. A well stocked supermarket will have abundant choices of various “breakfast cereals” – IF a specific type/brand isn’t available, then there are obviously alternative choices.

    Of course ONE of the “alternative choices” is always “don’t buy breakfast cereal.”

    Value

    With that “economics 101” review out of the way, the “big picture” of “supply and demand” always includes a third variable: “price.”

    Again, the “economics 101” textbook might have a dotted line pointing at the intersection of the “supply” and “demand” lines marked as “optimal price” but “real world” product pricing is REALLY weird/unpredictable.

    The problem here is that “value” and “price” are not ALWAYS the same. That econ 101 text MIGHT have a chart labeled “price elasticity” — and maybe a nice equation but that isn’t important at the moment.

    The “big picture” is that changes in price can impact both supply AND demand.

    Remember that cereal aisle? If “consumer” has budgeted $X to spend on “favorite cereal” and the price of that product changes to $2X then they MIGHT decide to buy a different cereal (or not buy anything).

    The “value” of the cereal didn’t change, just the “price” – and when value becomes less than the price (everything else being equal) the consumer will make an alternative choice.

    Marginal Utility

    Humans tend to be “predictably irrational” – which (for my purpose today) means that “pricing” can be used to manipulate consumer choices.

    What is something “worth?” Well, the answer is always “it depends.”

    e.g. How much would you pay for an umbrella on a sunny spring day walking in a park? How much would you pay for an umbrella on a rainy day when walking to a job interview?

    Well, if you brought an umbrella with you, both times the answer is probably $0.

    Walking in a park on a sunny day an umbrella might actually be a nuisance – so you aren’t even going to consider the purchase.

    BUT if that job interview is for your “dream job” and showing up looking like you just walked out of a rainstorm isn’t an option – then paying a LOT for that umbrella becomes an option …

    Price gouging

    Now imagine that you are the person SELLING umbrellas.

    If it is going to cost you $something to haul the umbrellas out of the park – and no one is buying umbrellas – you might start lowering your asking price. If folks see a “Free Umbrellas” sign then they might take an umbrella even if it is going to be inconvenient to carry …

    If your “umbrella stand” is on a busy corner in “big city” then you will maximize your profits by adjusting the asking price based on the weather forecast. This is just “good business.”

    The cool sounding term for adjusting price according to demand is “surge pricing.”

    Is surge pricing “fair?” Well, as always “it depends.” Fair to whom?

    The concept of “price gouging” implies taking advantage of folks in an emergency situation.

    Getting caught in the rain without an umbrella is (probably) NOT an “emergency situation” – so the umbrella stand isn’t “price gouging” customers.

    The real question on “price gouging” becomes “who gets to decide.”

    The United States Constitution has a “Commerce Clause”(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) granting the Federal Government the power to “Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.”

    Notice the “among the several States” wording equals “interstate commerce.” This is the clause that justifies the Federal gov’ment building INTERSTATE highways. However, Commerce within a State is going to be regulated by THAT specific State.

    SO who gets to decide if something is “price gouging?” Well, if the commercial transaction is between citizens of the same State, then THAT State gets to decide.

    If the commercial transaction is between citizens from DIFFERENT States, then the State where the transaction took place PROBABLY still gets to decide the matter. BUT a lot of high paid lawyers will probably argue about it …

    Again, just charging different prices at different times is not “price gouging” – e.g. airlines have been doing that for years.

    Modern technology has made “dynamic pricing” possible which isn’t good or bad – just another example of “caveat emptor”

    Price fixing

    That “econ 101” textbook might also have a section about “monopoly pricing.”

    The basic idea being that if one entity has total control over a “resource”/product then that entity can charge whatever price they want. If it is one organization then this might get called “monopoly” pricing, if it is a collection of organizations the tactic might get called “price fixing.”

    Is that good or bad? Well, obviously if “price gouging” is also taking place it is very bad. It is also possible that prices might be “fixed” low in certain areas to prevent competition entering the market – which would also be bad.

    Now in a relatively free market – IF “price fixing” is going on, the unintended consequence might be to encourage alternatives.

    This is why in the “real world” examples of “monopoly pricing” becoming “price gouging” are hard to find. e.g. The “monopoly price gouger” is going to encourage competition to enter the market – which will end their monopoly.

    Add in that the gov’ment bureaucracy tends to be naturally slow and inefficient and by the time the typical “antitrust” case gets settled the “market” has innovated and ended the “monopoly.”

    IF the goal of “antitrust legislation” is to protect/benefit the consumer then it (probably) doesn’t have a great list of achievements. I’m not arguing for OR against “antitrust” laws – just pointing out that they are not a “fairness” magic wand …

    Again “competition” in the market if good for consumers – so encouraging innovation and competition should take priority over “punishing” successful companies for being market leaders.

    “Price gouging” is always bad – but State governments are responsible for deciding who is “price gouging.”

    Price fixing may or may not be price gouging – but neither one is legal. “Price fixing” requires a cartel/coalition within a market –

    The chances of a “secret cartel”/cabal manipulating prices on a large scale is the stuff of “thriller fiction” novels not real world economics …

    Gov’ment intervention

    Near the end of the “econ 101” textbook you might get a chapter on the pros and cons of “government intervention” in the marketplace. The U.S. Federal Reserve and “central banks” in general probably get mentioned …

    From a “theory” point of view a gov’ment should be able to easily influence things like inflation and employment – in THEORY.

    Limits on “real time market information” are the existential problem. It just isn’t possible to know EVERYTHING about a large, far flung, economy.

    Gov’ment also tends to be “reactive” – i.e. something bad happens, everyone says “there should be a law to prevent that from happening!” Then by the time a law gets passed attempting to deal with “issue” things have changed and the law is pointless and ineffective.

    The MOST effective thing “large bureaucracy” can do to “help” the economy (in general) is “stay out of the way.” Encourage research and reward innovation – don’t try to pick “winners” or push a pet agenda.

    Of course the government should be involved in the “economy” but that role should be “regulator”/referee NOT “market maker”/head coach.

  • look for the union label, corporate profits, and inflation

    A “meme” post caught my attention. I’ve seen various versions – but the gist is always that “corporate profits” are the cause of “inflation.”

    From a “marketing” point of view the meme does a lot of things right – the version that caught my attention “caught audience attention” by stating that “The profits of the top 6 most profitable corporations” had increased “huge%” THEN the meme tries to connect “corporate profits” with recent “higher than normal” rising inflation.

    Now, the INTERESTING part is that the meme is plausible but also “fact free.” Just who are these 6 corporations? Is it possible for their profitability to cause “inflation?”

    Profits

    What exactly are these “profits?” Google tells me “Profit = Selling Price – Cost Price.”

    Imagine a small business selling “product.” If the small business makes the “product” then the “cost” will include raw materials and labor. For the small business to stay “in business” they need to sell the product for more than it cost them to produce.

    e.g. if raw materials = 30 and labor = 40 – “cost” = 70. IF the business sells the product for 100 then “profits per unit” = 30.

    Then “Profit percentage” = (Profit/Cost Price) x 100. In this:

    Profit percentage = (30/70) x 100 = 43%

    The obvious question NOW becomes is that Profit % good or bad? Unfortunately the answer is “we don’t know.”

    Well, a highly paid financial consultant would say “It depends.” Which is kind of the answer to ANY “financial accounting” question.

    Of course pointing out the factors that profitability “depends” on is the more useful answer. THAT answer will vary depending on the “business industry/sector” – e.g. “costs” are much different for a car company than a pizza company .

    A business being “profitable” just means that it is being well managed. No business will stay a “going concern” long if they LOSE money on EVERY transaction.

    BUT a “well managed” company that makes a small % profit on each transaction …

    Oh, and if that all above sounds fascinating you might want to look into “corporate finance” as a career 😉

    Corporations

    The history of “corporations” is mildly interesting – but not important here.

    In 2024 “corporations” exist as a way for “business” to raise “capital.” A corporation’s “initial public offering” (IPO) involves selling “stock” to “investors.”

    THOSE investors aren’t guaranteed anything (as opposed to “corporate bonds” – did I mention that “corporate finance” is a career field).

    If they aren’t guaranteed ANYTHING why would anyone gamble on an IPO? Well, the obvious answer is that (assuming that the corporation meets some basic financial reporting requirements) the stock becomes an asset that can be traded on a “stock market.”

    The “corporation” gets the cash from the IPO – but the “share holders” can then buy and sell shares among themselves. Which is kind of a big deal in 2024 (and obviously “stock market investment” is beyond the scope of this article.)

    Rule #1 of the “stock market” might be “buy low and sell high” – i.e. the “profits” concept applies to stock trading as well.

    … and what is a big factor in how investors value shares of a corporation’s stock? Profitability.

    How do corporations use the money from an IPO/stock offering? To grow/expand their business.

    Eventually the “profitable corporation” MIGHT distribute “profits” to share holders in the form of “dividends.”

    The grand point being that “corporations” are not evil OR good – they are an investment tool. Corporate profits are also not evil OR good – “profitability” is a function of management and the “business sector.”

    Gov’ment Regulation

    Unrestrained human greed is never a good thing.

    The history of the United States “economy” is a story of “booms” and “busts.” Those swings in the business cycle illustrated an inverse relationship between “unemplyment” and “inflation.”

    During a “boom” the unemplyment rate would go down, but then inflation would go up. Then during a “bust” umemployment went up, and inflation would come down.

    Random thought: There is a scene in “Support Your Local Sheriff” (1969) that (humorously) show the impact “boom times” could have on “consumer prices” – a “mining boom town” has trouble hiring a Sheriff (for “plot” reasons) – James Garner’s character decides to take the job in part because it comes with room and board (and he had just payed a huge amount for a plate of beans).

    In 1913 the Federal Reserve was founded with a “mission” of trying to “smooth out” the business cycles.

    The “economics” text books will say that the Fed’s goal is (around) 5% unemplyment and (around) 2% inflation. How well the Fed has achieved those goals is debateable – BUT that is another topic

    Obviously if the Fed is making decisions based on “unemplyment” and “inflation” rates they need a method of calculating unemplyment and inflation.

    Unemployment seems simple enough – but it a little more complex than just counting people “out of work” – fwiw: the Fed has considered 5% as “full employment because in a large economy there will always be people entering/leaving the work force. e.g. The umployment rate at the height of the Great Depression (1933) was 25% but wage income for employed workers also fell 43% between 1929-1933. Things were bad …

    Calculating Inflation is even more complicated – first the (Bureau Labor Statistics) determines the “consumer price index” (CPI) — which is a “measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.”

    That CPI “basket of goods” contains 85,000 items spread out over various “sectors” of the economy. That number is important – I’ll mention that again later …

    IF the CPI goes up that equals “inflation.” If it goes down that is called “deflation” (last time the U.S. experienced “deflation” was 2009. Unemplyment rate peaked at 9.9% that year.

    BTW: the short explantion of the “Great Recession” revolves around “sub prime mortgages” – not it wasn’t the fault of “free market capitalism” it was “unrestrained greed” feed by poorly thought out gov’ment intervention in the housing market.

    i.e. the gov’ment was REQUIREING banks to give loans to folks that couldn’t afford to pay them back – not surprisingly when the whole thing expolded it caused a lot of problems. It became a worldwide financial crisis because those “sub prime loans” were “securitized” and sold on “exchanges” — again all fed by greed.

    I like to say that the BEST role for “government” to play in the economy is “referee.” To many unintended consequences are possible when the gov’ment starts CHOOSING “winners and losers” on a large scale. Yes, the economy needs “regulation” but NOT “central planning.”

    Unions

    The first labor union in the United States was the “Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers, founded in Philadelphia in 1794.”

    The United States was primarily an “agricultural economy” (as in most people working on/around farms) until the early 20th Century. Which kinda meant that the demand for “labor unions” wasn’t high.

    It is interesting that the first labor union was ruled a “criminal conspiracy” in 1806. Functionally that ruling made attempts at “organizing labor” a crime. It wasn’t until 1842 when “precedent” was set “de-criminalizing” union membership.

    AND the history of organized labor is also interesting – but not important at the moment.

    I’m not ignoring the sometimes adversarial relationship between “management’ and “labor.” Just like corporations, “labor unions” are NOT inherently “good” OR “bad.” Ideally “corporation management” and “labor unions” should work together for mutual benefit.

    BUT “greed” is never good. i.e. “Labor” is just as suceptible to “greed” as “management.”

    Both “labor” and “management” will better serve the “organization” if they understand each others function. The relationship is not “zero sum” or even “either/or.”

    Having an understanding of how the “corporation makes money” will help “labor” communicate with “management.” Of course “management” ALSO needs to appreciate the work performed by “labor.” …

    Corporate Profits

    “Large Corporate profitability” tends to involve a LOT of “Generally accepted accounting principles” (GAAP). The point being that a “multi-billion dollar corporation” is going to generate “profits” from a lot of sources.

    Again, if you find “corporate finance” interesting there are a lot of career options. MY guess is that any of the top 10 “most profitable” corporations COULD adjust their profits up or down (using GAAP) without doing anything illegal.

    ANY “global corporation” will have multiple “books” depending on the audience – i.e. one set of “books” for the U.S. Federal gov’ment, one for each State the do business, one for “management decision making”, and the “books” for whatever other nation-states they do business.

    Oh, and remember that 85,000 sources in the CPI “basket?” That large number of sources used to calculate “inflation” kinda makes it hard for any single “corporation” to have a large impact on the number.

    THEN the large number of “corporations” competing in a particular “business sector” makes it even harder for 1 corporation’s profits to impact inflation.

    There are also laws against “price fixing” (the good ol’ “Sherman Antitrust Act”) – so if a bunch of “cereal makers” got together and decided to “raise prices” to increase “corporate prices” the Federal Gov’ment would NOT be pleased.

    The “market” tends to prevent “excess profits” in established industries. Plain old “competition” between corporations will prevent anyone from “price gouging” —

    e.g. I went to the store to buy “breakfast cereal” and there was an entire aisle dedicated to “cereals” at various price ranges – I bought the ‘store brand’ because it was “good enough quality” and 1/3 the price of “brand name”

    MAYBE that “brand name” was engaging in “price gouging” but it is also (probably) a superior product than “store brand” – either way that ONE corporation isn’t goign to impact the CPI/inflation

    Top 6 corporations 2023

    My original thought was “who are these 6 corporations that are supposed to be causing inflation?”

    Well, the MOST profitable corporation in the world is ..(drum roll) Saudi Aramco. Obviously this “oil” stuff is in high demand and, Saudi Arabia has vast oil reserves. BUT they aren’t an American Corporation. I’m also not sure if their “profitability” changes much year over year — Saudi Arabia is a founding member of OPEC. ’nuff said

    Of course “increased energy costs” is a HUGE factor in recent inflation across all sectors of the U.S. economy. IF the top 6 profitable corporations were “energy companies” then MAYBE they would deserve a look to see if they are “price gouging.”

    However, none of the top 10 most profitable corporations are “energy companies.”

    the list:

    1. Apple, Inc
    2. Microsoft, Inc
    3. Alphabet, Inc (Google)
    4. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc (Warren Buffet’s company)
    5. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
    6. JPMorgan Chase
    7. China Construction Bank
    8. META (Facebook)
    9. NVIDIA Corp
    10. Amazon.com, Inc

    Under “just my opinion” – I’m not a fan of “Apple, Inc’s” products BECAUSE I think they are over-priced and not “developer friendly.” The latest iPhone PROBABLY qualifies as a “luxury” item – but it isn’t a source of “inflation.” They do make very good “consumer electronics” though …

    Looking at the rest of the list – Alphabet, META, and Amazon might actually help LOWER the CPI/inflation by making it easier for OTHER companies to sell products.

    Berkshire and JPMorgan’s profits are very much “stock market” related – which might impact folks retirement planning 401ks but aren’t moving the dial on the CPI

    Corporations 5 and 7 are obviously based in China — one more under “just my opinion” – ANY company data from Chinese corporations requires an asterisk – maybe an “approved by the Chinese Communist Party” disclaimer

    The “global supply line” issues are part of the inflation story – but again, it is hard to blame any single corporation for those issues …

    Supply and Demand

    The “introduction to economics” text book would also have a section talking about the relationship between “supply” of a product and “unfulfilled demand” for a product. e.g. as “Supply” goes up the “unfulfilled demand” goes down.

    The “slightly unintuitive” concept is that “price” is a third variable NOT ALWAYS related to “supply and demand”

    e.g. Q: if “company” raises the price of their product (and keeps supply constant) how will that impact demand? A: it is impossible to tell.

    Remember the cereal aisle – If “company” raises their prices, then customers MIGHT buy a lower priced alternative product or maybe not buy anything at all.

    This is “price elasticity” – and is another subject 😉

    now if there is only ONE company making “product” – and they keep their prices “high” – all that company is doing is encouraging competition to enter the market.

    I’ll point at “personal computer” sales in the early 1990s as a (kind of) recent example – the cost to buy the “parts” for an “IBM PC compatible” personal computer were (relatively low) compared to selling price.

    IBM being “IBM” made the PC a standard piece of office equipment – but in 2005 sold off their “personal computer division” (to a Chinese company – Lenovo)

    The “IBM price point” encouraged a LOT of “PC clone companies” — e.g. Some young college student at the University of Texas started building and selling PCs out of his dorm room in 1984. In 2024 Michael Dell is worth $96.5 billion …