Tag Archives: money

I don’t have the answer, but here’s the problem

A common trap we fall into is to assume that if we could only be someone else, we would be happy. I remember as a lonely single person, thinking that it must be so easy for the hot Asian babes of the world. Later, when I got to know a few hot Asian babes, I discovered that they’re just as unhappy as everyone else. (In fact, possibly more so, because of all the sleazy guys fetishizing them.)

Similarly, it’s tempting to think that if only I could write one of the novels I have notes for, and do it well, and somehow become an acclaimed author, that the sense of accomplishment and the feeling of having created an artwork of lasting value would lead to happiness.

The death by suicide of David Foster Wallace, at the age of 46, shows just how wrong that notion is. He was almost universally hailed as a brilliant author, with even his detractors admitting that he was very talented.

Or consider Thomas M Disch, an absurdly talented SF author, who also wrote criticism, poetry, and Gothic novels set in Minnesota.

We’ve all heard that money doesn’t buy happiness. It’s not just a saying either, as a great deal of scientific research and survey data has demonstrated the truth of the saying. Beyond a certain point, increased wealth really doesn’t lead to increased happiness–unless you give it away.

Another article in the New York Times reports this startling fact:

In fact, a poll of New Yorkers found that those who earned more than $200,000 a year were the most likely of any income group to agree that “seeing other people with money” makes them feel poor.

So if you’re still thinking that you would be happy if only you were someone else–a successful business owner, say, or a famous musician–it’s time to abandon that thought. If you think that being wealthy will make you happy–no, it won’t.

What will make you happy? Hey, if I knew that, I’m sure it’d make me rich.

The exciting world of Credit Default Swaps

I just listened to the This American Life episode Another Frightening Show About the Economy, a followup to their earlier show The Giant Pool of Money. The earlier show explained the mortgage crisis in terms anyone can understand. The new show explains how the problems of the mortgage industry have spread to the rest of the economy.

In particular, it explains:

  • What a Credit Default Swap is, and how it turned from something harmless into something disastrous;
  • What the commercial paper market is;
  • Why AIG nearly collapsed and needed to be bailed out, and how the bailout was carried out;
  • How the rest of the financial system nearly collapsed;
  • Why the original $700 billion bailout plan was terrible, and how the new one (the one made into law) is slightly better in that it at least allows the right thing to be done;
  • That the total failure to regulate a risky credit default swap market, bigger than the entire global stock market, was a totally bipartisan fuckup.

If any podcast is essential listening, this one is.

“It sucked. Can I have my £1m now?”

A couple of months ago, 15 UK troops were taken hostage in Iraq. They were eventually freed. Then I started seeing news stories about how everyone was furious because the troops were selling their personal stories to the highest bidder.

Maybe I’ve been in the US too long, but I didn’t understand what people were upset about. I still don’t.

Those troops went through a hideous ordeal. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to get money in return for telling people what it was like? If everyone can agree to give JK Rowling ten million quid for writing a bunch of guff about kids learning to be wizards, what’s the moral argument for not allowing troops to sell true stories for a sackful of cash? (I note that they even had explicit permission from the MOD to do so!)

Or maybe it was all faux outrage manufactured by the newspapers who lost out in the bidding war?

Interesting research

Scientific American, February:

Money is an incentive to work hard, but it also promotes selfish behavior. Those conclusions may not be surprising, but psychologists at the University of Minnesota recently found that merely thinking of money makes people less likely to give help to others.

The researchers got people to think about money by showing them words related to money, having them handle play money, or revealing a poster with pictures of money on it. They then got the subjects to perform tasks which had nothing to do with money, but assessed social behavior. The result: people who think about money are less helpful and also less likely to seek help from others.

Science, November 17. [Link]

Free money

Everyone should have a chunk of cash in an instant access savings account; see Dilbert’s guide to financial success.

If you’re in the US and have $250 spare to put in a savings account, I’ve got a voucher you can use to open an account with ING Direct, and they’ll give you $25 free. (Plus $10 for me.)

I’ve been saving with them for a while, because their rates are so much better than my bank’s savings account rates (4.4% APR with no fees). They’re a proper FDIC insured outfit backed by a real bank, a European multinational. I briefly had all the proceeds from selling my UK apartment in the account, and they didn’t abscond with it, so I’m pretty sure your $250 will be safe.

Also on the subject of free money, a while back Bank of America bought MBNA. I have MBNA credit cards; naturally I pay off the balance each month. Based on my transaction history, Bank of America have sent me mail saying they’ll pay me $100 to open a checking account with them. Maybe I’m crazy, but I haven’t rushed to do so. A quick glance at the relevant Wikipedia page and you’ll see that Bank of America has engaged in various sleazy business practices.

My current bank is Wells Fargo; they have a much cleaner record, and I also get the joy of knowing I’m supporting a company that really irritated Focus in the Family. Plus, they were the only US bank I could find that had all the necessary information about how to transfer money internationally available on their web site.

Update 2006-11-15

A customer was worried that a check for an eBay transaction might be fraudulent, so he asked Bank of America to examine it carefully. They said it was on a valid account, so he asked them to cash it. Then Bank of America changed their minds and decided the check was fraudulent, called the cops, had him put in jail, and effectively wasted $14,000 of his money on legal hassles.

OK, now I’m really sure I don’t want to do business with Bank of America.

The spam problem part 3: Objections to attention bonds

In part 1, I enumerated the approaches to spam eradication I was aware of, and explained my conclusion that the only approach which will work is an economic approach. In part 2 I discussed various options for tackling spam economically, ending with the one I think would actually be acceptable and useful: attention bonds.

Now I’ll run through (and shoot down) a few of the objections commonly brought up when the possibility of involving actual cash in e-mail sending is raised.

Continue reading →

The spam problem part 2: The dismal science

In Part 1 I took a “from first principles” look at the spam problem, and concluded that the only way to actually solve the problem was to make people pay to send e-mail.

Now, it’s time to look at what I mean by that—because there are almost as many ways to implement “pay to send” as there are ways to implement filtering.

This is going to be a bit more technical than part 1. I’m going to assume you know basically how SMTP e-mail works. If not, there are tutorials available.

Continue reading →

Where the Bush family got their money

Ever wonder where the Bush family got all that money?

In 1923, the Nazi party was given 100,000 gold marks ($25,000) by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. This generous donation helped the fledgling party through its early financial troubles. After his father August’s death in 1926, Thyssen created the United Steel Works, a German industrial conglomerate.

In 1924, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart met with Harriman & Co, represented by the Harriman brothers and George Walker. They formed the Union Banking Corporation.

Later in 1924, George Walker hired his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush, to be VP of Harriman & Co. Bush was responsible for overseeing the Thyssen/Flick United Steel Works.

In 1928, Hitler was broke again. Things had gone badly since his failed coup attempt in 1923. Thyssen arranged for the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart to buy the Barlow Palace and refit it as the new Nazi HQ. Thyssen claimed the cost was 250,000 marks; the Nazis claimed over 800,000.

In 1931, Harriman & Co. changed its name to Brown Brothers Harriman. Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush established a holding company called The Harriman 15 Corporation.

In 1932, Thyssen joined the Nazi party, and held a fundraiser for Hitler at his castle.

By 1934, Hitler had seized power, and USW was chosen to overhaul the German military machinery. Thyssen and Flick made hundreds of millions in profits, which flowed to UBC and the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart.

In 1934, the Polish government started threatening action against Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and Upper Silesian Coal and Steel, for financial irregularities. The owners of the companies—including the Harriman 15 Corporation—were faced with a demand for back taxes. Fortunately, Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 ended the investigation.

Consolidated Silesian Steel happened to be located near Oswiecim in Poland, so when the Nazis began building concentration camps for slave labor, they decided to build one near Oswiecim. They called it Auschwitz. It provided cheap labor for many companies, including Consolidated Silesian Steel.

As Hitler began to march his armies across Europe, Thyssen and Flick began to have misgivings. They sold Consolidated Steel to UBC. It became Silesian American Corporation, under the complete control of Harriman, and managed by Prescott Bush. In fact, a Dutch intelligence agent reported that a portion of the slave labor force was managed by Bush.

Six days after Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Trading With The Enemy Act made it illegal for US business interests to deal with US enemies of war. Prescott Bush continued running Silesian American Corporation until the summer of 1942, when the New York Tribune exposed his business deals with Thyssen. The US government took over UBC and the Silesian American Corporation, but Bush was not prosecuted. In 1943, he resigned from UBC, but kept his stock.

In 1951, Thyssen died, and UBC’s assets were released to Brown Brothers Harriman. Prescott Bush cashed in his stock for $1.5 million, and used it to set up a firm called Overby Development Company as a gift to his son—George Herbert Walker Bush.

In 1980, George Herbert Walker Bush placed his father’s family inheritance into a trust fund, managed by William Farish III. Farish was the inheritor of millions of dollars made by Standard Oil, from its investments in IG Farben to build the IG Auschwitz gasoline plant.

—Summarized from a feature article in Clamor Magazine.