We in Canada have an election coming up, and so I just want to remember what these things said about the candidates.
As of today I found a couple of markets.
This one seems mostly U.S. based, so I will discount it a bit. But it favours Harper : 60c to buy a 1 dollar bet vs. 30c for Trudeau and 14c for Mulcair.
The Sauder School of Business has this one, which is both Canadian and has higher trade volumes.
The Libs are currently trading higher for seat share (36.11 on Oct. 5 vs. 35.00 for the cons), but Oct. 5 was the first day for the libs to pass the cons, so we’ll see if the trends cross back to a Con win in the next few days. It also predicts a minority government, and that the libs will win the popular vote.
Finally, this is a monte-carlo simulation on all of the data from various polls by the Globe and Mail…also calling for a Con minority…although the write-up does support that the Libs are doing better in the last day or two, so it depends on how you weight the polls.
Just looking at the Sauder one, I think it is the best data re: skin in the game and Canadian. It would currently suggest that, while a Lib minority is the most likely result, a Con minority would not be that surprising, and in fact the markets had been calling a con minority for the last week or two. Which means we get an interesting election night.
Anyway, if you’re Cdn, register by clicking the below image and go vote on the 19th.
I have started reading a new book.
Just like the last paragraph, I have complete thoughts, so far, about the book, but I set out to achieve so much more. I am not above gimmicks. And I suffer from disorder. And scattered thoughts.
Sometimes I feel like a moth, circling a light, believing it’s the moon, just fulfilling instinctual movements. These evolved senses guided us forever, and now there are cinnamon buns in airports that will give us diabetes, and make us obese, somehow in that order, or backwards, but the damned smell of cinnamon is known to make peoplefolks get hungry, and spendy. You get it, right? We are fallible, now (not just now), because our evolution didn’t prepare us for this world. These flashing lights! And abundant sources of pornography! And vodka in energy drinks! We’re fucked!
And this is a problem. I started a new book, but I didn’t finish the last one, and not because it wasn’t compelling, or interesting, but because I wanted to know the stuff in the new book, and it came along more recently. And all of a sudden new shit was pooping in my head.
It’s not the first time, it won’t be the last. The issue is: what happens if I never finish these books? I will never be like Tai Lopez.
Routines can save us. I have had them in the past, and some work wonders. Lifting weights, great routine. But they also suck time. And they have to be worth it. Lifting weights is worth it. I’m not sure finishing all the books is worth it.
But how to identify…?
Lifting weights is easy to rationalise. Before/after photos. Past personal experiments. But watching statistics lectures online…that one is hard to know. What if I don’t need to know statistics? And really, theory classes don’t really give you a working knowledge, that comes with skin in the game.
Could it hurt, spending time finishing books? Absolutely. Opportunity cost, bro. Everything you do comes at the cost of not doing the next best thing, but…that is already language that just racks on the guilt. What if you take opportunity cost to be the most fundamental concern at all times? You can’t know the best, most optimal use of your time, all of the time…At best you can get away with some sex-panther logic, and in that case, just try to have as few doubts in yourself as possible. And if you really vanquish your doubts, maybe you can become a self-help guru.
I live with doubts. I have low confidence, and it used to result in crippling anxiety. Now, I have confidence in select things.
- People with a lot of confidence are fools
- I am not a fool, but…Dunning-Kruger
- Fuck it, people forget things easily
Anyway, there is a logic that ties this all together…Oh yeah, I don’t finish things. And it is attention span. I now realise I don’t have one. It lasts about a month. Then something comes along and I lose it. So a new, whole new, world philosophy is what I get into…Is there something special about the month? “Flavour of the month” is a saying. Maybe it is more profound than what meets the eye…ear?…eye? We’re fucked.
However, sometimes I look back, and the one-month sprees add up to knowing some things. Like…about half finished books worth of knowledge…Ok you can get a Lambo for ~ a quarter million.
Which means…if I read half books, I can get half of what Tai Lopez gets with full books. So…maybe I’ll make some YouTube videos in my late-thirties with some Lexus cars or Caddilacs or something, and I wont be in the Hollywood hills, but maybe a nice neighbourhood of a second rate city. I can’t wait.
A friend emailed me this news article today. It’s about Canadian politicians and the currently famous picture of the drowned Syrian refugee boy.
I have one strong case to defend the conservatives…overload. They have a lot of cases to deal with, many of them tragic. But people don’t like that excuse. I don’t envy the government officials, this is an issue that really demonstrates the difficulty of governing, at a personal level. Most of us are glad to be free of that burden.
I read Tyler Cowen religiously. And he, among others, has turned me on to Elena Ferrante, and so I am reading the Neapolitan Saga. See below for the Tyler Cowen link to some review.
The author has shunned fame, and publishes under a pseudonym. The vanity fair interview with her is actually one of the most interesting things I have read in a while. Particularly the parts about feminism. So that’s what I’m here to talk about.
Go read the vanity fair bit about how she talks about being accused of being a man, it’s absurd, and she simply transcends the criticism…a theme in the interview, actually. She has an amazing mind, I found myself absorbed. Where do people like her come from? Naples…duh. Ok. But, I mean, she has presence, you feel wisdom, and not overreaching wisdom. She has comfort in her words, she knows her origination, her own story, in a depth that, perhaps, only a writer can accomplish, and a writer that has just finished a (likely–at least partially) autobiographical masterpiece. So when she is handed labels of feminism or masculinity, she can play with them and set them aside, they don’t distract her, they don’t cause anxiety. I wish I could say the same, I lack the depth or the confidence.
I have loved and I love feminism because in America, in Italy, and in many other parts of the world, it managed to provoke complex thinking.
On her feminism, I can’t thank her enough for her lack of anger, militarism, and her celebration of the complex. This is a topic you can’t enter without getting it wrong. What are feminists? You have to master a history slammed by wave after wave, and a guilt for being on the wrong side or whatever (as a man), and then you have to deal with the strife within the ranks of feminists.
There isn’t any credible authority in gender, but I always feel that, as a man, there is a subtle guilt-ridden assignment of power to women on this topic. How could it be any other way? But it isn’t an honest dialect if there is a community of only feminine and opponent camps. And I’m just woefully ignorant to start defining where I belong in the mix. I just hope to convey some sensitivity to the lack of being la femme, but still have a working appreciation for the feminist movement, or the topic, or whatever the hell feminism actually is.
I can say that the Vanity Fair caricaturization of the masculine critics (we don’t know who they are, could be women) trying to suggest Ferrante is a man is handled in a humorous/absurdist way, the way Jon Stewart would render certain political positions ridiculous, but it probably isn’t an honest, or not a completely honest, account of the people asserting the masculinity of Ferrante. But the reaction is what is worth pause. Ferrante sees the ridiculous, and the masculine critics are completely clueless.
Are they clueless? Do Ferrante and the Vanity Fair reporter get that right? Not likely. But the point is taken, nonetheless, certain speculation is offensive and revealing all on its own. Why do the critics need to explore narratives beyond the one presented? Is there any credible reason to question the gender of the author?
I didn’t even think to question it, but I am taking the work in as an audiobook with a female voice reading it to me, it was natural to just assume she was a woman. And I wont pretend to think I understand any significant differences between men and women when it comes to perception. Largely I find the topic a quagmire. So I am content to just watch the show, and have my laughs when someone points out a silly line of thought. But I can’t help feel deeply insecure knowing that there is a huge debate that a bunch of really smart people seem to be savvy to while I maintain ignorance. But I just really distrust the feminists and their opponents.
Ferrante is, here, like I said, making it absurd. Which is in line with how I feel about the topic. But if people are accusing her of being masculine, I run into the whole paradoxical line of question: Is my comfort in her approach a product of her masculine appeal? Shit. Are women actually so alien that we need some sort of brilliant translator? I don’t believe that, but maybe it isn’t totally crazy to think so.
Anyway, the greater point of comment here is that Ferrante is worth following, she isn’t a polarizing figure, she is a diplomat. She offers enlightenment and perspective, and everyone would benefit from reading her works. It took to the end of the first book for me to start being amazed. The topics wouldn’t normally interest men, I don’t think, they centre around female friendship. I think it’s still a distraction to focus on that aspect, though, this is a story of people, and your a person, and you can take all sorts of perspective away from it.
What I found also interesting in the interview were Ferrante’s beliefs that male friendships, and the rules they adhere to, were somehow better defined, and that since there is much more masculine literature, she can be somehow more confident in that assertion than any man could be about female relationships. All I could do was smirk, what does she know anyway? Men are just as neurotic and self-hating as women. They foil themselves on others, all the same. These are human stories. I don’t know if gender should get all that much attention.
I had the usual office chat about gas prices going up and oil prices going down. I wanted to make sense of it, and so I looked it up. Since I did that work, here you go, take a look.
First, there is a Financial Post article tries to explain how oil prices are linked to gasoline. I just used the formula they have at the end to see if our prices added up (see below).
This is a handy website that forecast prices at the pump, and gives some current conditions to explain price movements (e.g. right now high prices are attributed to U.S. refineries facing outages).
Bummer, it’s going up.
On my quick addition (see below table), it looks like we’re being hosed by .22 cents on either the retail margin or at the refineries or both. Now, they sell off stock at whatever price they paid for it at the time…so today’s RBOB isn’t the actual feeder price of gasoline today. I’m not really satisfied by that explanation, so I think we are being hosed.
Looks like Van and Toronto have prices coming down until the most recent tick, and actually Calgary prices are higher than Toronto prices at the moment…The other thing to note is that WTI and Calgary gasoline prices sorta move together, but there is a seasonal element in the gasoline prices. I wanted to download the data, but they wanted money…so I couldn’t do the adjustment. But looking at it, it looks to be seasonally driven to some degree.
|Market Price||RBOB||$ 1.72|
|Convert From Gallons||in Litres||$ 0.45|
|Exchange Rate||CAD/USA||$ 1.31|
|in CAD/L||$ 0.59|
|Assumption||Canadian Refiners add||$ 0.05|
|Federal tax on gasoline||$ 0.10|
|Was .09, thanks NDP.||Provincial Fuel Tax||$ 0.13|
|Assumption||Retail Margin||$ 0.08|
|Double Tax!||GST||$ 0.05|
|Gas Prices that would make sense||Total||$ 1.00|
I finished the above Allain de Botton YouTube on status/inequality/happiness it asked the basic question: Given all of the material advances in the west, and the fact that people are wealthier than ever before, why are people more unhappy now?
For starters, are they less happy? I don’t know if I buy this, it might be us looking back with rose tinted glasses.
Second, there were lots of points in this film thtat were well articulated. On the whole, while it is not as useful as reading a book, I feel that the topic of the film and the treatment were: at worst, not a waste of time…stimulating; and, at best, thought provoking.
Allian de Botton is, to be blunt, a little funny looking, he is not particularly sharp or savvy (there is some irony, because he talks about sharpness and cleaness and vanity in the film), and he appears to approach the question with some unrevealed revelation, I suspect he has strong convictions on the topic, which is at odds with his documentary prose. It’s a curious point of the documentary, he takes an impartial voice, out of what(?) some pedagocical concern, I suppose.
But what to infer? The thesis of the film asks the question of status, and explores status symbols, it devotes some time to people who opt out (the bohemians), and it makes claims about the relative unhappiness or poor state of the modern condition. The film treats the bullish-on-success, A-types as if they are worthy of a lot more skepticism, but I got the sense that the bohemians were much more sympathetic characters. This, I believe, reveals my bias, but I am positive de Botton is of the persuasion that materialism and status are things to be conquered from within. I am unable to recal the quote, but it was de Botton recalling the conclusion of a french enlightenment thinker. I think the idea that came from that quote has to do with the idea that wealth and power could be measured in subjective terms, depending on what the individual chooses to define. The powerful idea is that the individual is subject only to his/her own narrative. If you have the power to realize that your inner- narrative controls your life, and in addition, if you are able to scrutinize your own inner-narrative, you may stand a chance at discovering mistakes, from which you can alter your commitments/how you spend your resources to better realize what is good, or best, in life.
Also, factoid I leared in the film is that ideology is a term coined by Marx. … go fugure.