Food For (Financial) Thought...

People often argue, both internally as well as with others: Which is more important, money or happiness, and can money buy happiness? If Bill Gates has a bad day, can't he just go joy-riding in his Lamborghini (spelled that correctly on the first try, for the record) with his iPod Zune blasting from the stereo, then finish it off with a 3-hour massage and be happy (at least for a while, but when the happiness wears off there's more money to buy more happiness)? We are all entitled to our own opinions, I know I have mine. Maybe for some people, money equals happiness; while for others, the more money they come across the more problems they see.

I'd like to present a different question though, that is entirely hypothetical: Would you accept a large sum of money in exchange for some of the conveniences you are presently accustomed to? The question is related but offers a different way to look at the question.

John D. Rockefeller is the richest person in the history of the world. In today's dollar, he would have a net worth of nearly $320 billion, more than 5x the amount of the richest person currently living in the world. In fact, if you combined the money of the six richest people alive today, you would still have less money than Rockefeller. That is simply astonishing.

The fact of the matter is though, Rockefeller is not alive today. He died in 1937 at the age of 97. There was a lot he didn't see and he lived without a lot of the modern technologies and conveniences we take for granted today. A hot summer afternoon without an air conditioner. Despite his massive wealth, he had no iPod, no computer, no television, no 200-MPH Ferrari, no cell phone. Would you be willing to take $320 billion if you had to give up all of these things? It's a lot of money, but is it worth it? You'd be the richest person in the world, ever, but would you do it?

Moving on, or going back to the beginning, however you want to think of it, this is related to the initial question I brought up, about money and happiness. Obviously Rockefeller didn't know any different, but we would (presumably) be much less happy without so many of the things we are accustomed to having.

One of the ten principles of economics (surely they (I don't even know who "they" are) manipulated a bunch of general rules into ten organized principles just for the sake of having a nice number, not unlike Moses or James) is that people face trade offs. This example is merely another example of that principle, I think. The trade off is different for every person, but it essentially boils down to how much convenience do you have to give up to gain the enormous wealth, and how much do you value that convenience?

This is loosely but directly (if that makes sense) parallel to the money/happiness question. Every profession and lifestyle affects at least two factors of your life; how happy you are and how much money you have. Ideally you would be able to assign a value to each of these for each profession or lifestyle and set up a ratio to maximize your pleasure. We can't, though. "A man is a success," says Bob Dylan, "if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night, and in between does what he wants to do." Clearly some have it easier than others, as Dylan writes and plays music to his heart's desire, and makes a lot of money doing it.

Personally I'd say it's best to find a happy medium of sorts. We all face the problem of trade offs, so just be sure to factor everything in, all of the many variables, and choose accordingly. The Rockefeller example shows an important flaw in the "money or happiness" argument, as you can only have one or the other, which is rarely the case. In other words, don't focus on maximizing a single factor and leaving the rest at zero. Trade offs mean that there are middle-grounds, you can have both. Keep it simple and take a little money and a little happiness.

Chocolate or Vanilla?

The best of both worlds.

More on this coming soon, in a post that (I think) will be better, and certainly (hopefully) a tad bit inspirational...

Into The Great Wide Open

Title inspired by, but post completely unrelated to: Tom Petty.

I was thinking...

Dangerous but rare occurance, I know.

I was thinking what it must have been like to be traveling in the desert for days on end with nothing but arid flatness (for lack of a better term) for as far as the eye can see, and to suddenly lay eyes on this. One of the grandest of all vistas, for sure.

There is no way to know what one's reaction might have been, as García López de Cárdenas didn't list his every emotion upon discovering it. No modern man can ever enjoy the view as Cárdenas did, because we all have our preconceived notions and expectations in regard to what the Grand Canyon is like. If I am told how wonderfully beautiful it is, then I expect to see something that will fit such a description. If my experience is less breathtaking than what a picture in a brochure leads me to expect, I will be disappointed. For only if I have no expectations can I truly appreciate this example of nature's pure beauty to its fullest extent.

In a way, I'm jealous of Cárdenas, since he could view the spectacle without any high hopes. I am jealous though only because I assume he saw it as one of Nature's many masterpieces. It is entirely possible that he saw it as an enourmous obstacle. Maybe he wanted to keep exploring but couldn't circumvent the enormous crevice. Or maybe it was utterly tantalizing, as he was stuck in a desert and saw an unreachable source of water below him.

Consider the Wright brothers' first flight. Of course if we watched a video of the Wright brothers' first flight, we would appreciate the flight for the great impact it has had on the world, but would not be very impressed with a flimsy aircraft lifting a few feet off the ground for a mere 12 seconds. To really be in shock and awe of the flight, one would have to have never seen such a vehicle take flight, one would have to be convinced that such a feat was physically impossible, one would have to have been in Kitty Hawk in December of 1903.

This sort of phenomenon occurs on a lesser scale a thousand times over, every day. The ear with which you listen to a song changes based on what you're told about the song beforehand. JoMo and I were talking yesterday about how great Stairway to Heaven really is. We both agreed that it's overrated, but why does it constantly appear at or near the top of "all time greatest rock songs" lists? I think that somewhere along the lines, someone said that it was a great song, and word spread. Now, when people try to rank songs, they see Stairway listed and associate it with "greatness," even if they don't personally think it's a particularly amazing song.

Similarly, I visited the Museum of Fine Arts today for a class. As I wandered the halls and rooms, I noticed that some were more crowded than others. At first I thought it had to do with the layout of the rooms, but some of the busiest rooms weren't in central locations that would be highly traveled. The room that I observed having the most people in it happened to be the room that had its walls covered with Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh, and the like. I feel as if many people look at the pieces by these artists simply because they are told that they are good artists. If the paintings didn't have the titles or the artist's names listed, would they still attract the same crowds? I'd venture to say no.

We're all guilty of this by default, there is no realistic means of viewing everything without any prejudices. I can provide no way to correct this or avoid it-nor do I think it's particularly bad-it's just a simple observation I thought I'd share.

Kiwi!

First, watch this video:



Done? Ok, good.

Take it in, let it settle. What's your initial reaction?

If you're at all like me, you probably felt bad for the Kiwi - watching his little stubs flap as if he's flying, the tear running out of his eye as he falls into the abyss. Is it a tear of happiness? I'm going to assume that it is.

Joe sent me this video, and of course we started talking about it after I watched it. I'll take credit for the phrase that "we are all just Kiwis" as we pursue our dreams. Isn't it true that as humans we work tirelessly throughout our entire life in the hopes of finding brief happiness in the end? The Kiwi spent his energy nailing trees into the side of a cliff to create, in effect, a vertical ground. He was willing to put all of his efforts towards this single goal, the one thing that he must've believed could make him happy: flight. Shifting back to humans now, we work a great majority of our life so that we might later pursue our goals.

The end of our life is the like the freefall that the Kiwi experiences. We've finally reached the point in life when we can be happy-retirement-but was it worth it? Was all of the hard work worth the tiny chunk of life during which we are now happy? Like the Kiwi, not everyone can find work that makes them happy. There was nothing that the Kiwi could pour his efforts into that would make him happy while he was doing it so he chose the path that many humans do, working hard his whole life for a sliver of pure joy. My piece of advice is this: If you can find a career (that will adequately financially sustain your well-being) doing something you enjoy, embrace it. For if you love your work, then you will not need to long for retirement.

A professor I had last semester was in his eighties and simply loved teaching, he would tell us that he never planned to retire, that the university would have to force him out if they wanted him to leave. It's that kind of job that I long for, though I don't know of any career that would satisfy me in such a way. In the meantime, I'll stick with being a finance major and hopefully my retirement may come sooner rather than later.

What I Know:

Nothing.

Not really, but sorta.

Consider everything you know as a percentage of all that there is to be known. In this sense I know 0% of everything. I will never know more than 0% of everything that can possibly be known. I'll never even know 1% of pi. Maybe I'm looking too far into nothing, but I still find it a bit alarming.

Many people spend their lives, or at least a good portion of their lives seeking knowledge of one sort or another. I'm not going to say it's in vain, because knowledge is powerful and important, but does anyone ever succeed in this quest? No matter what you learn, you always yearn for more. No one is or ever should be satisfied with what they know.

Now think about a supposed all-knowing god. All-knowing. What does that mean? Such a god must have infinite knowledge, literally. There is no bound on what can be known. Going back to pi - it never ends - proof enough that an omniscient being would have a literal infinite amount of knowledge. What's the 1,000,000,000th digit of pi? He (or she) would respond immediately, without the need to think about it, he would just know. Or would he answer before I even asked aloud? He knows everything after all, even what I think.

Does he know the next sentence I'm about to type, even when I don't? This brings me to another point. Would an omniscient god know everything that is known now, or everything that is known ever? What I mean is, does this god know things before they happen? If I'm going to fall down the stairs on my way out of work, does he know this in advance? If not, then by acquiring such knowledge he is adding to the knowledge that he possesses (I know, infinity + 1 is still infinity), and if he knows more now than he did before, was he really omniscient before?

If this god is all-knowing, and he created me, then why aren't I perfect, why do I make mistakes? If I set out to make something, I would certainly make it perfect if I had the ability to do so. People say "in a perfect world..." Well if this god created this world, why isn't it perfect?

I tend to go too far with things like this, and it's getting moot, so I'll stop here. No moral here, but plenty to be learned ;-)

Change

The notion of change in American politics today is a strong one, and the three major contenders for the White House in 2009 all preach a promised doctrine of change (some more than others).

Barack Obama is larger than life for many American teens and twenty-somethings; the turnout and support he has garnered from college students is unprecedented. Why does a candidate with many policies similar to his rival's find such overwhelming support from typically politically-aware college students? The answer is George W. Bush.

Bush and Cheney have reigned over the United States for a tumultuous 7+ years. When Clinton left office, I was still too young (like most of Generation Y) to have any memory or comprehension of politics. As a result, the Washington I've grown to know is a lying and corrupt oligarchy of sorts, consisting primarily of narrow-minded politicians with even narrower objectives.

Political pundits often talk about this "post-9/11 world." Aside from the obvious heightened security measures and the sudden worldly awareness present in America, the state of a post-9/11 America has had a great impact on all the citizens of these United States. "Nine-eleven" is often thrown around in Washington as a way to take advantage of Americans. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (attributed to Benjamin Franklin) is what I'm getting at here. Wiretapping, gross amounts of secret documents, the Patriot Act - and oh yeah, that trillion-dollar travesty half a world away. After all, we wouldn't want to let the terrorists win. Getting back to the point: the Washington I've seen in my lifetime is not an institution one is likely to have much faith in.

Enter Mr. Obama. Often criticized as being naive, called a dreamer, and labeled an idealist, Obama has also been said to speak and think in a manner not unlike John F. Kennedy or Dr. Martin Luther King. "Change We Can Believe In" is his slogan, and not a terribly bad one at that. This is where I find myself getting sucked in at times, and I believe many others do as well. People want change, many believe America needs change; the problem is that most people don't even know what it is they want, aside from the fact that they don't want Bush. Obama's message and strong rhetoric radiates the promise of change, and a hope and faith in our government once again - a hope and faith that many of my generation have never had. Put Obama's wholesomely clean political record and his promise of change together with the dirtiness that is D.C., and you'll find a candidate that can present precisely what Americans are looking for: a new age in American politics.

With all of that being said, there is still great gravitas and legitimacy behind the candidacy of Barack Obama. I am an avid supporter of his campaign to the top seat in Washington, and have several policy-driven reasons for this support. The optimistic "hope" for a better America certainly plays a role, but rest assured, the basis of my support for Obama consists of relevant political matters.

What's Expected

I was sitting in my College Writing class yesterday, as my racing mind ran laps around my idle body. One thought stood out: What am I doing here? It seemed like an easy question, with an easy answer. I was in that classroom because I am a student at Northeastern University. Every easy answer draws another more complex question, though. Why am I at Northeastern? Hell, why am I even at college at all?

I suppose it was expected of me to go to college after high school, but why? Neither of my parents went to college, why should I expect to? I never made the decision "yes I think I'll pursue higher education after high school," it just happened that way.

Is it because I'm what some may consider "smart?" Because I'm smart, then I must become smarter? Am I obligated because I have the potential to become smarter? Don't most people though? Besides, I know of smart people who didn't go to college, and unsmart people who did.

I tried to think of one decision or one set of decisions that maybe put me on the path to a collegiate life. I took all honors classes freshman year. No, that wasn't really my choice. When did this all happen then? I was put in the "Gifted & Talented" program back in fourth grade, but that wasn't my choice either. Did I subconsciously decide this by not deciding against it? At any time I could have decided that I didn't want to go to college (though it probably would not be received kindly). When you grow up (ie: graduate high school) and still don't know what you want to be when you grow up, then why not college? Another four (or in my case five) years to try to find a calling.

All I knew was that suddenly it was my junior year of high school, and the only question was where will I go to college, not if. Somehow I ended up on this path, and I had no idea how.

I never did come up with an answer on my own, then last night I was listening to some music, as I often do, and John Lennon was serenading me with Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy). "Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans." The line stood out as it never had before. Was that the simple answer to my simple question, is it that I was too busy not even considering the prospect of a further education, and suddenly here I was? It seemed too simple, not much different than saying there is no answer, but it worked.

I'm a big believer in free will, but my ultimate conclusion almost contradicts the notion of free will; saying that I ended up in college without ever deciding to be here sounds awfully fateful. To dismiss this idea, and better rationalize my conclusion for myself, I'll say that despite all of this, I am happy being in college, and after all I did choose Northeastern over several other schools. I could have said I didn't want to go to college, but I had no reason not to.

Thanksgiving & New Years for a Writer

That's the first time, according to my memory, that I've called myself a writer. I'm not sure I feel as if I deserve it, but what is a writer other than one who writes? I write, I enjoy writing, I'm a writer. It feels good.

Certain holidays seem to promote certain values, actions, or ways of thinking. Thanksgiving-well, it's obvious-encourages us to all give thanks and be more appreciative of what we have in our lives. Christmas urges us to give more than we receive. The promise of a new year often makes us look back on the year we've had, and make a list of the things we want to improve for ourselves. The list goes on and on (Lent, giving up indulgences; 4th of July, patriotism), but you get the point, I'm sure.

These days marked off on our collective calendars represent good values and habits that we should exhibit throughout the year (wearing a costume and going door-to-door on a daily basis, however, is not something I'd advocate).

I'd like to first give thanks. Musicians, athletes, actors, and other professions, often make it a point to thank their fans. I have readers that I would like to thank. Even if you don't read this on a regular basis, I appreciate the time you take out of your busy day to ponder my thoughts.

Until recently, I knew of only one person who reads these posts, JoMo. In the past two days, coincidentally, two different people (Dana, Amanda) revealed that they do, on occasion, read what I have to say. I only knew about Joe because he's the only one who comments regularly (or at all, until recently). This brings me to my next point; I oftentimes write these posts hoping to spark a thought in the mind of someone who reads them. If I've caused a spark, I urge you to comment! I don't intend to sound pushy, but it means a lot to me when I hear that someone read and enjoyed what I wrote. I want this Blog to be an open conversation between myself and the reader (at least be appreciative that I'm starting the conversation). It means a lot to me to know that people are reading, and if I cause a particular reaction or thought, I'd like to know what it is. Keep in mind that you can comment anonymously; I want to know what people thought when they read what I wrote, not who thought it (though that's an added bonus, of course). Again, thanks for reading, it means a lot, I only wish I'd known.

Now time for my New Year's Month's Resolution: To continue to write more. I find myself inspired to write a lot, but for some reason discouraged or unwilling to do so. Joe told me I should go for six posts this month, one more than last month. I responded saying that I'm not going to set a quota, and I'm not, but it would be nice to continue to write a nice pace like this.

Bridging these two ideas, I'd like to point out that knowing that people read what I write only encourages me to write more. I think it would be fair to argue that without Joe, there would be very few posts on this Blog. He encouraged me to start up my writing again, and still pushes me to get writing on an almost-daily basis. It's this kind of encouragement that keeps me writing. Thanks Joe for, among countless other things, relentlessly reminding me to keep the pen in my hand.

Well, I have class in 5 hours. Thanks once more the support, and hopefully there will be more to come in the near future.