The Toilet

There are essentially four operations that an amateur might consider performing on his toilet : replacing the mechanism that controls the water flowing out of the water closet, replacing the mechanism that controls the flow of water into the water closet, fixing a leak in the drain pipe, and unblocking it. All of these are fairly straightforward, as long as you understand the flow of water, and do not have to break through walls to reach the relevant portion of the circuit.

The first operation you would typically perform if there is a small leak at the bottom of your water closet tank, causing your toilet to flush now and then for no apparent reason. The second replacement you would do if you for instance don't hear your water tank fill anymore. The third you would do if you or your downstairs neighbour is bothered by water or funny smells, and it will be clear to you when to engage in the fourth.

Books on the Sociology and History of Wall Street

I found the following fascinating informative reads (in order of quality of writing
and  non-trivial content) -- these are books on the sociology, history and development of
contemporary capital markets and firms:

Lords of Finance, Ahamed.
Keynes biography, Skidelsky.
Liars Poker, Lewis.
When Genius Failed,  Lowenstein.
What's wrong with Wall Street, Lowenstein.

Books on Value Investing

In order of importance :

The Intelligent Investor, Graham.
Security Analysis, Dodd and Graham.
The Essays of Warren Buffett, Buffett et al. 
Margin of Safety,  Klarman.
One up on Wall Street, Lynch.

There is surprisingly little decent literature on the subject.

Facts

Should the New York Times fact-check ? Can North Carolina outlaw scientific predictions on how much the sea level will rise in the coming years ?

These are just two illustrations of the phenomenon that people no longer understand the difference between fact and opinion, between truth and social construct, between results and presentation. It is clear that a lack of proper education is to blame.

If we concentrate for a while on the written media, for instance, then we see that journalists quickly write their required number of words on the topic of the reader's choice, without being bogged down by too much background knowledge. Authorative sources are quoted saying 'yes', and other authorative sources are quoted saying 'no'. No attempt whatsoever is made to lay bare the correct statement. These articles are then branded as good objective journalism, representing the various facets of the problem at hand. It's like arguing that a child must be free to choose between evolutionism and creationism, and must be made aware of both.

This type of argument is not only repeated ad nauseam, but also implicitly and much more subtely and generally applied in the serious media. It is mindboggling how many panels consist of one person that knows what she is talking about and five others that have an opinion on the matter that is based on what they thought up while attempting to boil a soft-boiled egg for the correct amount of time, and failing.

The analytic mindset is hardly defended anymore. Analysis is considered boring, both in the media and at cocktail parties. When somebody voices an opinion, and somebody else asks what it is based on, it will be the second person who will be considered slow and annoying. Yet, it is the multitude of unfounded opinions which is disquieting, and it is those who voice them who are wasting our time.

Peak

It is interesting that it seems that oil discovery peaked around 1970. Gas discovery peaked a little later. The global depletion of oil and gas reserves is happening at a staggering rate. It seems that we will keep up with oil and gas production for a while still, but not for much longer. Increasing energy prices, increasing profits for oil and gas companies and severe economic crises will likely be the result. These are interesting times indeed. The transition to a new period should be prepared in order for it to occur as non-violently as possible. Coal will become the first alternative (despite dangerously high levels of CO2 emission), then nuclear energy, then water, sun and wind. Let's consider our options more carefully than by mere shortsighted economic bottom line calculations.

Gamble !

If you're high up in a company largely based on financial interests, you are often rewarded high bonuses when your company makes a big profit. Naively, there's nothing wrong with this. We all know though that one can choose a high risk strategy that can either pay off a lot or make for a large loss. The trouble is that if the first scenario plays out, the strategist gets a big bonus, while if the second option is realized, he loses no money from his bank account. Sure, he could get fired, but that punishment is considerably less direct than the money reward he obtains when his risky move strikes gold. In particular, the punishment is not to withdraw millions of dollars from the strategist's account. It is my claim that this strongly encourages people high up in the finance industry to gamble very heavily.

Moreover, their leverage is huge, which means that the gambles that don't pay off can make their company collapse, and others with it. Their gambles have real consequences for ordinary working people. Yet, when their company and others go bankrupt, there is no real consequence for the top finance people's bank account.

The present reward system for top people in finance benefits the rich, and disadvantages the poor.

We can boil this down to a form of exploitation of the law on business and individuals. An individual will remain responsible for his debt. A company can go bankrupt, and no creditor will see his money back. Therefore, it is advantageous to create a business, gamble heavily, and reward oneself if one wins, and let the business go bankrupt if one doesn't.

Of course, I'm simplifying things enormously, but the basic mechanism at work is real, and destabilizes our financial system. That was evident in 2008, and it is still evident now.

Execution without trial

The rhetoric surrounding the execution of Ben Laden often links his death with notions of revenge, evil, the old testament, realism and pragmatism, but also with Obama's re-election, the possibility of a shrine and the legacy of Al Qaeda. It is my impression that the left is willing to make an exception to the rule of due process, the right to the sacredness of life, and any given individual to any one of his principles. There is a pragmatic breaking point to anyone's defense of the moral higher ground.

An overpowering force was sent into a foreign nation to kill the public leader of a terrorist organisation. It made it manifest that the execution under any circumstances of key figures in an enemy camp is seen as a viable strategy by any nation. And public support for this modus operandi is broad.

I fail to see the big impact this indivual's death would have on public opinion anywhere. The reading of history in terms of heroes and villains is childlike. Once more, the thousands of newspaper articles that attempt to turn journalism into history seem to have succeeded in making children of us all.

To my mind, the execution of Ben Laden testifies to the fact that we are not yet far removed from barbarism. Perhaps the manifest violation of principles that are defended publically, both at the scale of nations, and in our circle of friends will serve as a useful reminder as to our primitive nature.