Now every time I post one of these obnoxious lists I'll point out the best article, or at least the one's that you can't skip.
Required Reading - This is a great (and lengthy) article by Malcolm Gladwell on brain damage and football. Kind of glad I never played.
Google says they overpaid when they purchased YouTube to the tune of 1 billion (they paid 1.65 billion for the site). Best part, they knew they were doing it.
According to Krugman the Fed, even under really rosy circumstances, won't raise rates for at least 2 years.
Ever hear of Conservapedia? They're hilarious, but now they've outdone themselves. They're going to rewrite the Bible to "remove the liberal bias."
New York City made a law requiring restaurants to show calorie counts on menu items. Oddly, the new law doesn't seem to be changing the amount of calories that people purchase in any given transaction.
New theories on altruism vis a vie termites.
A Nobel in medicine this year went to three scientists who discovered telomerase, an enzyme that allows a cell to divide perpetually without dying. It has implications for future cancer research.
Krugman says healthcare reform will happen.
Google's Android OS is about to tip. By the end of the year it'll be available on 12 phones.
Ugh, this wasn't even half of my list... more later.
17 October 2009
Obama Wins a Nobel Peace Prize
Yeah, I'm a bit late on this one, but I'm busy enough these days that even taking time to do this is taking up time I should be working on some vague architectural assignment.
So Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I have to admit that it seems a tad premature. He did receive the nomination a mere 12 days after assuming office. Anyways, it seems to have made Fidel happy (as if that alone weren't reason enough... ha), and the right is pissed. Best comment (there's some other gems in there too) - Rush Limbaugh: "Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award
." Priceless.
This is Jesse Larner at the Huffington Post speaking of his confusion of Obama's win: "Maybe the more absurd and bizarre it is, the more of a kick in the pants it is to the Bush presidency, of late, unlamented memory. This is how much we hate you, George; anyone who comes after you will win the Nobel prize, just for not being you."
But then Foreign Policy (a great magazine by the way) spoiled the whole thing and listed what Obama had done in his first 12 days in office to deserve a Nobel.
But then Foreign Policy (a great magazine by the way) spoiled the whole thing and listed what Obama had done in his first 12 days in office to deserve a Nobel.
So Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I have to admit that it seems a tad premature. He did receive the nomination a mere 12 days after assuming office. Anyways, it seems to have made Fidel happy (as if that alone weren't reason enough... ha), and the right is pissed. Best comment (there's some other gems in there too) - Rush Limbaugh: "Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award
This is Jesse Larner at the Huffington Post speaking of his confusion of Obama's win: "Maybe the more absurd and bizarre it is, the more of a kick in the pants it is to the Bush presidency, of late, unlamented memory. This is how much we hate you, George; anyone who comes after you will win the Nobel prize, just for not being you."
But then Foreign Policy (a great magazine by the way) spoiled the whole thing and listed what Obama had done in his first 12 days in office to deserve a Nobel.
- January 21: Obama met with the ambassador to Iraq, commander in Iraq, and regional commander to receive a complete briefing on the war.
- January 22: Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
- January 22: Obama signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting the use of torture and ordering all U.S. forces to obey the Army Field Manual. He also ordered a review of the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, a detainee held on a Naval brig in South Carolina.
- January 22: Obama met with numerous retired generals.
- January 23: Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, which had prevented nongovernmental organizations from receiving government funding if they supplied family planning assistance or abortions abroad.
- January 23: Obama calls Prime Minister Harper of Canada, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations.
- January 26: Obama announced his appointing of Todd Stern to the new position of special envoy for climate change -- recognizing the environment as a pressing foreign-policy concern.
- January 27: More phone calls. This time Obama speaks with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan.
But then Foreign Policy (a great magazine by the way) spoiled the whole thing and listed what Obama had done in his first 12 days in office to deserve a Nobel.
- January 21: Obama met with the ambassador to Iraq, commander in Iraq, and regional commander to receive a complete briefing on the war.
- January 22: Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
- January 22: Obama signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting the use of torture and ordering all U.S. forces to obey the Army Field Manual. He also ordered a review of the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, a detainee held on a Naval brig in South Carolina.
- January 22: Obama met with numerous retired generals.
- January 23: Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, which had prevented nongovernmental organizations from receiving government funding if they supplied family planning assistance or abortions abroad.
- January 23: Obama calls Prime Minister Harper of Canada, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations.
- January 26: Obama announced his appointing of Todd Stern to the new position of special envoy for climate change -- recognizing the environment as a pressing foreign-policy concern.
- January 27: More phone calls. This time Obama speaks with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan.
07 October 2009
The Rule of 72... or 70, 69.3
If you have no idea what that title means then I guarantee (ironic global and personal events withstanding) that this is the most important thing you will learn today.
This is something my dad talked about constantly since I can remember, so when a lecturer at IIT today stated the "rule of 70" I chuckled to myself with my usual dorky demeanor. It was one architectural PhD talking to a bunch of other MA's and PhD's who don't know basic finance... which is of course why they design the objects that contain more of humanities combined wealth than any other profession by far. But that's not the point.
The point is that I wanted to know why he said rule of 70 and not 72. Upon further research I learned all sorts of cool things, and as usual Wikipedia and a subsequent Google search taught me more in fifteen minutes than I learned all day at my fancy school (sorry school, I still love you and your sweet sweet buildings and wood shop).
The rule of 72 is a quick and fairly accurate way of determining how long it will take an investment to double. Simply divide 72 by the interest rate and the result is the amount of time it takes the principle to double due to compounding interest. For example: if you are receiving an interest rate of 8% on $1 it will take 72/8 = 9 years for that dollar to double. Simple enough.
Here's the actual calculations (from Wikipedia):
72 is used because it's the multiple of many numbers and hence easy to use. The "appropriate", if that's the right word to use (pun definitely intended), number to use is 70 because ln(2) = 69.3; rounded up. Although it depends on what interest rate you're working with. For the numbers I tend to use, say... the real rate of return on an investment in the stock market which is about 6-7%; 72 works best. For small numbers use the others.
Use that link above and play with the stock markets numbers. I learned quite a bit. I did 1955-2002. My thinking was an era post-WWII and the boom afterwords and the period before we went totally nuts in the last few years. Average rate of return? About 10.6% (this is the geometric mean, not arithmetic - there's an explanation on the site and the number I give is far more accurate) and when it's adjusted for inflation the "real" rate of return is about 6.3%.
72/6.3 = 11.4 years
The take away from that is this. Say you have a kid and you decide it'd be nice if one day they had money to give their kids, you know, patience and forethought. Well, if when they were born you set up an IRA (savings account that doesn't get taxed) and put in a $100 bill by the time they could withdraw it at 59.5 it'd be worth roughly $40,000. Keep in mind this is already adjusted for inflation. So say you skipped buying that Acura and instead bought the Toyota and put the savings of roughly $15,000 in that account (over several years, you can only put in $6,000 a year currently) and they didn't withdraw it until they were 65.5 (using the 1871-2008 geometric mean of the average rate of return on the US S&P 500 adjusted for inflation which is 6.6%). They'd have $960,000 (again, in present value) tax free. That's a truly conservative estimate based off of the largest sample size available to anyone is the US that I'm aware of.
Capitalism may be brutal and inhumane, but over the long run it certainly doesn't have to be. Just think of how you live now - and the giant's shoulders we stand on to do so. The rich get richer because they know simple financial tricks like the rule of 72 that enables them to create a mental picture strong enough to allow them to invest in something that they will most likely never see come to fruition. But in the long run... $15,000? That was my tuition this semester. When we spend money in the present it has a great effect on the future that few ever give thought to. My decision to go to grad school is essentially me saying "with the knowledge I gain here I will effect the world in a more significant way than if I were to invest the money (3 years at over $30K per year) and bequeath to six people of my choosing one million dollars apiece in roughly 65 years." Understanding this relationship adds new meaning to these actions, or detracts it if you consider what most people spend their money on.
So yes, that's why I wear Hanes white tees and bring my lunch to class.
This is something my dad talked about constantly since I can remember, so when a lecturer at IIT today stated the "rule of 70" I chuckled to myself with my usual dorky demeanor. It was one architectural PhD talking to a bunch of other MA's and PhD's who don't know basic finance... which is of course why they design the objects that contain more of humanities combined wealth than any other profession by far. But that's not the point.
The point is that I wanted to know why he said rule of 70 and not 72. Upon further research I learned all sorts of cool things, and as usual Wikipedia and a subsequent Google search taught me more in fifteen minutes than I learned all day at my fancy school (sorry school, I still love you and your sweet sweet buildings and wood shop).
The rule of 72 is a quick and fairly accurate way of determining how long it will take an investment to double. Simply divide 72 by the interest rate and the result is the amount of time it takes the principle to double due to compounding interest. For example: if you are receiving an interest rate of 8% on $1 it will take 72/8 = 9 years for that dollar to double. Simple enough.
Here's the actual calculations (from Wikipedia):
Rate  | Actual Years | Rule of 72 | Rule of 70 | Rule of 69.3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25% | 277.605 | 288.000 | 280.000 | 277.200 | |
| 0.5% | 138.976 | 144.000 | 140.000 | 138.600 | |
| 1% | 69.661 | 72.000 | 70.000 | 69.300 | |
| 2% | 35.003 | 36.000 | 35.000 | 34.650 | |
| 3% | 23.450 | 24.000 | 23.333 | 23.100 | |
| 4% | 17.673 | 18.000 | 17.500 | 17.325 | |
| 5% | 14.207 | 14.400 | 14.000 | 13.860 | |
| 6% | 11.896 | 12.000 | 11.667 | 11.550 | |
| 7% | 10.245 | 10.286 | 10.000 | 9.900 | |
| 8% | 9.006 | 9.000 | 8.750 | 8.663 | |
| 9% | 8.043 | 8.000 | 7.778 | 7.700 | |
| 10% | 7.273 | 7.200 | 7.000 | 6.930 | |
| 11% | 6.642 | 6.545 | 6.364 | 6.300 | |
| 12% | 6.116 | 6.000 | 5.833 | 5.775 | |
| 15% | 4.959 | 4.800 | 4.667 | 4.620 | |
| 18% | 4.188 | 4.000 | 3.889 | 3.850 | |
| 20% | 3.802 | 3.600 | 3.500 | 3.465 | |
| 25% | 3.106 | 2.880 | 2.800 | 2.772 | |
| 30% | 2.642 | 2.400 | 2.333 | 2.310 | |
| 40% | 2.060 | 1.800 | 1.750 | 1.733 | |
| 50% | 1.710 | 1.440 | 1.400 | 1.386 | |
| 60% | 1.475 | 1.200 | 1.167 | 1.155 | |
| 70% | 1.306 | 1.029 | 1.000 | 0.990 |
72 is used because it's the multiple of many numbers and hence easy to use. The "appropriate", if that's the right word to use (pun definitely intended), number to use is 70 because ln(2) = 69.3; rounded up. Although it depends on what interest rate you're working with. For the numbers I tend to use, say... the real rate of return on an investment in the stock market which is about 6-7%; 72 works best. For small numbers use the others.
Use that link above and play with the stock markets numbers. I learned quite a bit. I did 1955-2002. My thinking was an era post-WWII and the boom afterwords and the period before we went totally nuts in the last few years. Average rate of return? About 10.6% (this is the geometric mean, not arithmetic - there's an explanation on the site and the number I give is far more accurate) and when it's adjusted for inflation the "real" rate of return is about 6.3%.
72/6.3 = 11.4 years
The take away from that is this. Say you have a kid and you decide it'd be nice if one day they had money to give their kids, you know, patience and forethought. Well, if when they were born you set up an IRA (savings account that doesn't get taxed) and put in a $100 bill by the time they could withdraw it at 59.5 it'd be worth roughly $40,000. Keep in mind this is already adjusted for inflation. So say you skipped buying that Acura and instead bought the Toyota and put the savings of roughly $15,000 in that account (over several years, you can only put in $6,000 a year currently) and they didn't withdraw it until they were 65.5 (using the 1871-2008 geometric mean of the average rate of return on the US S&P 500 adjusted for inflation which is 6.6%). They'd have $960,000 (again, in present value) tax free. That's a truly conservative estimate based off of the largest sample size available to anyone is the US that I'm aware of.
Capitalism may be brutal and inhumane, but over the long run it certainly doesn't have to be. Just think of how you live now - and the giant's shoulders we stand on to do so. The rich get richer because they know simple financial tricks like the rule of 72 that enables them to create a mental picture strong enough to allow them to invest in something that they will most likely never see come to fruition. But in the long run... $15,000? That was my tuition this semester. When we spend money in the present it has a great effect on the future that few ever give thought to. My decision to go to grad school is essentially me saying "with the knowledge I gain here I will effect the world in a more significant way than if I were to invest the money (3 years at over $30K per year) and bequeath to six people of my choosing one million dollars apiece in roughly 65 years." Understanding this relationship adds new meaning to these actions, or detracts it if you consider what most people spend their money on.
So yes, that's why I wear Hanes white tees and bring my lunch to class.
05 October 2009
Picturequote
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule-and both commonly succeed and are right." - H.L. Mencken
Chicago lost its bid for the 2016 Olympics that Obama endorsed, so the far-right cheered gleefully. I don't even need to explain how childish and unfortunate that is. I thought we were all Americans after all. Anyways, that quote hit a nerve as I've noticed this repeatedly in recent years. It's just so selfish. It doesn't matter where you stand on the political spectrum. It's sad to watch our government in a self imposed gridlock that they use to sustain their own power at the expense of the well being of our nation and the world.
The context of that quote was that the founding fathers (as they're often called, but I really don't like the term) had quite the disdain for political parties... but started them none the less.
"[T]he worst enemy [of democratic governments], potent engines by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will... subvert the power of the people." - George Washington
"If I could go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." - Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the Democratic-Republicans; the predecessor of the modern day Democratic Party.
This is a photo I took the other week of the housing projects just south of 22nd St. on State St. (in Chicago) being torn down. I ride by them every day on my way to school and I anguish over the fact that I want to take more photos, especially at night, but shouldn't because it's just a stupid risk. there's a good chance I'd be mugged. On another note - this is part of the CHA's (Chicago Housing Authority) revitalization and rehab program that utilizes bailout funds (or so say the signs surrounding neighboring developments), so here's a look at how that's doing.
Edit: Chicago losing the bid for the 2016 Olympics impacts me very directly. This summer and over the next few years I'll be looking for an architecture internship/work. Being at IIT, the closest and most prominent architecture school to where the Olympic site would have been - I was more or less guaranteed work. Now I'm shit out of luck.
Also, my family owns an engineering business - Reed Engineering... we nor any of the other tradesmen we know will be riding that wave now. The Olympics would have brought more people into the trades in the Chicago area and given them the experience of working with the older skilled workers; creating a whole new generation of skilled tradesmen in Chicago. I knew a few people who were planning to pull a lot of overtime and take early retirement so that all the up and comers in the union could get decent work. I guess this is common practice. Now that won't happen and as a result Chicago's ability to build sound complex buildings will suffer. This is why the best architects go to Europe. There the skilled workers have years of training and they know their buildings will be built correctly.
This is a huge problem for the trades and architects and I've seen it first hand. The knowledge is disappearing and, because of what I feel is a general disdain for blue collar workers, it isn't easy/possible to gain back. Hell, I'm proof. I'm about half (that's just a guess, I figure it'd take me 7 years to learn most of what my dad does - I worked for about 3.5 years with him) way done with my steam apprenticeship that I'll never finish. Our work is specialized to the point that we can charge more than most doctors and lawyers if we so choose (we rarely do, why is a debate for another time). That ends a three generation blue collar family business.
Chicago lost its bid for the 2016 Olympics that Obama endorsed, so the far-right cheered gleefully. I don't even need to explain how childish and unfortunate that is. I thought we were all Americans after all. Anyways, that quote hit a nerve as I've noticed this repeatedly in recent years. It's just so selfish. It doesn't matter where you stand on the political spectrum. It's sad to watch our government in a self imposed gridlock that they use to sustain their own power at the expense of the well being of our nation and the world.
The context of that quote was that the founding fathers (as they're often called, but I really don't like the term) had quite the disdain for political parties... but started them none the less.
"[T]he worst enemy [of democratic governments], potent engines by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will... subvert the power of the people." - George Washington
"If I could go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." - Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the Democratic-Republicans; the predecessor of the modern day Democratic Party.
This is a photo I took the other week of the housing projects just south of 22nd St. on State St. (in Chicago) being torn down. I ride by them every day on my way to school and I anguish over the fact that I want to take more photos, especially at night, but shouldn't because it's just a stupid risk. there's a good chance I'd be mugged. On another note - this is part of the CHA's (Chicago Housing Authority) revitalization and rehab program that utilizes bailout funds (or so say the signs surrounding neighboring developments), so here's a look at how that's doing.
Edit: Chicago losing the bid for the 2016 Olympics impacts me very directly. This summer and over the next few years I'll be looking for an architecture internship/work. Being at IIT, the closest and most prominent architecture school to where the Olympic site would have been - I was more or less guaranteed work. Now I'm shit out of luck.
Also, my family owns an engineering business - Reed Engineering... we nor any of the other tradesmen we know will be riding that wave now. The Olympics would have brought more people into the trades in the Chicago area and given them the experience of working with the older skilled workers; creating a whole new generation of skilled tradesmen in Chicago. I knew a few people who were planning to pull a lot of overtime and take early retirement so that all the up and comers in the union could get decent work. I guess this is common practice. Now that won't happen and as a result Chicago's ability to build sound complex buildings will suffer. This is why the best architects go to Europe. There the skilled workers have years of training and they know their buildings will be built correctly.
This is a huge problem for the trades and architects and I've seen it first hand. The knowledge is disappearing and, because of what I feel is a general disdain for blue collar workers, it isn't easy/possible to gain back. Hell, I'm proof. I'm about half (that's just a guess, I figure it'd take me 7 years to learn most of what my dad does - I worked for about 3.5 years with him) way done with my steam apprenticeship that I'll never finish. Our work is specialized to the point that we can charge more than most doctors and lawyers if we so choose (we rarely do, why is a debate for another time). That ends a three generation blue collar family business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)