Neoclassical Fruit Trading

Two Friends and Their Fruit

Once upon a time, I had two apples, and I met a friend with two oranges. I liked apples, but by the Law of Diminishing Returns, I enjoyed the first bite of the first apple more than the second bite, and by the time I was ready for last bite of the second apple, it wasn’t nearly as much fun as the first bite of the first apple. And, my friend felt the same about his oranges.

My friend was very clever, and he offered to trade one of his oranges for one of my apples. I liked that idea because I would be able to cut up the fruit and make fruit salad, or even if I ate them individually, I could enjoy the second piece of fruit more since it was different. The total utility of one apple and one orange was greater to me than the total utility of two apples. My friend’s situation was likewise improved.

Even in what is a barter system, these voluntary trades created wealth. Both parties were better off. As long as both parties are fully-informed and rational, a trade will not occur unless both parties benefit.

A Bridge

It rained really hard that night.  The next morning, I brought two more apples ready to trade with my friend, but the bridge between our homes washed out. Since we could not trade, no more wealth could be created until the bridge was fixed.

Infrastructure can enable trade, but it is still the voluntary trades which create wealth.

A Toll Troll

The next day I returned to the site of the bridge and found a troll working on the footings of a new bridge. I had heard stories of trolls loitering beneath bridges, but apparently they build them as well. In any case, within two weeks, a new bridge was in place, and I was ready to trade with my friend again.

The troll was waiting for us at the bridge and introduce himself as Sam. Large and polite, Sam patiently explained his presence in terms that even fruit farmers could understand. He wanted only a sixteenth of a slice (or 6.25%) of any fruit that we trade (i.e., 12.5% of the trade). Since my friend and I still wanted fruit salad, and Sam seemed to deserve something for rebuilding the bridge, we agreed to his terms and continued trading.

Sam extracted a tax. It was nice that he rebuilt the bridge, but the tax he imposed was not voluntary. If we drew the curves and did the math, we would see that wealth was still being created but not as much. Not having a bridge at all would have prevented wealth from being created, but the act of imposing a tax also has a small negative effect on wealth creation.

And, fortunately, his tax was not large enough to dissuade us completely from trading. If taxes are too high, it prevents voluntary trades and prevents the creation of wealth.

Orange Allergies

After awhile, my friend told me that he developed an allergy to oranges. He still enjoyed the flavor, but it bothered his stomach too much if he ate an entire orange.

He now wanted to trade both of his oranges for my two apples, but I was unwilling. I think the Sam immediately realized the implications to himself because he looked worried. I walked home that day without trading to consider my options. The next day, I proposed that my friend give me his two oranges for for 1.25 of my apples. That way, I would still have enough apples to make my fruit salad.

Sam was OK with this because his ‘revenues’ improved, but my friend seemed bothered that all fruit wasn’t equal anymore. He ultimately agreed, but I could tell that he regretted telling me about his orange allergy. Perhaps he though I somehow tricked him, and it seemed to bother him more than he couldn’t figure out how I did it.

Most of the wealth created by this trade went to my friend because he had much more use for apples than he did oranges, but it is the nature of fruit farmers I s’pose to think that I was taking advantage of his situation.

Troll Tears

After a few days of grumbling from my friend, Sam felt that something should be done, and he made a new restriction. From that day on, a whole orange could only be traded for another whole piece of fruit. My friend was immediately gratified that his complaints had been heard and addressed, but when he realized that I was not willing to trade both of my apples, his disappointment returned. He would still be left with an orange he could not use. Couldn’t Sam do something about this? My friend talked about fairness and waste.

Since less fruit was traded, Sam’s revenues decreased, less wealth was created, and my friend’s orange was left to rot.

Even though this trade was close to the original trade, because my friend was now allergic to oranges, his utility curve for oranges changed, and not as much wealth is created on each trade. Separate from that, he carries an unnecessary and irrelevant moral outrage that oranges and apples are not inherently valued equally, when in truth, the value comes from their utility to each of us.

Occupy The Bridge

Eventually, my friend lost faith in our trading system, started an Occupy The Bridge movement, and demanded that Sam take my apples and redistribute them more fairly under a program he called ‘socially conscious fruit justice’. Sam was already unhappy about his lower revenues from last time, so he took my apples and gave them to my friend. I didn’t go back the next day.

In the end, Sam left to build a high-speed rail system in the next valley. I tried using the now open bridge to trade with my friend again, but my friend only raised his fist while saying something about the ‘bourgeoisie’ and my being an oppressive “dirty apple baron”.

Traders International or “TI”

Over the last several years, I’ve received perhaps 15 calls from Traders International trying to talk me into spending $7,500 for a stock trading system. I have consistently told them to take me off their list, but after a month or two, they return. The last call was from a Shawn Graham. He’s called several times before.

As soon as they mention trading system, I cut them off, but they keep talking. This last time, I yelled and told him to take me off the f*#$ing list. He just laughed.

Firstly, there is no way I’m paying $7,500 for the privilege of day trading stocks, future, or options. The risk, the tax paperwork, and it being a full-time job together are just not worth it to me. But, beyond that, why would anyone think (after all that has transpired), that I would ever want to do business with Traders International? At this point, I’d rather lose a toe.

It is time to double check that I’m on the do not call list and what legal actions are available.

Election Projections for October 17th

          D   Toss   R    I
Senate:
   538:  52.0       47.9  0.1
RCP/NT:  52         48
    EV:  51     1   48
   RCP:  49     5   46
   NYT:  46    19   35

House:
   538: 207.7      227.3  0.0
    EV: 202    29  204
   RCP: 181    42  212
   NYT: 155   112  168

Election Projections for October 13th

In the past, I’ve followed these:

• http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
• http://www.electoral-vote.com/
• http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Electoral Vote looks sad this year, and Five Thirty Eight has been folded into the New York Times site alongside their own projections. Real Clear Politics continues to just average everything, so they have always been in the middle of the pack, but not very sharp when things turn.

          D   Toss   R    I
Senate:
   538:  51.5       48.4  0.1
    EV:  51         49
RCP/NT:  51         49
   RCP:  48     6   46
   NYT:  46    19   35

House:
   538: 208.5      226.5  0.0
    EV: 201    34  200
   RCP: 185    39  211
   NYT: 159   108  168

Election 2010

We’re having an election this year. Maybe you’ve heard of it. After two years of Hope and Change, people are mad. It is a HULK SMASH political cycle, and if you believe the idiots, everyone else is an idiot. Fun times. And, we get to do it again in two years.

Two incompatible directions: 1) unworkable idealism, 2) workable cynicism. Then, throw in a dash of stuff happens, and we have, at best, years of very-nearly-worthless to look forward to.

Sure, I’ll vote. You should, too. Let me know how it goes. I’m going to go do something useful.

Weekly Wasted Reports

Weekly Status Reports are misnamed and misused. Our managers seem constantly to want some piece of information that isn’t in them and they complain if they becomes too detailed. Every week, we recount a history, and managers second-guess it from a comfortable distance. The target audience for a Status Report is your direct manager or to your management generally. It is sometimes nothing more than a weekly reaffirmation of the lines of authority of an organization with doubts. The conflicting purposes conspire to produce the Weekly Wasted Report.

I’ve never been excited about writing them myself. I admit it. The feeling of waste and futility as you face the last thing standing between you and the weekend doesn’t help either.

So, let’s fix it, and let’s start with the name. Instead of Weekly Status Report, what teams need is something closer to a Current Work Plan. The target audience for a Current Work Plan is broader.

Current
Perhaps people read it on a weekly basis, but plans change more frequently. Problems can arise at any time, and motivation comes from choices on a much smaller timescale. How many times has your manager stopped by during the week to ask you for your ‘status’ in addition to the reports you write each week?

Manage yourself. Try updating your plan one day in advance, and then hit it hard in the morning. Accomplish what you promised yourself before you leave for the day.

Work
Some work is aimed at a specific a deadline, so the work must be estimated, re-estimated, risks called out, scope adjusted, etc. Being perfectly efficient is not as important as hitting the deadline — even though managers have a dark history of asking for and expecting both. However, just managing work aimed at a deadline is inherently less efficient.

Some work must only be done efficiently. Arrange it to maintain motivation and quality. Some work is a tax that you want to pay slowly over time. Spread it out.

To plan your work, you need to know the mode of your projects. But, this should be easy, slow-changing information.

Plan
The word ‘Plan’ is forward facing. Many times, Status Reports are written from a defensive point of view as if they offer evidence that you are working or that work has been done. Your manager may even ask you for this evidence because he/she in turn is defending the team against his management. But, that kind of information is one of the least important aspects of managing a project.

Unsolved problems, blocking issues, communication between team members, remaining days of work, order, arrangement, and understanding of future are all more important that what has occurred in the past. Schedules are pushed out due to remaining days of work — not days completed.

Sometimes, two or more people are experiencing different parts of the elephant and they just need to compare notes. I’ve seen weekly SCRUM-type meetings expose this kind of redundancy and in a matter of two weeks, cut the bug list in half. And, then, as successful as that was, the same individuals naturally fall back into the backward-looking Status Reports.

Religion and Pluralism

This post is explicitly not: 1) an attempt to bridge or unify beliefs, 2) apologetic for my own beliefs, or 3) a polemic against the belief of others. Instead, this just reveals or announces that our family has been on a multi-decade path of pluralism, and we tend to focus on results instead of beliefs. People can argue points of faith, and our beliefs are what change us, but to bridge large differences in beliefs, you must give up trying to make things agree or harmonize. You could also choose to associate only with people with whom you agree, but as long as the ‘fruit’ in their life is good, everyone is your neighbor.

Story

Growing up in the Bible Belt of Southeastern United States, I’ve seen the disappointment and hurt of close family over small points of faith, and I’ve seen the wasted energy of legalism that drives the next generation into wasteful, pointless rebellion. Everyone loses when you place rightness over relationships.

When my wife and I met, she had already converted to Christianity, but her family (now my family) is a combination of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. There are no idols in Buddhism, Taoism has lots of them. Buddhism is Hinduism v2.0 in a sense — a reform response to the many idols present in Hinduism. Ancestor Worship comes from Confucianism. All three are fundamentally more philosophies than religion in that they are beliefs about how the world is put together rather than a belief in god or gods, but the execution of it ends up looking like religion. The temples are shared spaces for all three. It’s easy for someone from the West to observe the countless temples, the stories, the characters, and become confused. The West sees contradictions and splits. The East happily absorbs the inherent conflicts under the same roof.

Christians may see Buddhism as ultimately losing yourself to the nothingness and thereby losing your personality and essentially becoming a non-person, but that isn’t my experience. The monks certainly have quiet intensity, but there is no doubt that there is personality there, and certainly, there is an abundance of personality within the greater population. Likewise, non-Christians see Christians as displacing their personality with that of Christ, and particular for women, submitting themselves to their husbands and losing themselves to their husband’s agenda. Anyone care to defend the idea that all the Christians you know are somehow lacking in personality? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

A little under half of my family in Malaysia converted to Christianity, but I had no part in that. My Mother (the West would say Mother-in-law here, but the East would be offended if I said that) would put four oranges on a plate and place it on the altar for a day. Then, she’d bring it down for people to eat. I had no problem eating these oranges, but it gave my Brother a problem because it has been offered. So, I talk about Peter and eating Pork. Perhaps, it is good that he doesn’t eat the oranges, but for me, they are just oranges. Funny how the same arguments resurface.

She was such a small person, and seemed even smaller in comparison to me. We looked silly together. As time passed, she needed someone to steady her, I needed to hold her arm, but I don’t think she ever acclimated to it. But, she reminded me greatly of my Grandmother in Tennessee — the same disposition, that quiet strength you cannot assail and that overcomes everything. Two women on different ends of the earth, different beliefs, and yet so similar.

Likewise, in Seattle (which is one of the most unchurched areas of the United States), we’ve made friends who are committed and not-so-committed Catholics and Mormons. There’s little point in focusing on the difference of Immaculate Conception when two families have shared values in the same way there is little point focusing on religion as a precursor for deliverables within the workplace. People are free to choose what they will believe. It is not my job to withdraw my friendship if we disagree.

Within the workplace, with our friends in the Northwest, and within our marriage, and with our extended family, the distance is too great to harmonize and unify. We have had to pluralize.

Punchline

Within the workplace, people basically just need to behave ethically, do what they say they are going to do, and work towards the group goals.

The bars for sharing a life is necessarily higher. A good first cut is the question: Would the world be a better place (for you and the group) if everyone believed the way you do? There are belief systems that do not meet this bar.

But otherwise, the reality of someone with different beliefs is different than how you might imagine it.

Development Processes

Developer-Centered Development

Teams of developers and their direct managers prioritize work making sure the highest priority work is tackled first, that it is matched with the right engineers, and things overall are moving forward. The other disciplines such as Test and Program Management consume and are affected by decisions Dev makes. One usually sees program management and test management involved together to triage the work to help coordinate the effects.

The theory is that developers usually appear on most parts of the critical path. If program management fails in some way, development (with enough effort) can fill in the gaps. If testing fails in some way, it still falls to development to fill in the gaps. As long as Development is working quickly on the highest priority stuff, while you may not know exactly when you’ll finish, you know that you are probably getting there as quickly as is possible.

Certainly, at the beginning of a product cycle, there is more emphasis on Requirements and Functional Specifications. Program managers are on the hook, and developers press from the side. Then, as the project moves into architecture, design, and implementation, the project pivots to developers. Finally, at the end, control of the project pivots to testing with developers pressing from the side. If something goes wrong, management holds developers finally and ultimately responsible.

Developers as individual are already notoriously bad at predicting accurately how long their work will take. It varies. If you have done similar work recently, you can use the previous work as a template for the later work. Those methods of estimating break down as the work becomes more unique or if the team is reorganizes heavily.

As projects scale larger, more development teams are needed which in turn requires increased coordination of technical interfaces and scheduling dependencies. As soon as teams take a dependency on one another, the scheduling risks tend to explode. And, if developers are notorious about the estimates, they are even more so about calling out all of their dependencies.

In the end, systems produced this way routinely slip schedule, exhibit a non-uniform quality level, and exhibit holes and gaps in cross-system scenarios.

Development teams may even expect and depend on schedule slips to make room for the work they feel important to deliver.

Program management success rests on their ability put things on the development schedule. Developer success rests on their ability to ‘be smart’, to handle complexity, and deliver end-to-end scenarios into user’s hands. Testing success rests on finding bugs. The goals of all three align and conspire against delivering a system on-time and at highest quality.

Date-Critical Development

What happens if you promote the schedule itself strictly above every other project objective?

Start with the idea that shipping will occur within a fixed timeframe – even if no changes are made and no new features are added. Then, work backwards from that point to make only the changes that fit and satisfy all of the requirements.

This approach is hardly free. The communication costs are just as high if not higher. The shape of the schedule changes to include a generous period of planning at the beginning, a generous period of stabilization at the end, and a very short, highly-controlled coding period in the middle.

Decisions tend to be drawn further up into the organization which de-empowers each of the traditional disciplines. Each discipline endures more risk with respect to their individual careers. During planning, the costs of casting the net are high, and yet there are no guarantees that the net will capture anything. The intersecting requirements may select nothing that will fit.

Both to break-down the existing traditional structures and also because the organization needs to be periodically rebalanced as planning proceeds to coding, the connections members have to each other are broken and re-broken. Teams with empty nets need to be reassigned. Developers are categorized along a single dimension but otherwise assumed to be more-or-less interchangeable. Developers are assumed to be smart with short learning curves. Acquired code expertise is not considered very highly.

Strangely, this approach still does not guarantee that end-to-end scenarios work uniformly well across the system because teams are still formed during the short coding phase, and those teams are most likely the ones that wrote the corresponding dev specs.

The approach is like a stomach staple. It makes the cost of eating high enough that the organization doesn’t do it.

First Impressions of Google Wave

Google Wave is currently in invitation-only, preview mode, so any judgment of its value in finished form is potentially premature. Two initial impressions stand out and seem often repeated. Firstly, the small set of initial invitees has the effect of limiting the kinds of conversations and the types of uses to which Google Wave can be applied. As the pool of contacts increases, this will improve, so this limit is temporary. Even so, unless Wave achieves some sort of critical mass, the kinds of conversations and uses remain limited. The second impression is that Google Wave is a solution in search of a problem. It is part real-time chat, part collaborative document writing, part threaded-Email, part blog, part journal. Each of these things is already in use, and it isn’t clear that the combination of them under Google Wave adds extra value.

The most useful aspect is that is seems (more so than typical chat or E-mail) to mimic a conversation. The least useful aspect is watching someone else type in real-time.

Home Network (Part 3 of 3)

In the last post, my home network was a single sub-net and supported wired and ABG wireless devices including a Wii, XBox 360, one wirelessly-connected Color/FAX printer, wired LaserJet printer, two wired desktops, two wireless desktops, and three laptops. In the last week, I’ve replaced this network piece-by-piece as follows:

First, I added a LinkSys 10/100/1000 switch upstairs with CAT6 cable as an adjunct to the existing 10/100 switch and put all the higher-speed networking devices on it verifying that they all negotiated into 1Gb mode.

The most complicated part was replacing the ABG Wireless AP and range extender downstairs with a new dual-band ABGN+ Wireless Router. The initial setup is easy enough, but it assumes optimistically that it would be the only router in the mix and that it would be connecting directly to the DSL modem. NAT was turned on. It defined for itself a new sub-net (192.168.0.0/24). This sorta works, but it wasn’t exactly what I wanted because it was protecting the wireless devices from any access the wired devices might initiate. I didn’t see a way to turn disable the router portion, or I would have done that.

Instead, I have two sub-nets which roughly cut between upstairs wired versus downstairs wireless.  The setup is more complicated, but it also offers greater control over traffic. I disabled NAT on the Wireless Router so that it functions just as a Router and Wireless AP. Routing from the wireless side remains easy as all of the routing there depends on being on the same sub-net or having the packet sent to the default gateway (the ABGN+ Wireless Router).

Routing on the wired side is more complicated because some packets are delivered within the same sub-nets, some are sent to the wireless sub-net, and some are delivered to the Internet through the DSL modem. Every single machine on the wired network requires an additional route be added manually:

• Windows: route -p add 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.4
• Linux: route add -net 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.4
• FreeBSD: route add -net 192.168.0.0 192.168.1.4 255.255.255.0

Even the 327W router/modem needs to be told (or told how to learn)  how to route packets to the new sub-net. Under “Advanced WAN/Route”, I needed to add the above information. The final (and possibly unexpected) kicker to the routing problem is back at the 327W DSL router/modem. It needs to be told that the “Private LAN” is no longer 192.168.0.0/24 but 192.168.0.0/23 (or 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.254.0). The reason for this is that the routing decision is not made until the router asks itself whether the packet is even for this private LAN. If a packet falls outside the private LAN range, it drops it.

The HP TouchSmart continues to use its 802.11G wireless operating at 50Mb/s. The Wii sees 802.11B. The other desktop received a new ABGN+ dual-band PCI Wireless adapter and is running at over 100Mb/s wirelessly.

Finally, for the XBox 360, I bought the N dual-band bridge. The ABGN+ dual-band Wireless router uses both bands simultaneously, but the clients of it are assigned mostly to one or the other band. I disconnected the XBox 360 wireless adapter, connected the console to the bridge via Ethernet the way it really wants to be connected, and assigned the bridge to use the 5Ghz band exclusively. Now, the XBox 360 plays movies without a hitch, and it signs in instantly without the previous ten minute wait.

Everything is separated by switches , routers, and bands, and it all works very, very smoothly without any additional wiring required. Every device can ping and use every other device (well, I can’t exactly copy files off the Wii or XBox 360, but you get my drift).

That’s it about the network. If there is a next post, it would be about my unspeakably weird home computing setup.