“The other side always gets a move”
navigating the second Gilded Age through humor, invective and insight
“The other side always gets a move”
As a former finance guy who spent a lot of time in his private sector career studying how to structure deals to serve my employer’s interest, I often think about how there must be a way to make money off of the sloppy and irrational thinking of Trump supporters.
Previously, I’ve considered things like synthetic securities for Trumpanzees to hedge against possible Democratic Party actions. Something like an option, say, on which party will win the next election.
But today I realized there might be a much easier way. All I need is to buy temporary access to their personal computer. With the promise I just want read-only access. I don’t want to be able to change anything.
Naturally, given that their beloved Trump administration thinks this is a-okay, they should be happy to take my money. Probably thinking they’re getting something for nothing, since I won’t be able to change anything.
And then the fun begins!
Because while the ability to change information is valuable, simply possessing it is valuable, too, in a different way.
Imagine what I could do if I knew their financial situation (because they use Quicken!). Or their Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc. Or I could analyze their photo collection to divine the places they like to visit and then sell that information to resorts and travel sites. The possibilities are endless!
All of which goes to prove the current Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, must be a moron of the first order, to have authorized the release of such a stupid letter to Congress.
Currently, Treasury staff members working with Tom Krause, a Treasury employee, will have read-only access to the coded data of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems in order to continue this operational efficiency assessment. This is similar to the kind of access that Treasury provides to individuals reviewing Treasury systems, such as auditors, and that follows practices associated with protecting the integrity of the systems and business processes.
Treasury Secretary’s Letter to Congress, 2/4/2025
Treasury Department Letter to Members of Congress Regarding Payment Systems | U.S. Department of the Treasury
Um, Scott? There’s kind of a big difference between giving an auditor — who may well be another Federal employee, and, if not, operates under a contract with the government spelling out responsibilities and liabilities — and Elon Musk and his stooges (who basically answer only to Musk) access to critical government data.
Even if all they can do is read it.
mostly incoherently, but still…
[Gaza’s] been very unlucky. It’s been an unlucky place for a long time.
Being in [Gaza] just has not been good and [they] should not go through a process of rebuilding and occupation by the same people that have really stood there and fought for it and lived there and died there and lived a miserable existence there.
The only reason the Palestinians want to go back to Gaza is they have no alternative.
© 2025 Mark A. Olbert, except where noted. All rights reserved.
For many reasons, I will never forget Mr. Muchio, who taught me algebra in the 7th grade.
One of the biggest challenges in learning algebra isn’t the math itself. It’s learning how to parse descriptions into mathematical equations you can then use the rules of algebra to solve. It’s a process of abstraction, figuring out what are the essential details and what is “merely” descriptive and/or reflective of a particular situation. This is commonly known as learning to solve word problems.
We quickly became masters of this…or thought we had.
As Mr. Muchio pointedly kept reminding us, what we were actually doing was leaving stuff out to overly simplify the problem. I still remember his admonition, decades later: “You’re using a silly rule: ‘when in doubt, leave it out’. But it means the problem you solve isn’t the one you were supposed to solve. Be careful about what you leave out!”
Once upon a time I was chief financial officer of a startup biotech company. One day my boss, the CEO, and I were traveling back to meet with investors to pitch them on why they really wanted to keep buying our stock.
During the flight I reviewed the financial models and presentation I’d spent days creating. Somewhere over the Midwest I suddenly realized several of the key summary values, which were central to my analysis, had gotten hard-coded. They didn’t reflect the revised assumptions I’d made.
This meant my beautiful and compelling pitch was completely wrong. In fact, we didn’t look like such a good investment after all.
Needless to say, I didn’t get much sleep that night. I had to revise everything.
Ever since, my Excel models are littered with “check figure” lines, that confirm totals are, in fact, reflective of the data they claim to summarize.
One of my earliest political memories was of Joe Namath, a very talented and famous quarterback in 1968, being asked who he thought should be our next President. I was 13 at the time.
I remember thinking “He’s a phenomenal quarterback. But why in the world would anyone think that’d make him an expert on national politics and the Presidential candidates?”
It takes a lot of time and effort — and focus — to become an expert in anything. Very few of us have the resources to do that in many different fields.
This spillover expertise effect really comes into play, at least in the United States, with business titans and governing.
Just because someone is successful in business, they don’t necessarily have a clue as to how to successfully lead a community in its pursuit of happiness and the greater good. Business, for all its challenges, is a much, much simpler environment to operate in than government. I know this from personal experience because I worked in each for 20 years, as a financial executive and as a local elected official.
In business, you succeed by focusing on making money while not breaking the rules. Or at least not breaking them too much.
In government, at least in a representative constitutional democracy, there is no single goal, and no marketplace in which to value tradeoffs from moment to moment. In fact, there’s often no market at all.
The Michelson–Morley experiment, which produced the data that overthrew Newtonian physics, was performed in 1887.
But it went unexplained until 1905, when Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity.
What were the world’s physicists doing during those 18 years? Ignoring the data and hoping it would go away? Playing pinochle?
No, they were trying to jam the empirical data into Newtonian physics. Because that just had to be true! It’d successfully explained everything (well, almost everything) for centuries!
Once you accept the box you’re in, it’s damn hard to break out of it. Or even realize you’re in a box.
Ever wonder why research reports in Science, Nature, or any other scientific journal are terribly boring and hard to read?
It’s because the authors are required to disclose, fully, materials and methods, how they did their analysis, etc. They have to establish provenance, and reproducibility…both of which are key to critical thinking.
They only get to discuss what their results (might) mean in the last few bits.