People who’ve got something to say: Paul Graham

Perhaps the best writers are those who can get you to care about something you would normally find boring. That’s what Paul Graham did for me with computers and programming. Not only does he write with experience about entrepreneurship as well or better than anyone I’ve ever read, but he makes the computer programmer, known as a “hacker” in his parlance, seem like a sort of magician with code, capable of solving any problem or inventing a Willy-Wonka-esque array of tools and toys for the public to enjoy.  Despite having almost no background in computers, Graham makes me want to be a hacker, as naïve as that might sound.  

Hacker?

What surprised me most about Graham’s conception of a programmer was his unwavering emphasis on creativity.  My stereotype of creativity revolves around artists, writers, painters, and musicians.  Paul Graham’s book, Hackers and Painters, likens computer programmers to painters.  He views talent for hackers in much the same way as he would an artist – one might judge either based on the ability to take a blank canvass and make something extraordinary that others can appreciate and enjoy.  If you can’t do that, you’re not much of a hacker or a painter. 

Graham’s skill as a writer fits with his vision of programmer.  He thinks good code is parsimonious and efficient, and that’s the way he writes as well. His book and his essays pack considerable information and analysis into terse prose, which makes it easy to learn a lot about starting a business and programming by reading his site.   

Hating What You Do

Hating your job is the antithesis of carpe diem.  Rather than embracing the precious few moments you have in life, you consciously decide to dedicate your one and only existence to working on that which you do not believe.  It’s perhaps the most dangerous and self-destroying habit you can have.  It’s even worse than drug addiction or alcoholism.  An addict at least tries to get the most out of life – it’s just that their method is usually wanting.  Those who hate their jobs know that what they want out of life and what they do every day are in direct contrast.  But they do it anyway.

It’s taking the most precious gift you will ever receive, pissing on it, lighting it on fire, and throwing it out the window. 

I’m not talking about menial labor or less-than-ideal employment.  Everyone would rather be a rock star than a janitor, but there is no shame in doing difficult or unpleasant tasks. I’ve had jobs ranging from Taco Bell to basic labor and janitorial work.  Someone’s gotta take out the trash – and sometimes that someone was me.  Dirty work never made me feel bad about myself.

But being a lawyer certainly did.

A few months ago, I quit my job as a lawyer.  I had hated it for years, but I kept doing it anyway, because the economy sucked, and I was being paid what was, by my standards, a good amount of money. I was a small cog in a large wheel, representing the largest companies on the planet in their attempts to avoid liability for whatever misdeeds or mistakes they may have made in the past. 

I don’t want to overstate how nefarious the law firm I worked for was.  My old law firm probably had more in common with General Electric than with the dastardly law firms you see in movies or TV.  Most of the crap we did was dull and stultifying, performed for the highest bidder.  But it was rarely evil -- just soul-destroyingly boring, and entirely unfulfilling.

But the entire time I was there, I wasn’t doing anyone favors but myself. And by the time I left, even that wasn’t true.

Uncertainty, Imperfection, and Blogging

Well, how did I get here?

Once upon a time, my defining characteristic was my confidence.  I believed, perhaps irrationally so, that I was an extraordinary talent who was destined for great things. Now, I am 34 years old.  My life is excellent -- I don't lack anything that I need. But my life is also mundane.  I live in a modest house, drive a modest car, and rarely do anything that could be considered extraordinary.  Until recently, I practiced law and held a boring job.

But, despite having all the time one could ask for, it would appear that I'm not doing great things -- or even, for that matter, things of middling interest to others.  This is mildly disconcerting.  If I have all the time I want now, and I'm not doing anything interesting, then it doesn't look likely to happen ever. 

This makes me want to blog more.  I don't necessarily aspire to great things any longer. That adolescent hubris is well dead and buried. But I aspire to be active, involved, and engaged.  I think writing and publishing often -- even if it's in a self-indulgent, scarcely read blog, might help to accomplish that goal.

And that's all I have to say about that. For now.

What makes Bill Simmons Bill Simmons?

Bill Simmons owns ESPN.com. Each of his columns generates somewhere in the neighborhood of one and a half million page views. In 2007, he was ranked as the 12th-most influential person in sports. Since that time, he's published a #1 NYT best seller, produced ESPN's award-winning 30 for 30 series, and launched his own satellite web site, Grantland.com, off ESPN.com's main site. His influence has not shrunk since 2007.

I ask myself what's the big deal with Simmons. He's not exceptionally intelligent, by traditional metrics. He overvalues his own experience horribly. He has such a Boston-based bias that he's frequently intolerable, but his bias toward his own experience extends much farther. For example, he recently argued that Anderson Varejao, who is averaging 10 points, 11 rebounds, and fewer than 1 block per game, should be an all star in 2012. Why, despite mediocre statistics, should Varejao be an all star?

"Varejao was never getting Carmelo's starting spot, but he deserves it. And if you don't believe me, you didn't watch the Cavs beat the Clippers without Kyrie Irving on Wednesday night."

This article was published February 10th. Presumably, Mr. Simmons wrote the article on the 8th or the 9th. And on the 7th he watched Varejao play an excellent game while he watched the Cavs beat his new adopted team, the Los Angeles Clippers. Therefore, Varejao should be an all star.

Q.E.D.

Inane, irrational comments like these are common in Bill Simmons's writing. So why is he so popular?

I think the answer is "readable relevant content in volume." And by that, I mean, his writing, his style, and his voice, are eminently engaging and readable. And then there's so much of it. And he gets it out right away. Nobody provides more relevant contemporaneous commentary, on any subject, than Bill Simmons. He chucks out engaging 3000-word columns on hours-old topics with greater frequency and aplomb than anyone. Whether it's Michael Jackson or the lockout or the Super Bowl or the NBA draft, he writes thousands of words and he gets it out there before the traditional columnists write and publish 300.

Bill Simmons produces lot of good content fast. That's it.

100% wrong, 100% of the time

Felix Salmon tweeted a quote from this article today, which included this doozy of a quote:

"100% of the time it is better to rent, rather than own"

Like Felix, I was a skeptic on housing for a long time. I whined non-stop about housing prices between 2005 and 2009. Unlike Felix (I'm assuming), I purchased a house last year. I did it because, over a long enough period of time, I believe it's always better to buy than to rent. The question is how long it will take you to break even on your investment. If you buy during the worst of bubbles, it might take you 150 years to make the purchase worth your while. If you buy when rents are high and house values are low, or when house prices are going up, you can make your money back very quickly. Most of the time, the question is more complicated, and whether it is better to buy or rent depends on supply-demand questions that are very specific to each location, inflation rates, and the opportunity costs associated with alternative investment opportunities.

There are plenty of calculators that allow you to play with the variables, but, over time, paper money will lose value, rents will increase, and a house that is well maintained and in a decent location will be an excellent store of wealth, relative to other investment opportunities for most people.

Words with no content

I'm going to try to start writing again. This is a goal I have had a few times over the past couple of years. The only difference is that now I'm likely to have the time to write to do it, not just now but in the coming months.

I've been disappointed with myself lately about not doing more. I want to write and play music and produce something professionally. But the reality is that I haven't been doing much of anything lately. For the first time in a long time, I feel as if I don't have much to say. But I think that such a conclusion is overly simplistic. We all have stuff to say, and our ability to communicate our ideas in a compelling way is likely commensurate with the amount of time we spend practicing our craft. Sadly, as I haven't been practicing much lately, I doubt I'm very good.

Debt Ceiling, Poopship Destroyer

National politicians, such as Senators and Congresspeople, are some of the busiest people you'll ever meet, but, near as I can tell, they don't do much. Their deputies shoehorn more fundraisers, meetings and events into their calendars daily than I could tolerate over the course of a year. It's not that onerous mentally, though, as they aren't required to do much at these events. They speak a lot and greet people all of the time, but the speeches aren't new and few of the people must be remembered. They just have to be there, smiling and present. Their presence is important, because they are important. QED.

When Senators and Congresspeople do act, we quickly discover why we prefer that they avoid action at all costs. Of all these avoidable acts, few could have been avoided as easily as the poop-ship that is the debt ceiling. The USS Debt Ceiling is truly foul: a dinghy that sails only in the stinkiest water. It festers. It sails laboriously, if at all. Ultimately, the only thing the boat could ever accomplish is preventing other ships from going where they need to go. But there it is, sailing around our national bathtub, threatening everything in sight.

Only two developed countries have chosen to a erect a "debt ceiling," an internally imposed limit on the amount of borrowing that the country can do at any given time. The US and Denmark are the only ones. This is not common. Usually, lender-borrower practices, private or public, are governed by the interest rate at which a lender is willing to lend and the rates at which a borrower is willing to borrow. Sometimes, lenders will arbitrarily set limits on the amounts borrowed, as is the case with credit-card limits. But a borrower who sets an arbitrary limit. his own spending is less common.

The reason is simple: well, why would you? If someone's willing to subsidize your standard of living by giving you a low-interest loan and you need the money, you should take it. Or least you should give yourself the option. There's no reason to force yourself into thievery or prostitution if it's not absolutely necessary, right? Wrong.

We need to get spending under control, as the argument goes, and for that reason, we have imposed a debt ceiling. Not that anyone cares about the number that the US has as its current debt ceiling, or the next number that will come after this debt ceiling -- they don't. The real issue is that the United States spends nearly twice the amount it brings in each year through tax revenue. That's a big effing problem. And solving the problem would require the United States to eliminate something that cannot be eliminated, politically or practically, such as the armed forces. Or the department of education. Or social security. Or increase revenue by raising taxes. None of the these things will happen.

The real issues will not be confronted by people whose primary incentive is to get re-elected. You don't get re-elected by raising taxes or eliminating the army or the department of education. And it is unclear whether sailing around a poop-ship such as the USS Debt Ceiling will get you elected, either. But there are some who would like to believe that it gives off the impression that we are confronting the issues. We are not. We are sailing around a poop-ship around a filth-ridden bathtub. We'd be better off playing with a rubber ducky.

Our debt problem will get resolved eventually. By some combination of default or severe devaluation, and only when the alternatives are worse. Until such time, expect more poop-ships and similar vessels. They're the only boat Congress knows how to build.