our new look...

It had to happen sometime. Once the brackets {...} disappeared from the old template, it was only a matter of time...

I've tried to retain the "spirit" of the old layout, as much as that could be done, by selecting appropriate text colors.

While the old layout was unique, this one is probably a lot more readable.

I hope you think so.

the pursuit of happiness

Well, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes were given their chances, but the honor of being the first to publish a letter to the editor, from me, fell to Catholic New York, January 18, 2007. I have made the big time at last.

Since letters aren't available in the online edition, I'll humbly post it here. I think the context should be clear from the letter. They did edit it (thank God), although there is one sentence which is pretty tangled up. I think that's their doing, though it certainly could be mine. The title is theirs.

Another Quest
To The Editor:

In the January 4 issue of CNY, Mary DeTurris writes: "In some ways, even our Declaration of Independence prods us to keep up the quest [to want more]. The 'pursuit of happiness' is our birthright for goodness' sake. It's almost like it's required, and what is the pursuit of happiness if not the quest for more - of everything."

Perhaps Mrs. DeTurris' personal definition of "the pursuit of happiness" is "the quest for more - of everything." However, I think if Ms. DeTurris were to attempt to understand the minds of the men who wrote those lines, and what motivated them to do [so] "for goodness' sake," she might realize that not only is the "pursuit of happiness" the normal condition for any living thing, but that freedom from tyranny and oppression - which was very much on the minds of the courageous authors of the Declaration of Independence - is the very mission of Jesus Christ and the Church.

It appears that Ms. DeTurris' issue is with the attempt to purchase happiness, which is quite a different matter. In case Ms. DeTurris counters that all she would advocate is the "pursuit of contentment," as is implied in her piece, I submit that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.

Signed,

Manhattan

Well, then. If you think I was a little hard on Ms./Mrs. DeTurris, God bless her, you know why I'm thankful that they edited the letter. When a friend left a voicemail for me saying, "I saw your letter in Catholic New York," I thought about crawling under my desk for fear of who else might see it...because, as I remember it, the day I wrote the rebuttal was a cold, drizzly and winterish one and I was not really being a good sport.

Ms./Mrs. DeTurris' original OpEd really rubbed me the wrong way, and, since she mentioned her children's insatiable desire for "more" in that piece, I mentioned it in my rebuttal, which was surely too personal (for me if not for her). I'll even take the grammatical oversights in exchange for the grace of being made to look more charitable than I was.

Thanks, CNY, and here's to the big time!

A NYSE for the New Millenium (about 10 years too late)

Bidding war for ARCA. Seats jump almost a million dollars each.

The price of a NYSE membership is now theoretically tied to the value of ARCA shares -- as long there's a deal in the works. Any "bidding war" for ARCA is also giving membership a nice, rising market into which to dispose of the odd seat, to put the luster back on one's balance sheet, to borrow against (for that hot-dog stand or car wash, perhaps), or to mercilessly squish any free-market types who may have caught sight of a little smoke (if not mirrors) and gone short. Marvel ye that the shares of ARCA are hard to borrow?

You must tip your hat to Mr. Thain for carrying the water for the members so well, and for attending as he did to such pedestrian details as limiting stock sellers to those on the wedding list. And while I know nothing of the fine print, I have heard that GS stands to gain a hundred mil or so in fees, as well, on the deal, should it happen. Mr.Thain was apparently carrying a cupful for them, too, but I don't know that anyone feels like tipping his hat about that.

A "business success story," indeed; in that old Wall Street tradition, perhaps. It reminds me of a huge, elaborate configuration of dominoes. It’s every twist and turn is conceived in advance. The dominoes whiz by and dazzle viewers with their tricks, creating an air of suspense. That suspense is tempered by the knowledge that the outcome, barring something no one has reason to expect, is always foreseen and rarely in question. Take note, you neo-quants: this is what the term "financial engineering" really means.

I hope, for sentimental reasons, that they keep the exchange located where it is and not turn that building into high-priced condos (or a holocaust museum). But does it really make sense to? If it’s all just ones and zeroes anymore, maybe it makes sense to off the plant at a thousand or so a square foot and set up a roomful of servers in India, where everything is cheaper. The business can be administered from the Hamptons, or Greenwich, or Palm Beach; and America will have become the boardroom of the world, far removed from the productive assets it oversees. Deep in my visceral parts this thought makes me uncomfortable.

I hope also they treat the valuable the NYSE franchise with dignity and not squander the centuries of equity built into that name. It has to be the most valuable brand in the world, a little tarnish notwithstanding.

Don't Take Your Hand Away

A short video that puts the last days of Theresa Marie Schiavo's life and the events surrounding it in a different perspective. Great music.

rebutting Kofi

This was written in response to Mr. Annan's OpEd piece featured in the WSJ recently. I was unable to submit it in a timely fashion, so I post it here.

Our Mission Is?

Kofi Annan calls the UN's mission "vital," ("Our Mission Remains Vital," Kofi Annan, WSJ Opinion page, February 22, 2005). With a religious fervor that is not an uncommon voice for Secretaries General to assume, he struggles to justify the existence of the UN and his place in it. That he might see that place as his personal messianic calling is not surprising. A lofty view of one's indispensability would be expected from someone at the helm of an organization that has styled itself as the world's savior. But lacking a claim to apostolic succession, Mr. Annan, like any mortal would-be messiah, is in need of a reality check.

By crying for recognition -- his and the UN's -- as a vital force in the world order, Mr. Annan seems bent on fighting the trend toward decentralized government. This inexorable march toward realization of certain inalienable rights that have been self-evident to some for centuries is necessarily a march away from the co-dependency that Mr. Annan's merry band of self-proclaimed do-gooders seem to thrive on. Here it might be instructive to ponder that old saw that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Does the world really "need" the United Nations, as Mr. Annan wails? A foundling nation in the wilderness that awed the watching world (before it started getting so jealous), a nation that the Statue of Liberty calls "home," overcame incalculable odds to break free of its possessive mother-land. By what power did this prodigy rise? The power of the United Nations? Why, that august body wasn't even a twinkle in her eye back then. Rather, the power of people set free to make it so, made it so. A bit fresher in the public memory is the first democratic election ever held in Iraq, a nation suffering under the heel of a brutal dictator just a few months before. Were the people of Iraqi set free by Mr. Annan's UN, or in spite of it?

Mr. Annan is perhaps a bit too close to the action to see that the United Nations exists because the United States gives it sustenance and credibility. President Bush nurtured the image of the UN when it had egg all over its face prior to the war in Iraq. More recently, the President has allowed both Mr. Annan and another disgraced leader, Bill Clinton, to redeem their images by delegating to them, under the wise and watchful eye of Bush the Elder, some high profile administrative functions in the tsunami cleanup project. That either man, individually or in concert with the other, could have organized any effective assistance whatsoever is a matter of speculation. Evidence indicates that resources put at the disposal of either man are resources misused, if offices of influence and power are resources. President Bush, a man who understands repentance and seems to be willing to take others at their words, has magnanimously offered Mr. Annan a chance to reestablish himself as useful before a world that isn't quite as credulous as some might wish it to be. He saved face for Kofi Annan by offering him a seed of credibility after the man completely squandered his own.

It will be noted that the vast funds that have poured in to aid the tsunami victims were purely charitable: they came from people moved by compassion at the sight of the horrible plight of their fellow man. There was no organization required to raise this capital; it was the product of individual volition: self government, in other words. Self government is an ideal that has not found expression in the founding documents of any nation anywhere save the United States. Liberty, having been incubated and raised here (not at the UN), is our unique gift to the world. But as this charitable outpouring testifies, self government calls in the hearts of people everywhere. It is time for them to be set free to realize it.

Mr. Annan might be well advised to check the marketplace to see if it supports the presumption of usefulness that he relies upon to justify keeping the UN on life support. He may be too entranced by the visions of foregone Secretaries General to understand that if the organization is to be of any benefit at all to the nations, it will be as a tool in the hands of nations that are bullish on liberty. Such nations will spread liberty and promote the sovereignty of nations that stand for liberty. Such nations will be strong enough to support and defend themselves and liberty itself. They will earn prosperity by wise stewardship of their resources, developed and traded freely under the rule of just laws. Peace, if it will come at all, will come through strength, not through blind adherence to UN sponsored pacifism and forever suckling at its withered teat. In such a world, one wonders what purpose there would be at all for anything like the UN. And so the UN, if it is to be true to its alleged mission, must seek its own self destruction as evidence of its success. This notion is, I'll wager, repulsive to Mr. Annan.

Apart from the tremendous productive and human capital of free people, the UN can do nothing but shuffle paper and make a pretense of mattering. And being unproductive by nature, the United Nations, left to itself, is at best a self-aggrandizing impediment to the burgeoning revolution of liberty which is the great privilege and responsibility of our age to nurture. At worst, deriving its value only from a world woefully out of order, it is a menace to this movement; a tacit agent of the established order of oppression. Vying like a jealous, less-talented sibling for attention at the school play, Mr. Annan and his UN threaten to ruin the whole production.

good will

Is Christmas too "commercial?" The parking lots were full today. Today, and in prior days, busy people took time out from their busy schedules, and, using money they usually work pretty hard for (or will in the future), they thought of people besides themselves.

They studied things and shopped and dealt with crowds and fatigue and spent more than they know they should have, seeking just the right gifts; frivolous with time and money.

And frivolous with Good Will, if there can be such a thing. But I think there can be no such thing as frivolity with Good Will toward Men, which is, after all, the Christmas Spirit.

So, if the retail trade gets carried away, and even if it misses the beauty completely, The Invisible Hand is at work; people motivated by thoughts of Good Will toward others are spending dear wages, granting gainful, maybe even rewarding employment, providing for the needs and comforts of life, and the means for a better future, experiencing joy, some even a riot of joy, in the simple act of giving. The giver will not lose his reward.

And so spreading Good Will becomes the Project this industrious people sets itself to in this season, and they carry it off with excellence and gusto, as usual.

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests." Luke 2:14

And yes, His favor has rested on us, has it not? May it always be so. And may we always set ourselves to the spreading of Good Will.

Perhaps the real driver of our prosperity isn't our wits as much as it is our embracing of the Spirit of Good Will to Men.

* reposted from 2002.

Draft:

crude imperialism

With its apparent hedgemony over supplies of the life-blood of industrial civilization, namely crude oil, OPEC has enjoyed the sort of favor accorded to villains from the Grinch to Satan. The "breaking of the OPEC stronghold" was seen as the answer to, or at least an answer to, the spasms that occasionally afflict world oil markets.

As was hoped, OPEC domination is about to be subsumed, and the lasting lesson might just be, "be careful what you wish for." For, as onerous as the temperament of OPEC proved to be, they understood their market and, overall, seemed to understand that a supplier needs customers who can and will pay at least as much as its customers need a supplier who is willing to sell. OPEC, in addition, could not be suspected of ever wishing for the downfall of its biggest customer; to do so would be madness.

In contrast to OPEC, the new contender for the title of dominant oil supplier is a ruthless competitor, not just a merchant who enjoys a catbird seat. Indeed, Russia, the next big thing in oil, is both loath to prove itself to be a fair player in the arena of capitalism in general, and has indeed wished and plotted for the downfall of what has always been not only one of its biggest customers, but also of its biggest benefactors.

OPEC, next to Russia, looks to be a whimsical and egotistical, but ultimately benevolent rich uncle. Russia, next to OPEC, has the menacing look of a stubborn, jackbooted power-junkie nursing a grudge.

"W" is for winner.

who's making up your mind?

If you haven't actually spoken to a soldier yourself, why don't you listen to this:

""Look--this gallery was put together so that my friends and family could see what I was seeing and doing in Iraq. It was never meant to turn into a political forum. I have been in Iraq for a year now and have seen so many different things and have learned an incredible amount. What we (soldiers) are doing for the people of this country is so amazing and I am so proud to have done my part. This is an experience that I will never forget and will hold in my heart forever all the smiles and hugs and laughter I have seen, felt, and heard. Please respect what I have done and what all my fellow soldiers have done for these people--keep your shitty comments to yourself. You haven't been here so you don't know how it is. Enjoy the pics and thank you to all those who have supported us in our endevours. Air Assault!"

Remember, it's your mind. You're the one who's supposed to make it up.

who’s your daddy?

'nuff said.

timing is everything.

Yes, it is. And coincidences don't happen very often, do they? So how is one to read the defacto nationalization of Russia's Yukos Oil? Being one of the largest producers in the world's second largest exporting nation, one would have to be unconscious to fail to grasp the buying panic this move would cause in the oil markets. And really unconscious to not see that such a trick would hit market economies below the belt -- one in particular, just before an election.

I don't like what this suggests about Putin's preference for President of the United States. I wish it were all a coincidence. But it seems like there are a few nations whose leaders would prefer a United States that isn't quite so strong.

Well, tough luck, boys.

who’s burning now, baby?

Recently, recordings of conversations among Enron energy traders were released to the media. These snippets painted pictures of arrogant and ruthless kids who weren’t afraid to disrupt the operation of an electrical generation plant in order to achieve the thrill of making a few more bucks. “Burn, baby, burn” chanted one, upon hearing the news that a forest fire would positively impact his long megawatt position. One can’t help but surmise that perhaps someone neglected to spank these kids when they tortured cats and charged their friends to see it, a few short years before.

There is a more enduring message in this spectacle, however, than the sickening thought of what happens when frat-boy mentality is coupled with too much power.

Consider the fact that it is a spectacle at all.

It is a spectacle because most of us find it revolting; it is a spectacle precisely because it is freakish in nature – it is an abberation of business, not business as usual.

To those who would call the Enron spectacle an example of “market failure,” I would point out rather that the whole debacle is a resounding market success, as witnessed by the fact that Enron is no longer around to bully the megawatt market. It is rapidly passing into history as less than a footnote, leaving a legacy of lessons learned with the absolute conviction that only comes from having paid such great price for them. We now pronounce the name “Enron” in a similar tone as we do “Benedict Arnold.”

Traders know that betting against fraud is a sure winner and Enron certainly did not disappoint. One of the beauties of free markets is that its participants ensure -- collectively, through the individual application of good sense by those with a stake in the game, a self-correcting action which, if allowed to work, reduces the damage done by rogue entities. As a result, Enrons always wind up crashing and burning.

good will

reprinted from last year.

Is Christmas too "commercial?" The parking lots were full today. Today, and in prior days, busy people took time out from their busy schedules, and, using money they usually work pretty hard for (or will in the future), they thought of people besides themselves.

They studied things and shopped and dealt with crowds and fatigue and spent more than they know they should have, seeking just the right gifts; frivolous with time and money.

And frivolous with Good Will, if there can be such a thing. But I think there can be no such thing as frivolity with Good Will toward Men, which is, after all, the Christmas Spirit.

So, if the retail trade gets carried away, and even if it misses the beauty completely, The Invisible Hand is at work; people motivated by thoughts of Good will toward others are spending dear wages, granting gainful, maybe even rewarding employment, providing for the needs and comforts of life, and the means for a better future, experiencing joy, some even a riot of joy, in the simple act of giving. The giver will not lose his reward.

And so spreading Good Will becomes the Project this industrious people sets itself to in this season, and they carry it off with excellence and gusto, as usual.

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests." Luke 2:14

And yes, His favor has on us rested. May it always be so. And may we always set ourselves to the spreading of Good Will. Perhaps the real driver of proseperity isn't our wits as much as it is our embracing of the Spirit of Good Will to Men.

United in America

There is more, much more, that unites us as Americans than there is that divides us. Political hostilities pale in comparison to the magnificence of our land, our legacy, our destiny.

We have much, indeed to be thankful for, much to fight for, much to work for, much to look forward to.

Immigrants arriving at Ellis Island raised their right hands and swore to defend their new homeland against all enemies, internal and external.

Is this why (legal) immigrants often make the most robust and thankful Americans? Because they are willing to take that oath, they are made of the right stuff.

Would it be such a bad idea for all citizens to affirm that oath every so often?

Chief Justice Roy Moore

It's hard to give an exhaustive opinion of the Moore case, since none of us knows all the facts and there are some bona fide rules of conduct that apply to judges. Nonetheless, there is the noble tradition of Civil Disobedience to be considered. Sometimes the Powers that Be just Be Wrong.

Moore's remarks have been that his sworn duty, as a judge, is to acknowledge God -- this was his oath of office -- and that refusing to do so is a dereliction of duty. Therefore he was put in a no-win situation.

In the big picture, it is truly abominable that he would be administratively penalized for displaying a symbol of the Ten Commandments upon which Western jurisprudence is ultimately based. No, the average American TV addict probably doesn't know this. There are similar symbols in court rooms across the country, including in DC -- at the United States Supreme Court, for example.

There is a transcript of the hearing in which Judge Moore is asked if he will "continue to acknowledge God," and of course he answers "Yes," and goes on to say that he has no regrets about doing so. It is then that the board admonishes him for being 'unrepentant' or something like that and orders him removed. Pretty chilling stuff.

By these remarks, it seems that the case has nothing do with ethics or qualifications, but about acknowledging or failing to acknowledge God publicly and/or in the line of duty.

Ironically, there is the concurrent case of the display of the Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, in a pedestaled glass case in the NYPD headquarters. I think this is the same city where Muslim fundamentalists attacked and killed 3000-plus people just two years ago.

Is it me, or is there a disconnect, a hypocrisy evident here? Wherever you stand on this issue, whether you're an atheist or a Muslim or a Born Again Christian, if your brain is in 'run' mode then you must see the double standard.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that you're in Wierdsville when they won't let you display the Ten Commandments in the very same room where they hand you a Bible upon which to place your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth.

"market timing" and other non-issues

This is just a hunch, but I see the recent flood of righteous indignation against mutual fund managers who engage in 'market timing' as yet another manifestation of 'open season on deep pockets.'

As I understand it, the argument against 'market timing' is that it runs up fund expenses that all fund shareholders pay, for an activity that is engaged in by relatively few. We are reminded that the activity is 'illegal,' but I am not too certain it is immoral. Not yet, anyway.

Professionals in the securities industry often trade in a fashion that is completely unsuitable for non professionals, and they often do so at a fraction of the expense that non professionals would pay. To imply, in this case, that professionals are somehow breaching their fiduciary responsibility to the public at large strikes me as a typical misconstruction of the role of a fiduciary.

If a used car dealer engages in wholesale automobile trading at the auction, should it be illegal for him just because the public at large doesn't have convenient access to the same mechanisms of trade? I think not. If his activity can be shown to somehow cause real damage to the automobile buyer at large, then a case might be made. On the other hand, his participation in the wholesale market helps to support it which, in turn, supports a vibrant retail market.

There is some anecdotal evidence that this 'issue' will be blustered up and forgotten: Eliot Spitzer has, along with a selected academic or so, weighed it for potential political fodder. That's a pretty sure indicator that it's much to-do about nothing.

sector logic

There are all sorts of 'sector funds,' and approaches to 'sector investing.' The latest craze is 'socially responsible' company grouping.

I propose creating a sector of companies that produce excellent products and/or services and treat their customers like customers should be treated -- with genuine dignity, and that don't misrepresent themselves to their customers or to the public at large. We might call it the 'honest companies producing real value' sector.

It should be a sector that disqualifies companies whose stock in trade is something that degrades the dignity of human life, or profit from stimulating and then feeding the base motives. That rules out the cable providers who traffic in pornography, for example. This isn't just a 'morality play,' though that can be a very sound investment guide. It's common sense. Just look at the chart of T after they announced thier deal with porn cable provider Telecommunications Inc., back in 2000. It looks like the cross section of a ski resort -- all downhill.


Of course it will be a very small sector, and some immediate disqualifications come to mind. From recent experience I can disqualify Verizon; in fact, most of the cellular providers are patently unqualified for the sector of honest companies. These companies have employees that have lied to me as a customer. I can't help but suspect that employees who regularly lie to customers are probably lying to other parties as well. Auditors and shareholders, perhaps. But that's just a hunch.

I have identified a natural law that says that hype is inversely proportional to value. The more hype, the less real value. This is common sense. Remember common sense? Treat your customers like they matter, not like they are disposable. If you treat customers like they are disposable, you eventually run out of customers. And if you run out of customers, what sort of business have you got?

Companies that profit from bad business, from the base and unproductive motives of people, are simply making bad bets. They may flower for a season, but seasons always change.

Good business, productive, sound, and life affirming business, if you think about, is a good bet because it supports growth in the macro sense and it has going for it another natural law: good business does not go out of style.

first, do no harm

Suppose there is a person who is mentally unfit to care for himself. Further suppose that person is unable, physically, to feed himself. Is there a responsibility on the part of others, say, family members, to feed and care for that person?

Or should that person be placed on a bed and denied food until he dies?

If you, a perfectly healthy and vibrant human being, were denied food for a long enough period, you too would die. The only difference between you and Terry Schiavo is that you can feed yourself.

A baby is a little person who is totally beholden to another human being to care for it. That's a no-brainer. Is Terry Schiavo any less worthy of care?

Terry Schiavo has proven, for something like 13 years, that if she is fed, she will go on living. How then does she differ from you and me? Feed us, we live. Starve us, we die.

Is the answer that Terry can't live a productive life, as determined by consensus? If so, is the only life worth living one that others say is a "productive" one? Do you want others deciding if your life is worth living? Is anyone really fit to decide what life is worth living? If so, on what basis? On the basis of a persons ‘productivity’ or ‘usefulness?’ ‘Usefulness’ to whom? To the people who make law?

Entertain this. Suppose tomorrow morning you woke up and your husband or wife denied you food. Suppose further that this person engaged the entire legal and political system to prevent you from eating, and it became illegal to feed you. Let that sink in.

Finally, a bit about the legalities -- just a little common sense. The law on any 'right to death' question is very unclear and subjective, as it should be. No state worth being in existence has any stake in legalizing the killing of its citizens, least of all the weakest and most defenseless of them.

But the law on the 'right to life' is crystal clear. It is spelled out explicitly in our founding documents. Everyone is entitled to the right to life. Moreover, this right is not given by men or women, only recognized by them as being given by our Creator. It's not man's to give, and it is not man's to take away.

Of course the state, therefore, has a duty to protect life (as do its citizens), all life, and how much more the life of the weak and defenseless, who are in the precarious position of needing constant advocacy.

And that subject leads me to an interesting analogy. If you're not a lawyer, but you have a legal issue, the law entitles to the right to obtain representation. This representative is your stand-in, your advocate, doing for you what you cannot do for yourself. To deny someone legal representation in this land is unthinkable. The law is clear that your inability to represent yourself does not deny you legal representation.

Terry Schiavo, silent and bedridden, is unable to feed herself. Should she be denied food because of that inability?

A word about politics. People who think the Terry Schiavo story is about politics have completely and predictably missed the point. It's not about politics. It's about a human life. The life of the weakest and most defenseless among us.

While we're talking politics, I observe that conservatives generally weigh in as 'right-to-life.' The other side, not liberals, but the left, is, of course, adamantly in favor of pulling the feeding tube. It's all about Terry's right to die.

But what about Terry's right to live? Ironic, isn't it, that those on the left, ever vigilant to remind the rest of us of our responsibility to help the disadvantaged, don't see Terry Schiavo's helplessness as a disadvantage worth aiding. Indeed, for some, it's only about politics after all.

It blows my mind that grown-up, intelligent people, in positions of great power and influence, can go on record in favor of killing weak, innocent human beings.

Lunatic fringe, we hear you calling. But we're bigger than you.

death, taxes....and trading

In the aftermath of the manic 1990’s, when something called “The New Economy” was supposedly being forged, when billionaires were made -- and unmade about as fast; when, truth be told, the more things changed the more they stayed the same, at least one venture has survived the storm. Behold, a survivor of an economic revolution that really wasn't a revolution after all.

This survivor was not built from a cure for cancer or impotence, nor from a magical wireless gizmo, nor even from some newfangled alchemy that might someday turn water into gasoline. This venture is pretty much just an electronic flea market. It is called E-Bay.

E-Bay has created opportunity, employment, and wealth. Its stock performance has been stellar compared to that of the myriad others floated during its time. Thus far, E-Bay has been an astounding success; just being profitable makes it a dramatic counterpoint to the dubious dotcoms of its era. Unlike so many of its contemporaries, its business works.

They say that nothing is certain but death and taxes. But that second certainty exists because of and obscures a third -- the certainty that goods and services will be exchanged among those who have not yet succumbed to the first certainty. While we are alive, we will trade. And trade we must, if we are to obtain, produce and distribute the stuff of the business of life.

E-Bay’s success may offer many lessons, including the power of a simple idea executed well. That idea: a venue for people to exchange goods without prejudice at relatively low transaction cost. In other words, it’s a market. It's not entirely free or without regulation, but as near so as is reasonable. Such markets always work… for the living.

this is not investment advice and the author has no stake in ebay.

"darkness on the edge of town"

The power need not be off too long before political opportunists (and other looters) come crawling out of the outlets to seize the moment for personal gain -- hmm, now that's a theme...

But the real inspiration for this post is to point out a potential solution to the fallibility inherent in complex centralized systems (be they grids of electrical or political power): encourage decentralization, localized sovereignty, personal responsibility.

In this case, consider: A tax credit for the purchase of power cells. It would relieve the power grid, prevent mass blackouts, boost an industry, create jobs, encourage research and development of alternative power sources, and make the US less vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Seems like a good reason to give some of their income back to those who earn it.