Dear Forbes: Your Math Sucks

"There's no such thing as a free lunch."


Everyone has heard this bludgeoned-to-death economic axiom, regardless of whether or not they have ever stepped foot in an economics class. The reasoning is as follows: even if lunch is free for you, someone, somewhere, bore the cost of that delicious meal. There is no denying this; it is an a priori fact.

Our friends at Forbes have been hellbent on reminding everyone of this truism lately. It typically looks something like this:

     "Bernie Sanders fails again to understand that there is no free lunch."

     "Unnamed Democrat forgets economics 101: there's no free lunch."

     "Now, a quick economic lesson for our democrat friends: There's no free lunch."

It goes on like this forever. They sit atop their pseudo-intellectual tower, incessantly giving the public free economic lessons. Gee, that sure is swell, misters! 

But their free-lunch lessons are nonsensical.

In economics, deciding whether or not to do anything comes down to a simple question: does the marginal benefit outweigh (or equal) the marginal cost? If the additional benefit you receive from doing some activity x is greater than or equal to the additional cost of doing that activity, then you do it. Every time.

For you Econ nerds out there, here's the equation: If MB ≥ MC, then do it. Whatever "it" happens to be is irrelevant; your net benefit is greater than your net cost.

So, back to Forbes. What is missing from their ad hoc lessons? You guessed it -- the marginal benefit. They don't even mention it. That leaves us to wonder whether, a) Forbes writers and columnists do not realize they're forgetting this important little bit and are therefore just stupid; or b) they know it and they're intentionally leaving it out of their math in order to serve a political end. Are they charlatans or imbeciles?

I don't think they're stupid, which sucks for them because it would have been a lot more forgivable. 

According to this logic, no one would ever spend any money on anything, because without including a benefit, the cost is always too high -- zero is never more than MC. I am sure the folks over there are aware that this is not how the world works, and yet they insist on publishing this rubbish anyway.

Please, Forbes, pray tell, what in the hell are you doing?

Did Trump Just Take a Poison Pill?

In the midst of the junk-bond-fueled takeover craze of the 1980's, companies that were the targets of hostile takeovers discovered a clever way to fight back: the poison pill. The whole point was to make the target company "sick" -- or just unattractive to the buyer.

Donald Trump welcomed an endorsement from Sarah "Me Too!" Palin last week -- did he just swallow a poison pill?

Since Mr. Trump entered the political landscape in June as an unlikely candidate for president, Chris Flannery of the Mandatory Sampson Podcast has insisted that his campaign was a farce. I was inclined to agree. But then the unexpected happened -- Trump began dominating the stage. This seemed all the more unlikely considering his regular insistence on public statements that would make most political strategists tremble.

According to opensecrets, Trump has only raised $5.8 million for his campaign. This pales in comparison to the $30+ million raised by most candidates (without accounting for Super-PACs). Trump also lacks a Super-PAC, which takes away from his campaign's legitimacy but has likely helped his popularity.

So with everything going Donald's way, it seems unconscionable that he would welcome an endorsement from the most embarrassing political figure of the 21st century. Mrs. Palin derailed John McCain's bid for the presidency in 2008 with erratic behavior and astonishingly incoherent speeches. She is political kryptonite.

So is the Donald sabotaging his own campaign? Only time will tell. But those of us betting against Trump have been watching his steady ascendance in disbelief -- the equivalent to betting on Steven Avery's innocence after the second episode of Making a Murderer. 

I'm starting to think that Trump understands something we don't.

Are You Listening?

Ellen O'Leary, a staff writer at boston.com, wrote a piece in December 2014 about the increasing number of new cars that are hitting the showroom floor with wi-fi capabilities. The "Big 3" U.S. car manufacturers -- Ford, Chrysler and GM -- have 67 models, combined, that turn into mobile hot-spots.

Increased tragedy due to smartphone stupidity while driving notwithstanding, I think this trend has huge implications for something we hold very near and dear to our hearts: podcasts.

According to work done by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Americans (12 and older) that have listened to a podcast within the last month nearly doubled to 17% in 2015, from a paltry 8% in 2008. Let's break the numbers down: 8% of 300 million is 24 million people. 17% of 300 million is 51 million people. That's a big meatball.

One of the main drivers of this rapid growth is how easy it has become to plug your smartphone into your car. I haven't listened to the radio since 2013 and, in all honesty, I'm not sure why anyone would.

As cars become increasingly internet-ready and on-board entertainment suites begin incorporating podcast interfaces, I believe that traditional radio will be almost completely replaced. Why subject your ears to whatever is on the radio when you can play on-demand content of your choosing? It's a no-brainer.

One thing is for sure: if you're not currently listening to podcasts (and you're under the age of 60), you will be in the near-future.

With that in mind, we want to produce more shows. The BBP is great, and we love doing it. However, I believe there is a lot of room left to grow for shorter-length shows that have clearly defined purposes and audiences.

If I were a bettin' man, I might even throw $20 bucks on the chance of one of those new shows being available next weekend. But I gave up betting a long time ago.

Just kidding. Where's my wallet?

Making Bullying Great Again

When I was in elementary school, I rode the bus to and from those hallowed halls of education every day. On one particular trek back home after an arduous day of multiplication tables and bagged milk, I was caught staring at a cute, older girl by one of the "cool" kids. I immediately felt as if I had swallowed a house -- there was a solid ten minutes before my stop. I was no longer riding a bus, but instead found myself in the clutches of a childish thunder dome.

One of the kids found out my name was Daniel. "More like, Danielle!" The dig was met with uproarious laughter -- oh, the humanity. I think that was the day I officially decided that I would go by Dan forever.

I had, no doubt, broken a sacred rule for school-aged kids: older kids (especially of the opposite sex) are off limits. And in breaking that precious rule, I inadvertently opened myself up to some good, 'ole fashioned public humiliation. I can remember the moments on the bus like they were yesterday. I can even remember the Phoenix Suns hat (snap-backs before they were cool) I was wearing. Backwards? Of course.

But I do not have any memories of the aftermath. None. When I got home that fateful day, I met up with my neighborhood friends and spent the rest of the evening trying to figure out how to sell pizzas (made of play-dough, topped with nickles, dimes and pennies) to kids' parents. I didn't have a Facebook, Twitter, or any form of social media with which to bear my soul and recent trials. I was forced to get over it.

So what has changed? Why are 7-year-olds wearing bullying bracelets, that, with the touch of a button, stream a live audio feed of the unfolding events directly to their parents? More importantly, why are parents rushing to the aid of their special snowflake at the earliest sign of trouble?

I contend that bullying, measured both by number of incidents and their severity, is not on the rise. Organizations claim that it is, but I imagine there are lots of "bullying" incidents being reported that would have little claim to legitimacy if the public mood surrounding the subject wasn't so hellbent on justice for bullied children, no matter the cost.

So why all of the anti-bullying campaigns, Facebook groups, .org's, PTA meetings? For the love of all things, why the damn bracelets?

Because we have completely lost our perspective. And without the ability to put things into perspective, our capacity for handling adversity is in serious decline.

The permanence of the internet, and our plethora of channels to immediately access that permanency, is a powerful thing. And for young people, it's the gateway drug that can lead to the complete loss of one's sense of purpose and value. And young people are learning these habits from their parents -- constantly checking their feeds, updating here, quipping there.

This is the equivalent of drinking yourself into oblivion in front of your child, and then gracing them with a bottle of Maker's Mark for their 11th birthday. The only problem with this analogy is that when you are drunk and you do something reasonably stupid, people know you are drunk. They know that tomorrow, when sober, you will be back to your old self.

But the internet doesn't know that what you say when you're 12 probably has no bearing on who you actually are. To the internet, what you say is what you are. Kids no longer learn to forget about the silly little mistakes they make, because those mistakes follow them for a lot longer. And heaven forbid they go viral.

We are no longer free to make mistakes. Therefore, we are no longer privy to the treasure-trove of learning experiences that come from those mistakes.

Some perspective: there are probably a lot of parents out there concerned, right now, about bullying. Let's say there are 10 million moms and dads fretting, up all night, because O'Doyle (rules!) took Timmy's ball at recess.

Now, how many of those parents are going to vote for Donald Trump in 2016? Before you ask me what's wrong with "making America great again," ask yourself this: how many people did Mr. Trump bully the living shit out of to get to where he is today?

Now, off to find that lost perspective. On the internet. Oh, dear god. 

Why We Exist

Well, it's here. The website is done. I'm sure some of you thought I would never get around to it. I did, and it's glorious.

I thought about doing one of those Our first blog-type posts, but it's so cliche it makes me sick. Instead, I'm just going to get right to it.

In the spirit of competition, I've decided to highlight the work we're doing at The BrainBust by completely dismantling the efforts of one of our competitors -- Young Conservatives. I'm ashamed that I actually linked that text to their website. If you can get past the barrage of advertisements that fly at you from all angles, you'll find that the site is dedicated to bringing a conservative message to younger voters.

I first found this conservative "news" site when doing some research on the actual impacts of minimum wages on local economies. Michael Cantrell, a regular contributor to YoungCons with "8 years of professional experience," whatever that means, wrote a piece highlighting an OpEd in Forbes. The article went on to explain the ills facing Seattle as they audaciously began to hike their local minimum wage.

Tim Worstall was the author of the Forbes piece. He used a couple of outside sources to make his claim that businesses were already closing their doors in anticipation of the wage hike. He linked the sources, but didn't mention them explicitly in the article. Here's a quote he used:

"As the implementation date for Seattle’s strict $15 per hour minimum wage law approaches, the city is experiencing a rising trend in restaurant closures. The tough new law goes into effect April 1st. The closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.
The shut-downs have idled dozens of low-wage workers, the very people advocates say the wage law is supposed to help. Instead of delivering the promised “living wage” of $15 an hour, economic realities created by the new law have dropped the hourly wage for these workers to zero.
Advocates of a high minimum wage said businesses would simply pay the mandated wage out of profits, raising earnings for workers. Restaurants operate on thin margins, though, with average profits of 4% or less, and the business is highly competitive."

What he failed to mention was that this bit of "reporting" came from the American Enterprise Institute. What's that, you ask? Excellent question. It's a "think-tank," a non-profit organization. They have a board of trustees. Dick Cheney is one of them. His politics aside, do you trust an organization that is overseen, in part, by one of the most notorious politicians of the 21st century? I do not.

Michael Cantrell and I had a little spat on Twitter. He rested his argument on the loosely-supported Forbes OpEd. Fortunately, Barry Ritholz had some great things to say about the article. I asked Michael to come on the show and share his thoughts, perhaps have a little debate. No response.

This is why we -- the BrainBust -- exist. Because blowhards with "8 years of professional experience" can regurgitate another person's broken arguments and get 24,000 shares on Facebook.