The Arbitrariness of Time: From Terrorism & War to the Economy and Global Cooling

At the end of each year and, especially, at the end of a decade, we are surrounded by news of the failure or success of the preceding year or decade. We even do it to ourselves. For some odd reason, we arbitrarily set New Year's resolutions insisting that this year we will stick to them. Unless of course we are the type of people who set goals and resolutions at other times of the year too. In this case, failure to succeed is okay. If we need to set a goal to begin with, the goal is not worth accomplishing because the effort expended exceeds its benefits, else we already would have done it.

Back to the arbitrariness of time... This decade was reported by many news outlets as a failure. In particular we have been overdosed with news on our failed economy, failed efforts against terrorism, failure in war, and failure in eliminating global warming. On the last one - global warming - most of my friends are begging for it to come back as it's friggin' freezing no matter where you live. Okay, they're not saying "bring back global warming" yet, but just give them some time for reality to set in.

The Decade Against Terrorism

One group that either purposely or accidentally met it's "goal" was the terrorists. Due to the attempted Christmas plane hijacking, it was heavily reported that our security efforts have failed in the last decade - starting from 9/11/01 and demonstrated by the 12/25/09 hijacking attempt at the very end of the decade. (Note the word "attempt" here.) The terrorists, in their mountain retreat over the last decade, have had time to meditate on their goals and, in fact, simplify and hone them to perfection. Goal #1 Stay alive - done. Goal #2 Escalate and/or maintain fear in the USA - done. Goal #3 Save money - done (Yemen is cheaper than hiking to those mountains for training).

Yes, the Christmas hijacking attempt shows that we here in the USA have again failed to communicate to each other properly in order to stave off death at the hands of terrorists. Yet the hijacking attempt failed. What's truly going on here and from whence came the communication failure? Is it systemic or just our society?

While the anxious father in Nigeria attempted to save the USA from his son, we took our usual time assessing (or even considering) his information - because kids will be kids. That's our society's philosophy. We gave up real control of our kids long ago - when we found out they had their own brains or, more commonly, we simply got frustrated enough to leave them alone. And hope that they would grow up. So, as a society, we do not take much stock in parents reporting on their own kids.

But we do have this thing about "missing" kids abroad. This same December, when some Washington DC parents went to the anti-terrorists (FBI, CIA, whatever) to report that their American children were planning on blowing up Pakistan, the information was quickly transferred to Pakistan and the wayward youths were indeed arrested (hopefully with bombs in hand). For the full and most accurate story, please watch or read NPR news. It gets downright nasty if you believe USA T-day saying that the parents reported their children as "missing" and we, as a nation, act swiftly to bring back our missing kids from abroad ever since someone disappeared during spring break on a foreign island a few years ago.

Pakistan wants to deport the missing terrorist kids back to the USA. Please don't. We understand, from movies of course, that your youth rehabilitation efforts are more successful than ours. And, if they are ever released from your custody, they would probably aggregate in Afghanistan, where the other hard-core terrorists are located. That's a game we can play in Afghanistan - a combination of Risk and Battleship - though we haven't been able to win in a decade. I just said we could play it, not necessarily win it.

I give this decade's effort against terrorism an A+. Surprised, aren't you? It's both that arbitrariness of time and actual facts. What if the December 25, 2009 hijacking attempt occurred January 25, 2010? There could not be a collected effort to report our decade of failure because it would not have been a decade of failure. If nothing else was going on, it would be reported as a decade of failure on January 25, 2010 but that is again demonstrating the arbitrary assignment of time as being a useful unit of measure. The fact is that acts of terror in the USA have gone down for the past decade, in spite of our attempts to fight terrorism with more bureaucracy and increase the number of terrorists by simply being ourselves - happy and fat with a good sense of superiority (oops, I meant self-worth).

The Decade's Wars

I truly don't want to write or even think about war because I grew up in the Vietnam era. Or, rather, I was sorely depressed because I could not participate in stopping those horrors. I was a little too young and could never find enough money to run away to California. (That was not a joke). Vietnam ended the year I graduated from high school and, as valedictorian, I gave a rousing speech on how all of us were responsible for everything wrong with the world. I don't think anyone was listening except my classmates, who thoroughly enjoyed poking fun at our high school administration. I had some fun too because I learned that I was not too shy to give a talk to 2000 people as long as I believed in my own words. Otherwise, I skipped school to avoid every speech required in every class for 4 years. That may be why I easily became valedictorian - I was never there to be graded - an enigma as it were. But I digress from our decade's wars.

Mmm... So have we failed in war over the last decade? Maybe yes, maybe no. We sure spent a lot of money on it. And a lot of our young people died as untrained and unarmored soldiers, especially in Iraq. Since Iraq did not participate in the terrorism against us and had already gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction and we knew both of these facts before invading, I don't think we can include the Iraq war in the "war on terrorism." Our invasion may have been an attempt to incite terrorism and, if so, it was a complete success. However, most fact-based evaluations of the lead-up to the Iraq war have shown that the purposes were more related to oil, wanting a war, money (both current spending and future earnings) and revenge. Evaluation of either the success or failure of the war in Iraq depends on what parameter or goal we use to measure the war. Each of us must use our own conscience to evaluate Iraq.

Afghanistan - fighting Al-Queda - was a success in about 90 days. We drove the terrorists from power over the country and into caves and mountains instead. Then we let Afghanistan go to pot or, more literally, opium for a few years. See - this truly international effort did have a clear goal that the entire world agreed to. Our only problem, as usual, was the follow-up. Yet we *do* know how to build countries back into somewhat successful ventures. It's clearer in the Iraq situation where we had complete plans, mostly from the State Department and experts they gathered, to control security from the get-go, avoid group rivalries, keep the infrastructure and economy going, and so forth. As I recall there were 9 giant volumes of specific actions to take once the military entered Iraq. But Rumsfeld and Cheney purposefully got rid of the preliminary group sent to Iraq for maintaining/building the country and successfully replaced that group with someone from the Defense Department who knew little of Iraq. Kind of like that FEMA guy leading during Katrina. I rest my case.

Our follow-up in not rebuilding Afghanistan is clear. We ignored Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which made the powers-that-be much happier. I mean, who even cares about Afghanistan? What was Afghanistan to anyone anywhere? Well, it turns out that Afghanistan is pretty important, especially as it destabilizes the heavily-nuclear Pakistan in which military leadership would love to push the button on India. I know it doesn't make sense, but it's the consequences of the consequences that count.

We failed in Afghanistan but are finally focusing on rebuilding the country and it's still an international effort. I give it a D-. It was not a complete failure just because we re-learned our lesson about stabilizing countries and are actually trying to do that in Afghanistan right now. Just beware that reports from the embedded journalists are, by necessity, biased by a kind of twisted Stockholm syndrome. Watch or read NPR and the international press instead. And think. We also had forgotten our ability to think this last decade though the world is trading thoughts in nanoseconds 24 hours a day. But we're afraid we'll lose our Facebook or Twitter friends by not agreeing en masse to popular opinions.

How does the arbitrary decade of time fit in? We simply have not been in Afghanistan a whole 10 years. Give us until October 7, 2011. Our plans include raising that D- up to at least a C.

The Decade's War on Global Warming

This is clearly a war against ourselves. Does that making any friggin' sense? Why don't we have a war on fire ants instead. They really hurt. But, in this insanely consequential world, eliminating ants would increase termites which would then eat our houses. So a war on fire ants would have to lead to a war on termites which would then decimate African animals who depend on termites for food. Then we will have a war against the chemicals used on the fire ants and termites, requiring poor countries to ban the use of these chemicals. The ant and termite populations in Africa would skyrocket without the animals who previously ate them, and we would again hurt poor people everywhere. Just read about the history of mosquitoes and DDT which, in our superior wisdom, has created massive malaria everywhere because we banned a chemical globally without preparing for the rather obvious consequences. In effect, we decided that it was better for people to die from malaria than to possibly live long enough to suffer some undefined health problems from DDT. (As a kid in Florida I rather enjoyed the small planes clouding our sky with a bit of DDT every few weeks. It was awfully hot in Florida so any relief from the sun was welcome. And, if I have any health-related effects from DDT today, they are overwhelmed by all the crap I've done to myself).

I have saved thousands of dollars in the last decade by purposely avoiding the recommended termite-control. Instead I let my ants continue their natural predatory behavior towards termites. I am happy to spend just a little on ant control because those buggers sure can hurt and they like to come inside when it's raining. My yard is blessed by ants and they move back in pretty quick. I try to only go after the obnoxious ones, leaving the remainder to eat any termites planning to invade. This approach has worked for 15 years now, even in an area advertised as the best place for a termite to raise its family. Try it yourself [add disclaimers - I won't and can't be held responsible for anything I write that you choose to act on.] There's one catch - the genius who invented termite control that *attracts* termites in order to kill them. How the heck can it be good to attract such a damaging pest except for the companies now selling "attract and kill" methods? It makes no friggin' sense to "attract" something that will eat your entire house if the "kill" part fails in any way. I can't wait for the headlines: "Attract-and-kill termite controls devastate housing across the nation, especially in areas where termites did not previously exist. House insurance up 20% while FEMA takes control and NSF funds more science grants to study the killer bee invasion expected 20 years ago."

I digress but I don't. Our "war on global warming" is already wreaking havoc in the form of consequences. Note that I did not use the common adjective "unforeseen" to soften the blow of "consequences." Sorry, but many consequences of our actions against global warming were and are foreseen - meaning that these consequences were predicted, hypothesized and even printed down on paper or available for free on the internet in advance of the war. I refuse to give any more examples of the consequences of our noble "war on global warming" because I have already provided references and people hate me enough for not towing the line on global warming.

So how has the decade been for our "war on global warming?" I think it deserves a solid C. We recognized a potential problem we were responsible for but we are being led by the nose and not thinking for ourselves - pretty average. Hopefully, we've learned that what we do and what we do not do both have consequences - good and bad - for others. But it does not appear that we understand the inevitability of consequences, not yet. If you look at this rather cold summer and winter here in the USA, maybe we could just claim victory over global warming and move on to something else. Or is it better to be stuck on one subject? Mmmm... Moving on to another war might even have worse consequences. Maybe I kind of like the subject of global warming after all. It's fun to poke sticks at with actual facts. It gives a specific goal, somewhat like a Christmas gift, to people who have everything. What other mission could be so perfect for Al Gore to lead?

I do hope we continue to drag our feet on global warming for the next arbitrarily chosen period of time given the age of the world and our itsy bitsy part of it. Without global unanimity amid the developed countries, we won't be able to impose our standards on the poor countries, thereby not increasing poverty and death and more people who hate us and become terrorists. Also, we'll have more data for scientists to play with - just for fun.

The Decade's Economy

Wow - this year the stock market (hereafter denoted by the symbol SPX which refers to the S&P500 index, completely ignoring the remainder of the world) went up 23%! Oh, joy to my assets! We all made money - hurrah - let's party!

Hey, wait a minute. I don't feel like I made money. I still feel that I'm losing ground and paying more for less. Oh, yeah, the SPX started at a 40% loss for 2008. So am I gaining or am I just losing less?

The SPX's fabulous 23% gain in 2009 is a premier case of picking an arbitrary date to evaluate performance. And the SPX provides us numbers to manipulate (er, demonstrate) our inane sense of time. While the SPX did increase 23% as of 12/31/09, the SPX would not be up 23% if we used other 12-month periods. Here are the SPX gains/losses for the last two years using every possible 12-month time period:

Month & 12-month % gain/loss
Dec 2009 = 23
Nov 2009 = 22
Oct 2009 = 7
Sep 2009 = -9
Aug 2009 = -20
Jul 2009 = -22
Jun 2009 = -28
May 2009 = -34
Apr 2009 = -37
Mar 2009 = -40
Feb 2009 = -45
Jan 2009 = -40
Dec 2008 = -38
Nov 2008 = -40
Oct 2008 = -38
Sep 2008 = -24
Aug 2008 = -13
Jul 2008 = -13
Jun 2008 = -15
May 2008 = -8
Apr 2008 = -7
Mar 2008 = -7
Feb 2008 = -5
Jan 2008 = -4

So if you bought stocks/etfs/mutual funds to mimic the SPX exactly at the closing on 12/31/08, then you gained 23% - only realized if you sold at the close on 12/31/09 because who knows what happens next. If you bought the last day of June 2008, perhaps thinking that the little pullback was a nice time to buy, and then gave up hope a year later in June 2009, you lost 22%. Of course the data above is somewhat confusing if you didn't buy and sell in exact 12-month increments because I arbitrarily chose to use 12-month periods to prove the silliness yet universality of believing that time is a fixed variable that means something.

Time means something only if you act on it (or, in most cases, react). The 12-month data does show the slow-but-steady-and-accelerating decrease in the value of stocks occurring while no one was apparently looking. In hindsight, it probably meant something was worth acting/reacting to or at least pondering about before the fall of 2008 (pun intended). What's worse than that? Your investment made a decade ago - on 12/31/1999 - also lost out. So for the decade, the market - the SPX - was down, supposedly proving what?

The true gains in the market occurred from mid-2002 to fall 2007. The SPX's high(s) in Sept/Oct 2007 were quite apparent - so much that I sold almost all my stocks/etfs/funds in these two months on the thesis that the market had gone too high too fast. And, somewhat remarkably & somewhat logically, I did identify & act exactly at the market peak in 2007. I also sold the remainder of my investments in late-summer 2008 even though I realized a pretty big loss on those. Looking back, I am so proud of selling Citigroup at $20, after having bought it at about $50, instead of waiting until it became a $1 stock. After that I became a "trader" instead of an "investor," which pretty much means I don't believe anything will last longer than a few hours to a few weeks given the current economy.

For the media stories at the end of the decade, the reporters just cared that the SPX today is much lower than the SPX a decade ago. This is reportable, yet not noteworthy, information. The inference - that our economy and even the global economy - is and was a failure is simply incorrect. During the middle of the decade, from 2002 to 2007, everyone prospered no matter what they did or did not do. Everyone's lives were changed. Employment was at a high, global trade was massive, violent crime was drastically down, etc etc. No one knew why this was happening or when it would end.

Everyone claimed success during the rise. Then everyone laid blame after the economy died. In fact, they made sure it was dead before attempting resuscitation, probably due to some golden parachutes involving donating organs. Frankly, I still just believe in my "it went too high too fast" theory. And I believe it also vividly demonstrates the arbitrary time frames we use as references. Who cares about the last "decade" or even "year"? What I care about is maybe 2005's economy compared to late 2007 and also compared to the end of 2009. That might give me insight I can apply in the future. But results from a superficial year or decade simply don't mean anything, anywhere, to anyone (except to determine bonuses for money managers).

I'll give the economy a grade of C for the decade. See - it came and went, average as always.

The Decade of Time

It's impossible to wrap this essay into some concise thesis statement other than to say that we do not understand time and its meaning. We often abuse time for our own benefit. In fact I did not "pick" the market peak in 2007 other than to say I was afraid of losing my friggin' money like I did back in 2000 or thereabouts. My justification was that the market had gone too high too fast but I honestly was willing to forego more profits if it kept going up while keeping what I had made so far. I was, frankly, just plain scared.

And things happen during arbitrarily chosen time frames. Without 9/11, the various wars, and global cooling, there would be no news for the decade. These things sometimes happen as consequences of what we do or do not do at some other period of time. Yet sometimes events are unrelatable though we try to make them so by mathematically modeling the currently unknown and unknowable variables.

I am glad the "decade" is done - at least for another 10 years. It had its highs and lows. It had stupidity and brilliance (haven't thought of an example yet). A lot of well-known people died, especially in the last year, not as a coincidence but as a result of actual time. Celebrities only became well-known through the stratospheric rise in communication from the 1960s onward (much in fact due to increasing communication opposing the Vietnam war). Then the celebrities got older and died, from a variety of causes, as would have been expected if we bothered worrying about celebrity deaths this decade too. I will put myself on record as saying I am for the war against dying celebrities. Most of them, anyways. Sometimes. No, I've changed my mind and will have to figure out the causes and consequences of dying celebrities given the fact that I've also gotten older but no one notices me.

Well, my brain dump is complete - exhausted of any timely thoughts. And I've gotten rid of my motivation for this essay. The media reports, especially on the "results of the decade," were driving me nuts. If you have read this far, you now understand my reluctance to believe in the concept of a decade (or any other set time) as being useful to anyone. It's just too arbitrary.

Happy Chaos!
-k