Scott Adams's Blog, page 340

Car Buying

This weekend my wife and I went shopping to replace our beloved minivan. Negotiating car prices is a fascinating experience. I'm not good at negotiating because I've never taken acting classes. I find it hard to get into character. When the salesman asked me how much I wanted to spend on our chosen vehicle, I only had one response ready: "I'd like to spend zero, you boiled turd. Just give it to me. Or did I misunderstand the question?"

Okay, I didn't say that. But I did laugh at him in a mocking sort of way. Obviously the question is designed to determine how dumb the customer is. You pass the test by not taking out a copy of your bank statement and saying, "I can't read. Can you tell me how much money I have?" The sales guy bowed out of the negotiations and introduced us to the General Manager. The GM went into his ridiculous spiel about how he was willing to sell this vehicle for less than he paid because he wants the manufacturer to give him a higher quota of that model next month. Apparently his business plan involves having a greater inventory of cars that no one is willing to buy for more than his costs. The general manager looked me in the eye to see if I believed his absurd lie. My wife and I just glanced at each other with mock disappointment. The game was on.

It was time to get into character. I played the part of the husband who insists on doing endless research, thus providing the dealership with no hope of closing the sale today. I said, "I want to spend some time doing research and then I can give you an offer. Maybe I can get that done by tomorrow."

Sales people hate two things: Informed customers and postponement. This was the worst case scenario for the dealership, and my ploy was designed to make the general manager "negotiate with himself," as the saying goes. In other words, we wanted him to keep offering lower prices before we made our first offer. That brings down the ceiling price and prevents us from accidentally offering more than he would have asked for.

Then the general manager goes into his canned routine about some sort of dealer incentive or other ambiguous pot of money that he could reluctantly dip into, thus offering an even lower price. He said that if we accepted this offer his children would have to wear clothes made of plastic grocery bags or some damned thing. I wasn't paying attention to the details.

We acted unhappy and asked for his business card. "We'll do some research and get back to you," we said.

Later that evening, an hour before the dealership closed, Shelly sent a text to the general manager offering a glimmer of hope. Shelly took on the part of the "good cop." Her character wanted the car but she needed a way to convince her stubborn husband to stop researching. She told the general manager by text that she needed another $1,000 off the price he offered to make that happen. He offered half of that. We accepted.

Before we made our offer I did my research only to discover that there was no way to figure out a fair price for this particular vehicle. There are plenty of sites that seem to offer that sort of information, but not credibly, and usually not for this model. I assume the car-buying sites are in the pockets of the car dealers or have their own scams going. In the end, we were flying blind and probably got screwed on the price. But that leads me to my favorite part of the negotiating process. No, we weren't done yet. Once you have an agreed price, the dealer keeps negotiating, but more cleverly this time.

The next step in the negotiations - if you can call it that - involves a fill-in sales guy making a "mistake" that lists the price on our paperwork far higher than what we agreed. By the time you get to this stage of the process, you're worn out from looking at all of the numbers, and you're tempted to sign whatever they slide in front of you. But I've been through this process enough times to know that the first version is always the "mistake" paperwork. I asked to see what price he had on his forms before he went too far, showed it to my wife, and explained to her the "mistake" price ploy. The sales guy apologized for the "mistake" and corrected it.

The sales guy introduced us to the finance guy for the rest of the paperwork. This is the final phase of our negotiations. The finance guy goes into his transparently phony act of amazement that we convinced the general manager to give us such a good price. He acts as if the price is so low it might be a mistake, or some kind of once-every-hundred-years situation. This is total bullshit, of course, and every finance guy at every dealership says the same thing to every buyer. But it still feels good, which makes me feel dirty.

The finance guy goes into his sales pitch about how we need some sort of invisible coating of magic protection for the exterior of the car. Without that protection a midsized bird can shit right through the hood and halfway through the engine block. We also need some invisible chemicals to protect the interior of the car because otherwise we are just wasting our money. Oh, and we need a more comprehensive warranty to cover all of the many, many things that will be breaking on this car. Apparently we had negotiated a terrific price on a car that was highly vulnerable to the elements. I kept craning my neck to see if it had dissolved into the parking lot behind me. All of the invisible and magical products he offered totaled several thousand dollars.

I declined all offers, but the finance guy wasn't done. He poured water on a sample of floor upholstery that had allegedly been coated with magic protectant. The water beaded and rolled like a marble. It was cool. But I turned it down.

As I assess our performance in this process, I want to believe we got a good price and that we cleverly declined offers for useless add-ons. The reality is that we are amateurs and we were dealing with professionals. The rational part of me knows that somewhere there are customers getting better prices on this same vehicle, which causes me to hate both the car and the dealership. And thanks to the finance guy, I have to worry that my car has no magic protection. I've afraid to exhale in its general direction.

Today we will take the car back to the dealer to find out why it is leaking so badly. It might be water from the AC, but it's a non-stop stream. I just hope we don't run into the finance guy at the dealership. I don't want to hear how the magic protection would have stopped this leak.

Creativity and Memory

I have an astonishingly bad memory. On the plus side, I'm more creative than most civilians. I think the two are connected. That's my hypothesis for today.

I'm good at remembering concepts, systems, ideas, and generally how things flow and fit together. But I don't have a trace of photographic memory in which one can remember exact conversations, phone numbers, names, and other matters of objective fact. I also can't remember directions to a new place until I've been there a hundred times. It's inconvenient as hell.

In school, I could force myself to remember topics for tests, but it only lasted as long as the test. At home, we have a lot of conversations about what I might have heard or said at some specified time in the past and it almost never sounds vaguely familiar. Sometimes it feels as if someone else lived my life until this very moment and now I'm taking over.

The way I perceive the act of creativity while it happens in me is as a process of forgetting, not a process of creating. The mind is not capable of having zero thoughts, so when you flush whatever is in your head at the moment it creates a sort of vacuum that sucks in a new thought. In my case, that process of forgetting and then sucking in a new thought happens continuously. My memory isn't "sticky," so what comes in slides right back out in a nanosecond. Sometimes a new thought is worth writing down, which I either do right away or lose it forever. Usually the new idea is random garbage and it passes quickly, making room for the next idea. My mind feels like a slot machine that I can't stop pulling. Sometimes the diamonds line up, but not often.

My question for readers is this: Do any of you have a combination of excellent memory for facts/dialog/numbers while also possessing commercial grade creativity? My hypothesis is that none of you will have that combination.

Predicting War

Israel and Iran continue their war of words. Pundits are trying to predict when and if the missiles will start flying. I wonder how much money can be made by investors who correctly guess the timing of a first strike. I assume the first signs of war-sized violence will send Israeli stocks down and perhaps defense stocks in the United States up.

And this made me wonder how hard it must be for Israel to keep the timing of a first strike secret. There must be some small but definite difference between being generally ready to attack and actually making the decision. I'm guessing some types of military contracts with civilian companies get activated just ahead of an attack. Maybe the military suddenly purchases more of some sorts of supplies that can't be easily stored. Or maybe the families of top Israeli officials cut short their travel and vacation plans. It seems to me that it would be impossible to hide the timing of a first attack from all insiders who might use the knowledge to profit.

A few days ago I noticed a 5% drop in an Israeli ETF that I invested in. A quick check of the news didn't turn up any stories beyond the usual drumbeats for war that have been ongoing for months. Is a sudden 5% drop a sign that insiders know what's coming?

Then I asked myself if Israel is clever enough do some head fakes (phony leaks) ahead of the real attacks just to see how Iranian defenses respond. It seems like a good way to make the Iranian leadership imagine more vividly how they will feel when the real thing happens. Maybe that's a good negotiating tactic. And maybe it helps make the real attack more of a surprise.

Israel is in an oddly impossible position. They say they can't tolerate an Iranian nation that talks openly of Israel's annihilation while it's working toward the capability of building nukes. But an Israeli military attack would guarantee that the Iranians become more dangerous now and later. Israel loses no matter what.

If your only two options (attack or don't attack) are both losing propositions, what do you do? My guess is that a third option will emerge that would have been unthinkable under conditions less dire. Maybe the third option will involve a bold peace initiative the likes of which no one would have seen coming. Maybe the third option is a decapitation strike against the Iranian regime instead of an attack on nukes. Or maybe Israel will dig up the top layer of the Holy Lands, put it on barge-islands, build settlements on top of it, and float away. (It only sounds ridiculous until you compare it to the alternative of presumed nuclear annihilation.)

I put the question to you: Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear sites?

DOS-like Interface for Smartphones

Are you old enough to remember the DOS operating system? Users had to enter commands in text form. It seems so primitive now. But I predict a return to text interfaces, this time on your smartphone.

I love my smartphone but I find it annoying to hunt for the right app icon to do a simple task such as send a message or make a note to myself. I want a Smartphone with a Preloader interface, a term I just invented. It's a blank box and keyboard for data entry that is always your first screen. Instead of first specifying which application you want to use, such as messaging, email, phone, etc., you simply use a simple text code and start working. For example, if you want to send an email to Bob, you type into the empty box:
----------------------------------------------------------------
e bob about borrowed lawnmower

Hi Bob,

Please return my lawnmower. Have a nice day.

Scott
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Your smartphone would recognize "e bob" to be a shortcut for "email the guy named Bob in my address book." The subject line would be whatever followed "about" on the same line.

When you're done typing your message, click "submit" and it brings up your email app populated with your message and Bob's email address, or options for selecting which Bob you want. If everything looks good, you press Send.

The main idea here is that you should be able to start doing your work before you choose the app. The content of the message will tell your smartphone which app you intend.

Some one-letter text commands for the preloader might include:

E = email

T= text

N = note

C = calendar

W = weather

P = phone

V = voicemail

If you want to enter an appointment in your calendar, just type "c staff meeting 9am Tuesday Aug 26 alert 1 hour". Your calendar app will pop up and you can confirm it entered the appointment correctly.

Do you want the hourly weather forecast for Baltimore? Just type "w Baltimore hour" into your preloader. It's much faster than opening the app first, looking for the box to enter the city then clicking the hourly option.

The way my brain is wired I always want to jump right into a task before I hunt for an app. I often accidently choose my text messaging icon instead of email, cancel the texting app, open email, choose the addressee box, type addressee, choose subject, and so on. The process feels inefficient and it bugs me every time. I want to start working immediately, while a thought is fresh in my mind. Only after I have done my work do I want the phone to deduce which app I intended.

Voice recognition apps already do this sort of thing. But 80% of the time that I use my phone I'm someplace where speaking aloud would be awkward or unwise. I want a text interface to speed things up.

Does that already exist?

My Crackpot Theory of Intelligence

Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find that I enjoy crackpot ideas as much as real ones, and sometimes more. My crackpot idea for today is that intelligence is nothing more than pattern recognition. And pattern recognition is nothing more than noting the frequency, timing, and proximity of sensory inputs. Language skill, for example, is nothing but recognizing and using patterns. Math is clearly based on patterns. Our so-called common sense is mostly pattern recognition. Wisdom comes with age because old people have seen more patterns. Even etiquette is nothing more than patterns.

If intelligence is nothing but sophisticated pattern recognition, we'd expect that the creatures with the most sensory faculties would evolve to be the smartest. The more you sense, the more accurate patterns your brain can form. A dog can sniff a mannequin and determine that it belongs in the class of "not living" things even though a mannequin looks like a person. The more senses employed, the better your pattern recognition.

If having more senses makes you smarter, in the evolutionary sense, we'd expect that monkeys would be smarter than clams. And sure enough, that's the case. We'd also expect mammals to be smarter than fish because fish don't do much sensing by touch with their little fins, except perhaps feeling hot and cold. Generally speaking, the creatures with sensitive hands and feet are smarter than creatures with hooves, e.g. monkeys are smarter than cows.

We'd also expect that the more heterogeneous the environment, the smarter the inhabitants would become because there would be more types of input coming through the senses every minute. In general, the creatures with the most varied environments are the ones that are highly mobile, and able to move from one place to another within a day. Elephants, for example, are relatively smart mammals and they can cover many miles a day.

My crackpot point in all of this is that in order to build computers with artificial intelligence, all we need is a robot with lots of sensory inputs (sound, sight, touch, smell, taste) plus a high degree of mobility, plus a pattern recognition and imitation program. And almost nothing more. Like a human baby, the robot would recognize patterns and grow more intelligent over time. When the robot learns to walk, by observing humans and imitating with its own body, it could change its location and start gathering more sensory experiences on its own. Its intelligence would grow as it recognized and stored more patterns.

You might need to seed the robot with a few patterns that humans seem to be born with. For example, human babies apparently recognize faces and can discern human moods easily. That could come in handy. You'd also want your robot seeded with some basic objectives, the way babies are born with the desire to eat and feel comfort from being held. If the robot had no basic impulses, it would just sit around.

A robot's senses would be a bit different from human senses. In some cases the robot's senses would be superior. A robot could potentially see better in the dark and hear a greater range of sound. Robots might sense electrical and magnetic fields, and so on. I'm not sure if a robot will have the sensations of touch and taste in the way humans experience them, but the robot could have some version of those senses.

My crackpot prediction is that robots will develop intelligence when they are designed with mobility, five or more sensory inputs, and spectacularly powerful pattern recognition processors. Intelligence will emerge automatically from those properties.

Compared to humans, robots can easily share their patterns with other robots via the Internet. That means any experience of one robot will be shared by all. It won't take long for the first generations of robots with five senses and mobility to become a thousand times smarter than the smartest human. Eventually each new robot will be born with the intelligence of all existing robots as its starting point. Robots will use the cloud for storage and processing.

I give humanity thirty years of continued dominance on the earth. After that, the age of robots will be upon us. I realize this scenario is the basis for countless science fiction stories. All I'm adding is my prediction that it will happen sooner than you think. And it will all start when you see the headline "Scientists Design Robot Baby."

[New: I will double down on my crackpot idea of intelligence being nothing but pattern recognition by saying that dreams are caused by your brain doing a bubble sort of your newest patterns to get them in the best order. I assume it's hard to be conscious and also sort your patterns at the same time. If you wake up mid-sort, you might remember seeing the stripper in your dreams as your grandmother. It just means two patterns were sorting past each other on their ways to more accurate pattern storage.]

The Problem with Shopping

Recently I went to Best Buy to purchase a laptop. That's the sort of product I would normally research and buy online, but I had planned poorly and needed the laptop for a trip the next day. A cheerful Best Buy employee helped me narrow my choice to what was clearly the best laptop they carry. It was light, fast, and had a quick boot time. I asked many questions and made my decision. This awesome marvel of modern technology was the machine for me. I liked it so much that the second-best choice sitting sadly next to this triumph of engineering looked like yesterday's bloated trash. I was feeling good about my decision.

A few minutes later the Best Buy employee emerged from the back room to tell me the model I chose wasn't  in stock, and none of the nearby stores had one either. My only choice was the piece of crap laptop that I had mentally relegated to a distant and pathetic second place. I couldn't do it. I left the store.

I drove straight to Office Depot to repeat the process. I asked the cranky Office Depot employee who worked in the computer area which model best fit the criteria I laid out. He pointed to a display model and explained with a confidence bordering on arrogance that this was the machine for me. The price list next to it showed three different models with different features and prices. I asked which price applied. He waived his hand at the sign and mumbled something ambiguous. I had to ask five more times to get him to actually place his finger upon the correct price and clearly state that this was the right one. That's when things turned ugly.

I looked at the model on the price he pointed to and asked where on the actual laptop I could verify that model number. The arrogant sales guy explained that he had worked in this department every day for the past eight months. He explained that if he tells me the laptop is a certain model, it is. End of story.

"But where does it say that on the laptop?" I asked several more times. One of his coworkers came by to ask him a question and he told her that I don't trust him. The situation was starting to get tense so I tried to lighten the mood by saying to his coworker in a jocular tone "We just met." My witticism was met with a scowl.

The cranky Office Depot sales guy booted the laptop and went into the Windows menus to show me the model number and get me off his back. At this point he was clearly annoyed. "There it is," he said bruskly, pointing to the screen with the model number.

"Where's that model number on the price list?" I asked.

The sales guy started talking in a slightly slower than normal way as if explaining something to a moron. He pointed to the model number on the screen and waved his hand at the price list. "It's the middle one, like I said."

Except it wasn't. The laptop model displayed in Windows didn't match any of the models on the price sheet. It wasn't even close. I had to describe the discrepancy to him several times before he was willing to look closely enough to verify it. Awkward. In the end, he admitted he didn't know which laptop he had vigorously recommended to me and didn't even have a way to know how much it would cost. "How long did you say you've worked here?" I asked. That didn't help. I left without a computer.

I had one local computer outlet left. I went to Office Max and was greeted by a bearded geek who actually knew what he was talking about. He listened to my criteria and took me directly to the best choice for me. That model was out of stock, of course, but he warned me of that in advance, so I was okay with it. He was willing to sell me the demo unit for a discount if I didn't mind that the battery life had probably degraded after a few months on display. So I bought his semi-defective laptop because three retail stores into my journey I didn't have a better option for a same-day purchase.

Later that day I went to my local mall to look for some t-shirts. If you haven't been to a retail clothing store recently, let me tell you what you will find. First, you have your hideous clothing choices that no one will ever buy. That's 75% of every store. Then you have the 25% that look good and won't make you look like a sandwich board advertisement for the brand. Within that subset of shirts you will find sizes small and XXL. Nothing else. And we're done.

I don't have much better luck shopping online. At least half of my online purchase attempts are met with an out-of-stock message, defective online store technology that freezes, endless bother about entering codes and passwords, and a nagging feeling in my gut that the positive online reviews are bogus.

All of this makes me wonder how much more I would be willing to shop, and thereby stimulate the economy, if the process weren't so frustrating and painful. My guess is 20% more.

How about you? Do you buy less because the process of shopping is annoying, or do you end up buying the same amount but it takes longer and you're less happy doing it?

[Note: Yes, I know I would have had a better retail experience at the Apple store. But I've owned several Apple computers over the years and every one was an overpriced crash-lemon. Apple can only fool me six or seven times in a row. Now I just buy their stock.]

Computers That Design

I wonder how near we are to the Technological Singularity. That's the predicted point in human history, probably within the next fifty years, when machine intelligence will surpass humans. At that point, machines will start rapidly designing other machines that are even smarter, and things will accelerate beyond the point we can predict. That will be a scary time for humans. It's sort of the same principle as your dog not knowing where you're going when you get in the car. We'll be the dog in that analogy.

I was thinking about this as I read yet another story of yet another windmill design that is potentially better than all the rest. I would think that windmill designs will someday be created by supercomputers crunching through simulations of every possible shape and mechanical possibility, much the way a computer plays chess by considering every possible move.

Humans would need to put some parameters on the windmill design program before setting it free, such as size limits of the windmills, types of materials that are practical to use, and that sort of thing. Perhaps the program could be seeded with a few dozen current windmill designs to focus its search. Then you let the computer chug away indefinitely, creating the best designs it can, and continually trying to top itself.

I chose windmill design for my example because there are relatively few parts in a windmill and none of them depends on human tastes and preferences. I wonder what other types of products are likely to be designed entirely by supercomputers in the first wave of the Technological Singularity. And more importantly, how can you and I make money by correctly predicting that sort of thing?

For you super-long-term investors, it seems important to know which types of product categories are likely to achieve light speed design improvements before others. I would think drug design would be last to benefit from supercomputers because there are too many unknown variables involved with drug interactions and you need to do animal and human drug trials to be sure anything works. I would expect mechanical devices such as engines and generators and gearboxes to get sucked into the singularity first. Perhaps chip design itself will be first to benefit.

So here's the question: What aspects of human existence will change first, and dramatically, because of the Technological Singularity? And how would one invest to take advantage?

If windmills are the first, and that transformation happens in ten years, the technology for transporting power from remote and windy places will be in great demand. The components of electrical grids would be a good investment unless the Technological Singularity also produces local power generation concepts that are better than windmills.

Are there any good bets out there?

Immersive Experience

Our dog and our cat - approximately the same size - like to lick each other's face. It looks like they're making out. It's extraordinarily cute, except when they lay across my chest and do it. That's only cute until one of them licks my chin as if to get me in on the threesome. That's when things feel awkward. (So far I've declined the invitation.)

Anyway, it makes me wonder if my body has an easily measurable response to cuteness. I know I become instantly happier when I see animals doing adorable things, but is there a cheap and easy way to monitor my brain's change in happiness? For the sake of today's post, let's say we can measure a person's happiness, arousal, relaxation, and other positive physical reactions in real time. And let's assume that while the cost of such monitoring equipment might be expensive today, the technology will eventually drop to a consumer level. You'll put on a hat with sensitive brainwave sensors, connect the hat to your computer via Bluetooth, and you're all set.

This is where things get interesting. Imagine software that monitors changes in brainwaves and learns by trial and error which kinds of images and videos work best for a given individual. Maybe your favorite "awwww" experience comes from videos of penguins shuffling around while I prefer waterfalls and rainbows. The software starts with a random slideshow of images on the Internet and records your brain's reaction for each. You just relax and let it happen. Over time, the software learns what relaxes you, what arouses you, and what pumps you up for exercise.

Now let's add a few layers. Sound is next. The software would experiment with music, engine noises, nature sounds, and more. Again, the software would measure and record how each sound influences you.

Next we do smells. I think the technology already exists to generate different odors. Imagine the software releasing a pumpkin pie scent, vanilla, perhaps some new car odor, and each time it measures your brain's response.

Now let's say you're sitting in a high-end massage chair that has dozens of settings. The chair goes through each possible setting while the brainwave hat figures out which combinations of pulsing and vibrating and intensity works best for you.

Let's assume the software only allows you to experience one sensation at a time during the learning phase. So the slideshow wouldn't be happening at the same time as the massage chair or the smell or music. Once the software learns your response to each isolated stimulation, it can later intelligently combine them for a stronger total experience.

We know people need lots of variety in stimulation to avoid getting bored, so after the software learns your preferences it continuously seeks out different versions of the same general stimulation by data mining other people's preferences across its database. The software might learn that people who get aroused at the sound of a Ferrari engine noise also like images of skiing. A simpler example is that people who like one baby picture will probably like another.

So far, this all sounds feasible, if not today, certainly in your lifetime. The real question is how much control could the software exert over a typical person? I think you'd be surprised.

Visual images alone would have only a limited impact on a person, but adding the massage chair, smell, and sound at the same time would be an immersive sensory experience. I think the total package would have an impact comparable to a powerful narcotic, and it might be just as addictive.

In today's world, finding pleasure is a somewhat random process guided by a little bit of planning. If you know you like nature, you can plan a hike, but sometimes the weather is bad and a rattlesnake ruins your happy-go-lucky mood. In the future, technology will be able to figure out what you like best and provide it in a setting with no offsetting negatives.

That's something to look forward to.

The Vacation Country

A friend of mine who travels extensively recently returned from a trip to France with his wife. His review of Paris is that everything is smoky, run-down, and falling apart. The citizens are rude and unhelpful, and the Eiffel tower looks just like the pictures. He was underwhelmed.

People who have both the time and the money to travel - call them the top 1% - are running out of great places to visit. Most visitors to Paris probably love it, but by definition, once you've visited your personal top ten destinations, everything else is either less interesting or seems like a repeat (Look honey, it's another beach!). I realize it's a high class problem, boo-hoo. But that's not the point that I'm staggering toward.

My point is that no matter how bad the economy gets for the bottom 80% of the world, there will likely be a surging population of rich people and retired people with resources who need more interesting places to visit. Things will only get worse when robots start doing all the hard jobs, say in twenty years, which I hope is your lifetime. The poor will get poorer while the rich will own stock in the robot factories and get richer.

My proposed solution is to start now and turn the United States into the world's most awesome vacation destination, not just for the rich, but for anyone who has the means to travel. Sure, the United States has some good vacation areas already. But it's all sort of random and spaced out. Las Vegas is far from Miami which is far from Washington D.C.

I propose building a vacation-oriented high speed train loop around the country that connects all of the existing tourist destinations and creates lots of new ones along the line. The sleeper cars would be large and handle huge amounts of luggage so a traveler can easily pack for skiing in Aspen plus swimming in San Diego on the same extended trip. Think of it as an ocean cruise experience but on land. The train itself would be packed with fun for the ride and the stops would be frequent and interesting. Visitors could book trips for any portion of the loop they wanted. And let's assume the trains have both deluxe cars for the rich and more ordinary accommodations for everyone else.

The great thing about vacation industries is that they employ lots of people, starting with the construction phase. The United States has an advantage over other countries if it can keep the air clean and the destinations safe and convenient. I'll emphasize convenience in this concept. It would be nice if a rich Swede, for example, could buy one ticket that included airfare, train travel, shipping excess luggage, and meals. Planning a trip to Europe requires a lot of research and work. Planning a trip to the United States should be reduced to which segment of "loop" you want to see and how much you want to spend on luxury.

Costa Rica is following a version of this plan, but without the train. Their national strategy is to become a vacation destination. If you want to be a bartender or a guide in that country, it requires serious college-like training, including languages, safety courses and more. And they're so serious about protecting the environment that they say no to oil drilling. Their strategy seems to be working. I think the United States could take it up a notch. All of those future rich Chinese entrepreneurs will need someplace to visit that isn't polluted. I also think that for the rich, the gating factor is planning, not money. If a vacation plan can be made easy, people will flock to it the way they flock to ocean cruises.

A President's Real Job

Lately I am in awe of President Obama's weasel-perfect scheme of manipulating the press into talking non-stop about Romney's unreleased tax returns. You rarely see that level of naked cynicism work so well. It reminds me of the story of the politician who, in less enlightened times, accused his opponent of being a "flagrant heterosexual" because he figured voters were dumb enough to think that sounded like a moral failing.

Most observers assume Romney's taxes are in full compliance with the law and that his tax experts found clever ways to reduce his taxes as much as possible. In other words, Romney is smart, hires good people, plays within the rules, and believes in low taxes. That's totally consistent with his campaign message. Obama's genius is making all of that sound like financial pedophilia. It's a brilliant political trap.

This made me wonder what qualities we should look for in a president. In many ways, Romney and Obama are similar. Both candidates are staunchly opposed to personal freedom, albeit in different ways. And neither candidate has a plausible plan for fixing the economy. The winner in this next election will be the candidate who does the best job of convincing voters that the other candidate's gold is nothing but festively colored turds. But is that a bad thing?

The most important talent for a president is the ability to focus national attention where it needs to be. Election years are like an extended job interview with lots of role play. We citizens watch as the candidates compete to control the news cycle and get in our heads. The topics they choose (tax returns, birth certificates, etc.) are almost irrelevant to the larger question of how well they can manipulate the national conversation.

Leadership is mostly about controlling what people think. If you have two candidates of roughly equal intelligence, experience, and moral center, the tie-breaker is the indefinable quality called leadership. Lately, Obama has been winning the leadership contest by proving he can make Romney's unicorn look like a horse with a protruding brain tumor.

If I were to advise Romney on how to flip the tax return issue in his favor, it would involve the "higher ground" maneuver that I've described in past posts. That involves confessing that whatever people suspect is 100% true, proposing a path forward, and changing the context in a way that is more compelling to the press.

Steve Jobs famously used this method when people realized the iPhone dropped calls if you held it a certain way. The press went nuts about it. Eventually Jobs publicly confessed the problem, offered a fix, and changed the context to "all smartphones have problems." The press immediately turned to the question of whether all smartphones had issues, and discovered it was largely true. The controversy with the iPhone dissolved overnight.

In Romney's case, the higher ground strategy would involve confessing that he hired the best tax experts that money could buy and they did an "embarrassingly" good job of legally lowering his taxes. The keyword is "embarrassingly" because it explains his desire for privacy. Then he should propose doing the same thing for voters, i.e. find ways to lower their taxes while fixing the economy at the same time. Remind voters that he's running as a guy who knows how to navigate complicated financial situations and find the best solutions. Then ask a simple question: Would you vote for a candidate who couldn't do a good job on his own tax returns? That's the context change. I think Romney could get experts looking at Obama's published returns and determining that he paid more taxes than he needed; it's an argument you can always make about any return. That would make Obama look financially incompetent.

With this approach, the press would focus first on the question of whether success is, or should be, "embarrassing" in our country, and secondly on whether Obama handled his own taxes well. That cleverly changes the discussion from whether Romney is hiding something unseemly to the question of how well he hires people to do that sort of work.

I'll remind you that I don't think either candidate meets the minimum standard I would expect for a modern leader. I'm still waiting for a candidate that prefers using a rational process of borrowing best practices from other countries and testing new ideas on a small scale to see what works. And I prefer a leader who doesn't profess a deep belief in magic. Call me a dreamer.