Scott Adams's Blog, page 349

Why You Should Vote for Me

People keep asking if I'm really running for president or just joking. I'm not running in the sense of wanting the job. Being president looks hard. My current job is far easier and it pays better. I can work in my pajamas, and my risk of assassination is relatively low. It would be more accurate to say I'm like your emergency option for president, in case the major parties are offering you nothing but a guaranteed slide toward economic doom. As a service to my country, I offer myself as your only viable alternative.

I will assume for now that the pundits are correct, and Obama will face Romney in the coming election. Both of those guys are smarter than I am. They're also more experienced. They're taller, better looking, and they have excellent hair. They also have much, much better character. So why would you vote for me? Let's run through the reasons.

Definition of Insanity: They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Voting for either Obama or Romney will give you the same government you have now, more or less. I might be a worse president than either of them, or perhaps far better. The only thing you know for sure is that I'd be different. So if you think the path we're on is leading to certain economic doom, your smartest strategy is to try something - anything - different.  The major parties will make sure your only choices are more of the same. Even another independent candidate will be some version of the same thing.

Public Debate: I'll host televised public debates on our domestic policy options, in an entertaining fashion.  And I'll interrupt and humiliate participants who ignore the known facts and the best science. I'll make it my job to provide the public with useful information, in proper context, and free of politics. You won't get that from the other candidates. In today's world, voting and guessing is almost the same thing. The major political parties have a strong interest in keeping voters ignorant. I'll change that.

Revenge on Congress: According to the polls, most of you think Congress needs a kick in the ass. Neither Romney nor Obama are likely to do much about Congress except gripe about it in a general way. And neither man will complain about his own party. After I finish a few of my public debates as President, I'll go after individual members of Congress that are favoring politics over the facts. I'll bring accountability to Congress if I can. At the very least, I'll shine the light of shame on the worst cockroaches in both parties and make them scurry. You'll enjoy watching it.

Smaller Government: If you like Ron Paul's ideas for smaller government, and Paul doesn't end up in the race, I'm your next best choice. I'll come up with a blueprint for reducing government by at least half in a generation. In some cases that means using technology in smarter ways. In other cases, we can test the elimination of federal government functions in selected states and measure the results. No one will disagree with a gradual and rational plan to shrink government over a generation. Obviously Congress can thwart any long term plan, but doing so will put politicians in the position of voting against an established blueprint for smaller government, and that would be politically dangerous. I know that Ron Paul supporters would like some sort of quicker slashing of government, but realistically, it has to be a gradual process.

Foreign Policy: Foreign policy will be about the same no matter who you elect. I don't second guess President Obama because I don't have access to the secret information he sees every day. You probably shouldn't base your vote on foreign policy because you don't have access to secret information either.

Budget: The first of my public debates will be on the topic of how much federal debt is too much, and whether raising taxes helps or hurts in the long run. I won't support any budget or tax plan until the majority of interested citizens understand the general economics of government debt, and tax policy, and agree in general on the best path forward.

If the budget debates don't create a useful consensus, I'll support what I call the Default Budget Plan, which involves a 10% increase in every federal tax and a 10% cut in every federal budget area. That plan would be painful for everyone, and that's the point. I'll challenge Congress to come up with something better.

Scandal: I will stipulate in advance that any rumors you hear about me, scandalous or not, are 100% true. In reality, probably only half of them will be true. My advice for you is to assume everything you hear about me is accurate.  If you believe I once murdered a hobo, but on the other hand, my idea of televised public debates is a good one, I'm still your best choice for president. I'm not your role model.

Religion: If you want a president who promotes freedom of religion, choose a non-believer such as me. Think of it like a eunuch guarding a harem. I won't try to convert you to my belief system because I don't have one. Some of the people I respect the most are believers of one sort or another. I'm in favor of whatever works in your personal life. But I prefer science over belief when it comes to government.

War on Drugs: Both Romney and Obama will waste huge amounts of your money on the war on drugs. You don't want your neighbor's kid to do drugs, but if he does, do you want to pay your hard earned money to put him in jail? I'm guessing no.

Supreme Court: Some people say the only real difference a president makes is in his or her choices for the Supreme Court. I'll nominate qualified people who are likely to mirror the majority opinion in the country in terms of political leaning. I wouldn't try to pick judges that matched my own views. So if you want to influence the Supreme Court, get to work influencing your fellow citizens. I'll even host some public debates on topics such as abortion and privacy and whatever else is a hot button. I'll help the country decide what sort of Supreme Court nominees it wants and then I'll follow that lead.

That's what you'll get with me as your president. I hope you don't like what I have to offer because I prefer the job I have.

Where's My Angel Broker?

I've often said ideas have no economic value. Execution is what matters. Everyone has ideas, but good execution is rare. The exception is patentable ideas. And even that type of value is artificial and imbued by law. It's the exception that proves the rule. The non-value of ideas has been my view for years. But lately I'm starting to rethink that opinion. Civilization might be on the cusp of a complete idea-execution shift, in which ideas have value and execution is a commodity.

The other day I met a friend for coffee and he showed me his product invention that he plans to market. It cost almost nothing to have the prototype made in China. The product itself will cost so little to produce in orders of 5,000 units that he can fund his startup with the change that fell behind the cushions of his couch. His marketing plan will cost nothing but his spare time. His business has zero barriers to entry. If the idea succeeds, it will be because the idea itself was good. In his situation, the idea has value and the execution is a commodity.

He's the second person I know who invented a product and had it engineered and built in China. The first friend who tried this approach travelled to China to work out the kinks in his prototype. A few years have passed since then, and the friend I mentioned in the second paragraph did the entire process by Internet. The Chinese company sent him CAD drawings and he simply reviewed them and asked for changes as needed. I believe both friends used alibaba.com as the starting point for their search for foreign partners.

Earlier this year I had an idea for an Internet business that I figured would be worth a few billion dollars if I executed it right. I was curious how easy it would be to develop it myself using foreign programmers. I posted my generic project description on Elance.com, and dozens of offers from offshore companies flowed in. Most, if not all of the offers seemed legitimate, qualified, and shockingly inexpensive. I picked an Indian company, worked out the requirements with them via Skype chat and email, and paid installments via elance.com as the developers delivered phases.

In the end, the project hit some technical obstacles that the Indian programmers couldn't overcome. I think the problem was in our data source, not their code. I might take another run at it someday, but the time difference with India made it impractical for me to continue. For now, it's on hold. But for someone with a more open schedule (a single, twenty-something) there would be no real barrier to entry for that sort of business.

Lately, I've been working with a friend on another Internet idea, and again there are no serious barriers to entry. It requires almost no investment from us, and little of my time - maybe an hour a week. Yet another friend is developing an app idea that seems to have large potential, and apparently no one thought of it yet.

Put it all together and it seems we're heading in a direction where ideas are starting to have real value independent of patent protection. You still need execution to unlock the value of the idea, but the cost of execution is approaching zero. And that brings me to my real point: Where's my angel broker?

Not all startups are as inexpensive as the ones I described. What the world needs is brokers who can help investors identify startups worthy of angel funding. Ideally, the broker would also handle the contract paperwork. You'll be quick to tell me all of the ways investors already can become angels and identify companies looking for funding, either online or through organizations. Angellist.co is a good start if you want a listing of companies looking for funding. But who among us is qualified, and has the time, to identify worthy investments on that list? I'd be happy to pay a broker a finder's fee plus an ongoing percentage of the deal if he or she could do the research and hook me up with the best prospects. Why doesn't the job of angel broker exist?

This is the part where you tell me angel brokers do exist and I'm a moron. I hope you're right, about the first part anyway. But in any case, the flow of money from potential investors to startups is inefficient at best. When the angel funding system becomes efficient, which seems inevitable, it will mark a crossover point, where execution is seen as the commodity and great ideas are the main source of value.

Economic Mumbo Jumbo

Sometimes it is better to sound smart than to be smart. Today I will discuss economic policy in an oversimplified and misleading fashion. I'd be surprised if anything I say makes sense. But it will sound brilliant because I will use some psychological tricks to accomplish the illusion.

First, I'll tell you what you want to believe. That gives me automatic credibility. After all, who do you trust more than yourself? If I agree with you, obviously I would be an awesome president.  So look for me to say things you already agree with. As soon as you feel that my opinions and yours are similar, as if we are one mind in two bodies, I'll nudge you someplace new, and it will feel as if you got there on your own. (Hypnotists call this process pacing and leading.)

Secondly, I'll oversimplify a complicated topic. Oversimplifications are compelling because we humans prefer the illusion that we understand our environment over the reality that we don't. The illusion of understanding gives us a feeling of control over our lives. We feel as if we can fix the problems of the world through our intelligent voting.

Let's agree that everyone prefers smaller government, but not everyone likes the tradeoff to get there. Some people would like the same level of government services we have now, or even more services, but at a lower cost. Unfortunately, no one knows how to get more stuff for less money in the short term. Other people, such as Ron Paul, would shrink the government quickly and accept the substantial risk that comes with that sort of change. All big changes have unintended consequences; it's unavoidable. So, given all of that, what is the sensible middle ground between growing the government forever - which Republicans and Democrats are likely to continue doing - and making drastic and unpredictable changes the way Ron Paul might?

My plan for shrinking government is to freeze total federal spending immediately and forever, and let inflation eliminate the bureaucracy by chewing into its budget over a few generations. That way, the government can unwind at a leisurely pace, allowing technology, competition, and better ideas to deliver natural cost reductions over time. With my plan of gradual government shrinkage, there's no shock to the system, and no outsized risk.

As President, I will still look for ways to eliminate or streamline entire functions of government. But realistically, the bureaucracy has a lot of fight in it, and the easy cuts will be fewer than you'd hope. I'm suggesting more of a rope-a-dope approach, capping the budget and allowing the government to punch itself out over a few decades.

The best part of my plan is that it keeps government spending relatively high today, when we still need the economic stimulation. The only downside, which you correctly point out, is our gigantic national debt. Don't we need to drastically cut spending soon to reign in the debt? Raising taxes - even if you favor that option - won't put much of a dent in the deficit.

Luckily, national debt isn't like personal debt. Personal debt, such as your car loan, needs to be paid back over a certain period, such as three years. As a car buyer, your biggest cost is the car itself, not the interest on the loan. National debt is entirely different. The nation has the option of paying interest only for generations, until normal inflation turns the debt into a trivial amount. For that to happen, all we need is a return to some sort of normal economic growth, which is apparently happening on its own. And the best way to ensure normal economic growth is to keep borrowing and government spending high for the next few years. Obviously we'd need to reassess things as we go.

Keep in mind that the government is a semi-closed system. The United States is borrowing half of its money from its own citizens. When you get a car loan, your interest and principle payments leave your pocket and go to the bank. When the United States borrows from one citizen and uses the money in a way that stimulates the economy for all citizens, much of that money stays within the system.

If I tell you our national debt is somewhere in the range of 100% of our GDP, which is true, it sounds scary. But if you consider that a typical home loan is 300% of the owner's annual salary, it puts things in perspective. And remember that a typical homeowner didn't borrow half of his money from himself, the way the government does. It's also worth mentioning that the national debt was much higher after WWII than it is now, and that was the beginning of unprecedented economic prosperity in the United States. While it's true that some level of debt could crush the United States, history says we're nowhere near that level. If that situation were to change, I'd flip-flop to an economic policy that made sense with the new data.

I will close my argument with a final trick of persuasion: I'll summarize my solution with a familiar truism. The truism is that any good business agreement makes all sides a little bit unhappy while delivering most of what everyone needs. My solution would deliver economic growth and smaller government, but without the deep cuts in spending that Republicans want, and without the guaranteed-forever government benefits that Democrats want, nor the quick and deep cuts that Ron Paul supporters favor. Everyone would likely get what they want in the long run, while no one would be happy in the short run. That's what a good deal looks like.

You might question whether I, as President, would have enough clout to push this or any other economic policy through Congress. It's a fair question. And the answer is yes, I could make it all happen. If an independent such as myself gets elected President, it will make every member of Congress crap his or her pants. It would be the ultimate mandate. And as an independent, with no campaign funding needs, I could shine a bright light on any obstructionist member of Congress and directly ask voters to make a change. I would respect all honest disagreements. But I would be a nightmare to any politician who objects for transparent political motives.

As a one-term president, no one would need to criticize my policies or thwart my plans just to gain an advantage in the next election. In our current polarized political environment, only an independent president has a chance of getting anything done domestically. This is probably the only time in our history that has been the case. In chaos, there is opportunity. And the opportunity in this situation is to elect an independent President.

Customers versus Governments

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.

  -----------------------

It seems to me that no candidate for President of the United States should have an opinion about Iran. I assume any sitting President has access to secret information that the public, including candidates, do not have. And it's likely that the secret information is meaningful. Moreover, I assume everything I read on the topic of Iran is either intentionally misleading, out of context, or just plain wrong. With those warnings in place, I will now talk about Iran, just for fun.

Most people know that the United States has economic sanctions against Iran, which is the world's 18th largest economy. Despite sanctions, Iran is one of the few economies that continued growing through the recent economic crisis. According to Wikipedia, Iran's major commercial partners are China, India, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, Russia and Italy.

Meanwhile, the storyline is that Iran is building nuclear facilities for domestic use while also secretly planning to build nuclear weapons to destroy both Israel and themselves. According to this line of thinking, self-destruction is okay with some of the Shias in power in Iran because the 12th Imam will supernaturally appear just before Judgment Day.

Some people question whether the 18th largest economy in the world really has a secret plan to destroy itself in a huge ball of radiation. Perhaps Iran's nuclear effort is more about gaining leverage in future international dealings while providing Iranian citizens with a source of national pride. But whatever the motives, most observers outside Iran would be happier if Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons option, or even an option to quickly develop an option.

Obviously the United States is unwilling to impose economic sanctions on countries that continue to trade with Iran. We're not about to start a full-out economic dust up with China, Japan, India, France, South Korea, Germany, and Russia. But my question for today is what would happen if American consumers targeted the specific companies doing the trading with Iran, regardless of their countries of origin? Would that strategy be practical or effective?

In the United States, we see activists punishing domestic companies on a regular basis for all sorts of perceived and actual heinous acts. And it works. Companies act quickly to put their public relations house back in order.

It doesn't take much to get a boycott going these days. So I wonder if it's possible to create a chart of companies doing business with Iran, in simple enough terms that the average consumer would understand who to boycott?

Let's say there's an American company that does business with a German company that does business with Iran. If that connection were to be made public, could customers put enough pressure on the American company to influence the German company to scale back operations in Iran?

No one wants to make unemployment worse, and boycotts could have that impact. So perhaps an acceptable rate of change could be defined as a gradual scaling back of business with Iran, perhaps 10% per year, to avoid a hypothetical boycott. That's probably a small enough change per year to allow diversified companies to grow their overall business. But it would have a huge impact on Iran.

What I'm suggesting here, as a thought experiment, is that citizens can influence Iran's foreign policy in ways that governments cannot. All we'd need is the information about who trades with Iran, and who trades with the companies that trade with Iran, if such information is available.

The second part of this strategy might involve the government of the United States approaching Iran with less of an "I'm going to bomb you any minute" attitude and more of a "You guys are awesome in your own way," vibe. We don't want the average Iranian citizen to think the government of the United States is an enemy. That will just strengthen support for their current leaders and their current way of business.

Obviously I don't know enough about Iran to have an informed opinion. (And neither do you.) My only point today is that we might be entering an era in which direct customer action is the best way to influence foreign policy, at least when dealing with the more robust economic powers. But for that shift to happen, consumers would need actionable information about who is selling what to whom. Should that sort of information ever become widely available, it would be a huge shift in the way foreign policy is handled. Obviously there would be widespread gaming of the system, and corporations would hide their actions under shell companies, but that's a risky strategy for any company that has a brand worth protecting.

This all brings us back to Ron Paul. I think he's ahead of his time, and not in a good way. Someday, technology will make it possible for governments to shrink down to nearly nothing. Well-informed citizens, connected by the Internet, could accomplish almost all that government does for us today, including much of foreign policy. But that day is not today. I think the best path to smaller government involves the government transitioning into an information clearinghouse. If you're unemployed, you want the government to tell you where you could move to have a job today. If you're getting screwed by corporate confusopolies, you want the government to tell you which company has the best price for you. If you're worried about Iran getting nukes, you want the government to tell you which companies do business with Iran, so you can boycott intelligently. If you care about education, you want the government to tell you which state is doing it best and exactly how.

In the long, long term, I see governments as being nothing but intelligent managers of information. That's a few hundred years from now.

My Year of Living Dangerously

You might be interested in my article in the WSJ about my year of living dangerously.

Curing 30,000 People

An estimated 30,000 people have a voice condition that I once had: spasmosic dysphonia. It affects vocal cords and renders the patient unable to speak in a way that can be easily understood. I couldn't speak for 3.5 years, until surgery in 2008 fixed me. I chronicled that journey in this blog. But that's not the interesting part.

Until this morning, the Wikipedia page for spasmodic dysphonia said there is no cure. The article mentioned regular Botox injections as the standard for treatment.

Hmmm.

Several years ago I heard a conspiracy theory that the manufacturer of Botox was using its financial clout to suppress information about alternate treatments for spasmodic dysphonia. I dismissed that thinking as crazy talk. Sure, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence for that conspiracy theory, and Botox treatments for spasmodic dysphonia are big money, but all conspiracy theories appear to have evidence if you look hard enough. Coincidences have a way of looking like evidence.

About an hour ago, I edited the Wikipedia page under the Treatment heading to make it more accurate. This is the page that will probably come up first in most Google searches performed by people who have been diagnosed with spasmodic dysphonia and are looking for answers. If the edits stay intact, I will declare the Botox conspiracy theory a probable myth. But if I check back in a few weeks and it says Botox is the only treatment, I'll have some serious questions.

Meanwhile, I just gave hope to 30,000 people. Or at least I gave hope to the subset among them who have good health insurance, an Internet connection, and an appetite for surgical risk. (Sometimes the surgical outcome is worse.)

I don't know what the other presidential candidates are doing this week while I'm helping to resolve medical problems for tens of thousands of voters. But I'm sure it's very important.

The Caveman Hypothesis

I have a hypothesis that the things we do for recreation are usually metaphors that allow us to express our caveman instincts in socially appropriate ways. The nearer an activity is to our basic hunting and gathering nature, the more we like it.

Consider golf. Until recently, I had never golfed, and was baffled by its appeal. On the surface, the game is nothing but random rules about the proper way to put a round object in a hole in the ground. I have a good imagination, but prior to taking up golf, I couldn't imagine enjoying the so-called sport. That said, as part of my "Year of Trying New Things" (more on that another day), I leapt into golf with both feet. Result: Instant addiction.

What the hell??? How could such a bizarre activity be so appealing? I needed to understand this thing. I started by mapping the components of golf to their caveman origins:

-          Using clubs (Okay, that one is obvious. Humans are tool users.)

-          Problem solving (Every hole is different.)

-          Hunting (Locate your ball)

-          Killing (Whack the ball when you find it.)

-          Territorial instinct (Try to capture the green.)

-          Tribal hierarchy  (The handicap system)

-          Being outdoors

-          Mating displays (Colorful fashions for men)

We know from animal studies that random rewards are far more addictive than predictable rewards. Golf has the most random-feeling outcomes of any sport I have experienced. No matter how well you golf, you never really know what will happen after you swing your club. On those few occasions when the ball goes exactly where you intend, your brain's reward center gives you a big payoff.

Golf also has a selective memory phenomenon working for it. I had always heard golfers say they remember only the good shots, but I didn't realize how true that is. Your memories of the few good shots do in fact stay with you while the bad shots fade away. Golf has a great aftertaste.

On Friday, I golfed with family members for over four hours, and during the four hours on the course, I never once thought of anything beyond the moment. That's a big deal for me, because my mind wanders in every other context. I can watch a great movie and still organize my to-do list in my head. But on a golf course, the rest of the world stops existing, and the feeling lasts for hours.

If you prefer high octane fun, you can get more of that from soccer, tennis, basketball, and lots of other activities. Society labels golf a sport because humans need to put things into categories. But golf is a different animal. It stands alone as a simple and direct connection to your primal nature.

The takeaway here is that if you're trying to design a product, or organize an event, you'd do well to find a metaphor to our primitive nature. That's what people respond to. Everything else is just rationalization.

My Presidential Campaign Update

Some of you have asked if my campaign for president of the United States is serious or a joke. It's both. It's also a third thing, which has something to do with being a protest vote against the general incompetence of both parties, and a fourth thing involving the usefulness of thinking about things differently. This is America, damn it, and I don't have to be just one thing.

I'm also a spoiler of spoilers. If a conservative runs an independent campaign, and people see me as less conservative than the independent - at least about social issues, which I call freedom - I could drain as many votes from Obama as the other guy drains from the Republican nominee.

I recently learned that there is some dumbass law against a presidential nominee naming his appointees before winning the election. Therefore, I hereby recant anything I ever said that sounded illegal. But I think it's legal to say I would nominate people who are similar to people you might know, just to give you a general sense of what might happen after my election. In my case, I would have as my main advisor someone similar to Bill Clinton or New Gingrich or Mitt Romney. And by that I mean someone who is brilliant, experienced, and has a history of being all over the political map.

After I'm elected, I will host a reality TV show in which the best minds in the country debate the important issues. I would moderate the debates with lots of interruptions, like a Supreme Court justice, while my panel of fact-checkers with laptops keeps things real. Every day would be like the Scopes Monkey Trial. I'd have trials on supply-side economics, climate change, states' rights, drug policy, and more. I'd bring entertainment to government.

In my view, the main job of the President, after security, is giving voters the right kind of information to control Congress. For starters, I'd publicly identify the least competent members of congress from both parties and ask voters to replace them. As an independent, I could pick on both parties without appearing biased. I'd only target the politicians that have views at odds with the verdicts of my Scopes Monkey Trials.

One of the first trials I'd schedule would be on the topic of capping CEO pay for public companies. Everyone is in favor of capitalism, but no one is in favor of weasels that find legal ways to screw stockholders. If capping the pay of CEOs drives the best people into starting their own companies, maybe that's a plus for capitalism. I'd like to hear arguments on both sides of that issue, and so would you.

Summarizing my views from this post and prior ones, as President of the United States, I would do the following:
I would host public debates on important topics, and publish my verdicts.I would shine a bright light on incompetent members of Congress, especially the ones that are governing by superstition, bad math, or ignorance of science.I would host a debate on the topic of limiting inheritance to $50 million. That's enough money to turn anyone into an insufferable douche bag.I would use the power of the Internet to give voters a simple "dashboard" to help understand the issues and keep Congress honest.I would require all voting to be by Internet, and make sure everyone had access in one way or another.I would appoint Supreme Court justices that match the majority views in the country, even if my own views differed.I would govern for the majority, except in cases where the majority is trying to discriminate against a specific minority. I don't like bigots and bullies.I would keep foreign policy about the same.I would use states as test beds for programs that are being considered by the federal government.I would flip-flop whenever it was warranted by new information or clearer thinking.I would appoint brilliant, experienced advisors with a history of crossing party lines.I would accept only $1 per year in pay and make up the difference later in speaking fees, book deals, and licensing.I wouldn't spend a minute campaigning for myself or anyone else, unless it was in the service of getting rid of an incompetent member of Congress.I would favor raising all Federal taxes by 10%, and cutting all budgets by 10%, unless Congress comes up with a better idea, which seems unlikely.I would not be a good role model for your kids. That's your job.Keep in mind that I would be a one-term president. I say that to reduce my chances of being assassinated. And I'd be eager to cash in after the first term. A second term would have rapidly diminishing returns for everyone involved.

My prediction is that President Obama will easily win reelection by showing that he succeeded in many of the objectives he controlled (especially international stuff) and was thwarted by Republicans on domestic stuff. After President Obama is reelected, Democrats and Republicans will lock arms and march the economy off the cliff, plunging civilization into a thousand years of darkness.

Or you could vote for me. Realistically, I would be an awful leader, but I probably could keep us away from the abyss. A few years from now, if you're throwing rocks at birds just to get something to eat, don't say you didn't have a choice.

Twins Switched After Birth

Someone recently asked me how parents of identical twin babies can tell them apart. My first reaction was that even identical twins have tiny differences that a parent would notice. And I'm sure parents of twins have a labeling system. How hard could it be?

Then I reflected on how many times - in other walks of life - the average person screws up incredibly simple tasks with no provocation whatsoever.  In all likelihood, lots of twin babies have been accidentally switched at home, thanks to tired mothers, careless fathers, forgetful grandparents, and disgruntled babysitters.

I can imagine being in that situation myself. I'd strip down both babies to give them an efficient and simultaneous diaper change, and say to myself Remember the one on the right is Ryan. Right is Ryan. Right is Ryan. I'd be all proud of my memory trick right up until it was time to dress them in their identifiable outfits. Then I'd be wondering if the memory trick was right is Ryan or Bob is Nearest the Bed. I'd be too embarrassed to tell my wife I mixed up the babies and I'd settle it with a coin toss.

I know, I know. You're going to say twin babies usually have ankle bracelets or some sort of identifier that can't be screwed up. But no system is perfect. Sooner or later, my wife would hand me a new set of baby bracelets and ask me to change out the old ones. My incompetence is like rain on a flat roof. If there's a hole, I'll find it.

Anyway, back to the original question: Does it really matter if you mix up the twin babies after you bring them home? I gave the question some brief but intense thought, and I concluded that it didn't matter at all. Arguably, all you're doing is switching the names of the babies, and not the babies themselves. It's the ultimate victimless crime. And yet it still seems very wrong.

If you're the father of adult identical twins, here's a good prank to play on your spouse. One day, out of nowhere, casually confess that decades ago you switched the babies' bracelets when they were three weeks old just to see if your wife would notice. Explain that when she didn't notice the switch, you didn't bother to fix it, figuring it didn't matter. You might want to record your wife's reaction on a hidden camera. That could be gold.

This seems like a good time to remind you not to get marriage advice from cartoonists.

On a related note, I'm wondering why there has never been a movie about identical twin criminals. One twin might commit crimes in front of witnesses, and on security video, and yet no jury could ever get past reasonable doubt. The trick is to make sure the other twin has no alibi at the time of the crime.

This is also a good time to remind you that you shouldn't embark on a crime spree based on the advice of cartoonists, no matter how awesome it might be.

And yes, I'm still running for president of the United States. There's a good chance I'll forget the nuclear codes and accidentally disarm the country. But consider who I might be running against. Ron Paul would stop guarding the nukes. Newt would scare North Korea into a preemptive attack. Obama has been bitch-slapping Pakistan for months, probably because he stopped smoking. There's no clear choice here.

Angel Funding

I decided to stimulate the economy by seeding a startup. I have several ideas, and I'm looking for some local (San Francisco area) software developers to do feasibility analysis and rapid prototyping across multiple platforms (web, phones).

Ideas alone have no economic value. Everyone has ideas. It's the implementation that matters. My contribution to the implementation would be the design specs, some seed funding to build a quick prototype, and if something pans out, I can fund it further, or find someone else who can. And later I can help focus attention on it.

The first idea that a friend and I have developed would create a streamlined solution to a process that almost everyone does in an inefficient way now. The solution would be viral in the sense that anyone who sees it would recognize it as a better solution than whatever they were doing before, and it would be free.

By analogy, Evite is viral in the same way. Once you see Evite in action, you immediately abandon your old way of doing invitations. My idea doesn't involve invitations, but it would have the same viral dynamic and immediate adoption rate.

Obviously I can't describe the idea here. But I can tell you it passes the Guy Kawasaki test in which you ask yourself if you would be a user of the product you're considering making. The answer for me is a big yes. It's actually hard to imagine anyone who wouldn't use it, from grandparents to kids, and from businesses to families.

That's the teaser. If you're an established software development business, and this sounds interesting to you, drop me an email at dilbertcartoonist@gmail.com and we'll start stimulating the economy right away.