In reflecting upon my generation, it seems like a lot of young adults have a mild, untreatable, nature-induced A.D.D.

I sit here at work begging to be distracted.  At my former job, I’d sit in a single room with 4 other people around my age, no cubical, just a big desk, and TVs blaring 3 different news/financial channels.  It was awesome!  If I needed to focus, I’d tune out everyone; if I needed a little break, I’d watch Squawk on the Street for 5 minutes; if I needed help, I’d pick up my head and ask my neighbors.  In college, I’d always study in my sorority lounge and/or with CNBC on.  It’s how I learned to do things.

A complete 180° at my current job.  I absolutely hate it when it’s quiet.  I read some news (or blog…) while concurrently keying in some forecasting assumptions.  I fear that my employer will think that I’m not being productive, when in fact this is the only way I can be productive!  Maybe my employer will think that I’m not “present” at work when I have my phone at my desk.

I’ve grown up not with a silver spoon in my mouth but a computer always at my finger tips (thanks, Dad!).  As the tech scene comes up with new ways to become even more connected to the world around us, it’s now becoming a part of me, how I work, how I need to do things.  I’m certain others share this sentiment.

This is a change in generations.  If I’m going to be chained to a desk, I will work at the desired speed and productivity level to please my employer, but under the conditions that I know I can focus: with distractions.  I hope that employers in the future will be tolerant of the everyone’s-a-blogger-now-a-days worker-bee.

1) Why doesn’t the Fed, instead of paying interest on the reserves that banks hold at the Fed, require the banks to pay interest to hold money at the Fed?  Wouldn’t that increase money velocity, i.e. entice banks to lend money so they earn interest, rather than lose money to pay interest?  That might decrease lending standards, but if lending standards were kept at the same stringent level, perhaps banks would allow for some [responsible] financial innovation.

2) How can we manage the global economy so it does not hinder on the local economy of a small country?  I’m calling out Greece here.  Just stepping back and thinking – we do not have a robust global & national economy if the fate of Greece greatly affects financial markets (which in turn affects banks, who will not lend to businesses because of the weary financial markets, and then affects the unemployed, where businesses have no access to money to grow and employ).

Just some thoughts

Has there been any other species that has declined in energy levels and physical productivity like the humans?  Is there any other animal that was once very active in its environment, that now can capture its food with simply keying in a credit card and watching the progress meter go by as it’s being delivered?

This thought provoked by the following blog: Overcoming Bias.

In reference to my previous post, Lemma: atrophy of the brain, here is a separate comment/rant regarding reading habits I referred to.
____

It thoroughly bugs me when those who read [or listen/watch] articles and news bits without asking about the source of the information or with no regard to the bias of the publisher.  One’s ideas and beliefs formed from one article, one news broadcast, one source of information is not well-rounded nor well-formed.

As a rebuttal to the ignorant, the arrogant, the just-plain-dumb, the ever-passive-consumer of tid-bit information: I have the hardest time forming opinions regarding politics, finance, economics, international affairs, etc, because I am feel I have no place to have an opinion.  I do not work closely with any national newsworthy matter; I will not give you an opinion on unemployment insurance, on the benefits of soy, on Palestine, on health care costs, etc.  I’d prefer to be educated fully on both/multiple sides of whichever interest, and even with that, I do not always believe it is fair to judge which side is “more right.”  I am fully aware that I would never “make it” as a politician, that this thought process may be too compassionate or “everyone is right and deserves a gold star.”

This does not, however, make me apathetic, uninterested, or close-minded.  But who am I to judge when I, myself do not have perfect, complete information?

The past year and a half, I’ve been engrossed in academic papers released by prominent (and some non-prominent) professors and Federal Reserve economists.  With all this reading, it’s gets me wondering about a few things.

1) Who else, other than other academics, reads this crap?

Yea I don’t think anyone.  The main reason being it’s difficult to understand without a rigorous economic education.  Who will understand econometric models or the method of choosing dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models versus Walrasian models?  Not many.

2) Why don’t writers care more about the “reachability” of their writing?

I say, status-quo, and to maintain a level of elitism.  If many people understood, then so goes their curtain of mystery.

3) Why are these papers so heavily bogged down by methodology of research?

Time after time, I read the abstract, intro and start getting into the nitty gritty of the paper, but I’m left with wanting more explanation, purpose and the question of “so what?”  What is the purpose of all this finely tuned research if it’s not being applied or used in some fashion?  If someone is researching the effectiveness of monetary policy, shouldn’t this research be actually _used_ in the Fed?  rather than published?

Here are my thoughts.  The research is very cerebral – economists can emulate mathematicians.  Often the reasoning, methodology, purpose, etc is obfuscated within esoteric language.  Therefore it’s not going to be easily understood within a greater arena, and then not utilized for the benefit of the field of economics.

I hope to break this cycle – produce research that is reasonably applicable _and_ understandable.  I hope to be an intelligible voice  for the field so as to make the education of developments in economics (i.e. monetary policy) clear to those who are interested but perhaps not have the background in the field.

There.  I said it.

There’s a level of complexity in returning to the Seattle area that is a bit difficult to understand.  I don’t quite understand it myself.  The time I spent in Boston was very valuable and pivotal to growing into my “shoes” per se.  And now, in rough terms, I feel my growth is stunted.

In Boston, I cultivated a taste for the development and pursuance of knowledge.  With that came a resentment towards settling, stale thinking and the weak-willed.  That said, I dislike Seattle for not being a “powerhouse.”  While there certainly is large technology and healthcare industries here, compared to the government powerhouse of DC, the everything-powerhouse of NYC, the fashion/entertainment powerhouse of LA, or the academic/healthcare/biopharma/technology/banking/historic powerhouse of Boston, it’s not much to keep me interested.  I resent Seattle for having grown up in a tractable atmosphere.

To return to an environment that I feel does not push me to be better, smarter, stronger, it feels I’m in this latent state of mind that only creates anxiety but kills all motivation.  I feel almost beaten into being taciturn and obsequious.  I’m struggling to have it not define who I am, merely just the location of where I am.  I’m struggling to fend off its oppressiveness; it consumes me, takes away what I made myself to become.  A step back, a step down.  A step I don’t want to retake since I’ve made so much effort to get to where I fell.  It’s a constant reminder of where I come from, a reminder that leads to all this resentment.