The Clark Spark

Over this past winter, but particularly over the past 6 weeks, there has been overwhelming attention on the University of Iowa women's basketball team and its superstar player, Caitlin Clark.  When I say overwhelming, I mean local and national media outlets covering it as a top story, along with local and national commercials featuring Clark on a near-constant loop.

This attention may be a bit over-the-top, but it's mostly deserved.  Clark has been a uniquely dominant player on a highly successful team, and she's almost single-handedly brought women's basketball to unparalleled heights of popularity.  (Full disclosure:  My spouse was her 7th and 8th grade math teacher, so I may be slightly biased.)

To me, the Clark-mania is very similar to the late 1970s when Larry Bird dominated men's college basketball with his prolific scoring and passing ability, and brought popularity to the game that hadn't been there before.  Among the similarities, it can't be dismissed that both were white players.  Among the differences, Bird did it when few games were even on TV, while Clark's games are seen by millions. 

Clark has handled herself both on and off the court with style and grace -- although often with a little less grace on the court.  Regardless, people want to see her play, and hear what she has to say.  

All of this attention, however, is bringing out some haters.  Success has a way of doing that, as does the ubiquitousness and anonymity of social media, where idiots compete to offer their extreme opinions.

I get why some are tired of Clark.  Her record-breaking performances have been going on for a few months now, as has the attention to her.  I'm even ready for a break now that college basketball season is over.  What I don't get, though, is the hate coming from current and former women's basketball stars.

I'm sure some of it is economics; Clark's play and ensuring stardom have already enriched her well beyond what those other players have earned over many more years.  However, those players don't seem to understand that the rising tide of attention to the game has lifted their financial boats as well.  It's like someone who won't accept a gift, because they felt deserving of more.

I'm also sure that most of it is plain jealousy.  Those veteran Clark-hating women's players are butt-hurt that even though they worked hard to become elite players, nobody paid much attention to them.  So they've resorted to trying to bring down Clark by suggesting she had to win an NCAA championship to be considered great, or some other such nonsense.

Their complaints are pitifully weak, and frankly, make them look like morons.  It's hard to belittle a player who led the nation in scoring and assists two years in a row.  Besides, what makes Clark great isn't just what she does on the court, but HOW she does it.  No one consistently attempted and made 30-foot shots in the college game before.  It's fun to watch.

It remains to be seen how Clark might continue to transform the women's game going forward.  While she changed the college-level game, that will be harder to do in professional basketball, where better players and extra effort will be available to contain her.

While we wait to find out, let's use the time to make fun of the old-school morons who won't simply acknowledge Caitlin Clark as one of the greatest college basketball players of all-time.

You Are (Probably) Not A Role Model

We need better role models.

Back in the day, we had good role models.  Often times these were family members or close friends with whom we had frequent personal interactions.

If they weren't personal acquaintances, our old school role models still made some impact on us.  Sometimes, our previous role models were civil or religious humanitarians who'd done far-reaching good deeds.  Sometimes, they were military folks who showed tremendous courage in the face of bad circumstances.

Regardless, we had good role models.

Now, most people who admit to having a role model will name a wealthy celebrity -- emphasis on the word wealthy.  More than likely, a person will name an athlete or actor as a role model.

Or these days, it may simply be a billionaire who didn't do anything particularly role model-ish -- they just made an obscene amount of money thanks mostly to American capitalism.

It's this last category I don't understand.  How is a CEO or hedge fund manager, for two examples, worthy of being modeled after?  Because they have money?

(I'll admit to saying Warren Buffett is a role model of mine, but I'm talking about professionally, not personally.  Let me add here that he's the most self-deprecating billionaire around by far, so if you had to name a billionaire role model, he'd be it.)

People have adopted billionaire as role models because they have social media platforms that didn't exist in the past to promote themselves,  Without that, we wouldn't even know who most of them are, much less want to follow in their footsteps.

As role models, billionaire tech bros or investors are not worthy.  Wealth creation is not a prerequisite for it, it's actually a reason why they should be disqualified from it, if there isn't anything else.

So perhaps I should re-phrase my opening....

We don't just need better role models.  We need new ones.

The Psychology Of Money In Practice

Last week, I was in Las Vegas and Phoenix for a mix of business and pleasure.  I had several interactions that provided real-life, end-game examples of what I wrote about in my last blog entry about the book The Psychology of Money, and now I have to share them.....

Vegas is a great venue to observe how people spend money.  More than anywhere on earth, it's a place to stay in your lane when it comes to money, because the opportunities to spend are relentless.

For those who could afford it, the Vegas strip has expensive, even exclusive places to stay, eat, shop, and gamble. For others, the strip has options for more modest lodging, fast food, convenience stores, and yes, gambling.

I saw people staying at $1,000 per night hotel rooms, and I saw people staying at $100 a night rooms.  I saw people dining at celebrity chef restaurants where no prices are posted, and I saw people eating at food courts. I saw people carrying Gucci and Tiffany shopping bags, and I saw people carrying CVS shopping bags.  I saw people playing $100 minimum blackjack, and I saw people playing penny video slot machines.

The psychology of money matters a lot in Vegas.  If a person has a disciplined spending psyche (or is very wealthy), Vegas is a fun and amazing place.  If a person doesn't have a fiscally responsible psyche, Vegas will chew them up and spit them out.

Phoenix provided a more specific example of the psychology of money.  Late winter golf has always been expensive there, with most courses charging well over $100 per 18-hole round.  Above-average resort courses charge far more, some exceeding $500 per round.  Regardless, all golf courses there are packed with players at this time of the year, so prices are much higher than normal.

My attitude has always been one of being willing to pay these higher prices.  By this time of year, I haven't played for a few months, so I haven't spent anything on golf for a long time.  I'm perfectly willing to spend up that savings on winter resort golf.

Meanwhile, other golfers I know who travel or winter there -- people with a materially similar or greater net worth -- won't spend that for golf.  They don't want to pay more than would at other times and places during the year, so they either don't play, or they only play on the lowest-priced (worst conditioned) courses.

In summary, my mindset is, it's more than I want to spend on golf, but I'm willing to do it.  The others' mindset is, it's more than they want to spend, and they aren't willing to do it.

These opposing views are another manifestation of the psychology of money.  Being able to afford / not afford things is one subset.  Being willing to buy / not buy them is another.

The Psychology Of Money

I recently purchased a book called The Psychology of Money.  Not just one book, but dozens of them, which I gave to clients.

It isn't the best finance book I've read, nor is it close to being the best behavioral book I've read.  But it is one of the better behavioral finance books I've read.

I'd summarize it this way -- The Psychology of Money explores the different ways people think about money, and how personal experiences with family, friends, and neighbors will often influence their financial behavior – for better or worse.

Put differently, if a person is around others who are (un)disciplined with money, they're more likely to be the same way.  That may not be a revelation, but it should also make one think about how the same philosophy can be applied to other things.

If you're consistently around people of a certain political view, you're more likely to share it.  Same for religion.  Same for social issues.

This makes it pretty simple to understand the formations of group-thinking a/k/a cultish behavior.  The lack of exposure to other views leave one to believe there are no alternatives.

I'm old enough to remember when the internet was supposed to solve all of this.  It made the world smaller and accessible, so presumably humans (with internet access) would be able to see humanity in a broader context.

Unfortunately, that idea has come crashing down under the weight of unregulated social media apps.  Now people just follow other people online who think the same way.  And let's face it, some of this people are ignorant and malevolent, increasing the likelihood their followers will be that or worse.

Which brings me back to the broader lesson of The Psychology of Money.  You learn what you live, which may or may not be a good thing.

A Candidate Guide, Circa 2024

Tonight the spotlight of American politics once again shines on Iowa, as it holds its quadrennial caucuses.  Beginning this year, it'll only be first-in-the-nation for the Republican party (such as it is), as the Democratic party voted to move their version to the more diverse electorate of South Carolina.

As I did in 2012, 2016, and 2020, here's my candidate guide for this cycle:

Nikki Haley --

The only one exceeding expectations in Iowa, she's not-coincidentally the least extreme on social issues, with some foreign policy experience as former U.N. Ambassador.  Very likely would be the next U.S. president if she won the nomination, and eventually agreed to discard the Trump stench.  In an attempt to save democracy, I should probably go caucus for her, but these days I don't want to register as a Republican for even one day to do it.

Ron DeSantis --

The most underperforming given the expectations of 6-9 months ago.  In addition to his aloofness and lack of charisma, he has no views setting him apart from his main competition.  Religious conservatives have boosted him, but everyone knows after Iowa, that gets him absolutely nowhere.  He's basically a dumber, meaner version of Jeb Bush, another Florida governor whose national profile went down after running for president. 

Vivek Ramaswamy --

Another guy who made a fortune running a tech company who thinks that made him an expert on everything.  Achieved his 15 minute of fame after one summertime debate, but once people looked at him more closely, they didn't like what they saw.  Basically, at this point everybody thinks he's kind of an a-hole with no political credibility.  Probably running for VP at this point.

Donald Trump --

More criminal than candidate, the MAGA cult leader is almost sure to win in a state full of caring but intellectually-challenged older rural white people.

Others Formerly Known As Candidates including Asa Hutchinson (technically still in the caucus), Chris Christie, Doug Bergum, Tim Scott, Mike Pence, Will Hurd, Ryan Binkley (who?) -- 

You weren't self-aware enough, and/or were only in it for the attention.  Thanks for visiting.

2024

Time for another entry in my annual list of things I'd like to see happen next year.  But first, let's see how this year stacked up to last year's list, with comments in ALL CAPS:

A rising stock and bond market.

STOCKS UP NEARLY 25%, BUT  BONDS FLAT.

That Vladimir Putin is purged as a leader.  Any mysterious and/or violent way is acceptable.

IT WAS A BIG ASK.

Newly remodeled bathrooms in my house.

100%

Me attending a major sporting event.

DOES A KANSAS BASKETBALL, NOTRE DAME FOOTBALL, OR INDY CAR RACE COUNT?

Elon Musk leaves Twitter, or I leave Twitter for another similar service.

NO BUT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE.

Drought relief for the western U.S.

NOT REALLY.

Me getting a golfing hole-in-one or eagle.

NOPE.

MAGA-death, and a crop of moderate presidential candidates for 2024 who aren't aged 70s or 80s.

UNFORTUNATELY, LOST GROUND HERE.

More acceptance and usage of plant-based proteins.

I SUPPOSE YES, BUT NOT AT ALL WIDESPREAD.

And now, my new annual list of things I'd like to see happen next year:

The demise of the MAGA movement via defeat of their candidates in the 2024 elections (repeat).

Streaming service mergers and resulting price decreases.

Downside my residence -- or in the alternative, have my trailer trash neighbors relocate.

Finally get my Real ID driver's license.

Delegitimization of the LIV golf tour.

Consistently avoid working on Mondays and/or Fridays.

More pay-at-the-table restaurants.

A new technology device or service I want but don't have

It Isn't WOITH It

Over a decade ago, I started to write a number of blog posts about people (politicians) I considered to be Whacked Out In The Head, shortened to the acronym WOITH.  I stopped adding to it years ago, it seemed / seems a juvenile thing to do, it took time away from other things I wanted to write about, and frankly, there would be no end to the list.

However, due to the overwhelming number of very deserving new candidates that have crawled out of various holes since 2016 or so, I've decided to make one last(?) update of WOITH award winners.  There are really too many to list, so I'm simply going to name it as a group:

Every so-called MAGA republican.

This includes now high-ranking folks in the U.S. Congress, including current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a truly weird, conspiratorial, and homophobic person.

It includes a new, even crazier generation of Iowa politicians, mostly (but not all) older white guys who think people want them to ban books, legislate medical care, and minimize vulnerable people.  

And of course, it includes the leader of the band, DJ Trump, a malignant narcissistic, grifting, admittedly fascist, wannabe dictator.  He's as WOITH as it gets, and unfortunately very good at trying to get weak-minded folks to be more like him.