Glorious World Cup

For the first time in my life, I’ve been able to see as much as 50% of the soccer in the World Cup so far. I have benefited from a blessed combination of not working, day games (too many evening games can be disruptive to family priorities) and ESPN’s comprehensive coverage.

So far, it has been a pleasure. Brazil is clearly a wonderful venue, full of colour and carnival, and I have no complaints about the cameramen seeking out wild costumes and beautiful women. Somehow the carnival has made its way onto the pitch in most games, and the soccer has generally been great to watch.

The World Cup has something that even the European championships lack, which is a full spectrum of playing styles. When two styles meet in a match, the result can be fascinating tactics and the opportunity for talent to thrill. Queens is also a good environment to watch the spectacle remotely, with many cars displaying flags and restaurants and bars noisily supporting their own homelands. This will only get better as the tournament develops. 

A big part of me in glad that England has been knocked out, and the same part has a secret hope that the USA does not last much longer either. The reason is the commentary. ESPN has hired several British commentators and summarisers, who are generally excellent, except when England are playing. Everything is viewed through a narrower lens, more bigoted, more desperate, and more annoying. Every defence has been repeatedly carved open – it is only England’s that is then ruthlessly pilloried, at a time we should be celebrating the skill of the opposition. When the USA is playing, that tendency becomes even worse.

In general though, ESPN have done an excellent job, achieved by hiring knowledgeable and diverse pundits. Former US stars tend to be quite erudite – perhaps as people choosing a minority sport? – and Efan Ekoku and Stewart Robson are excellent analysts. In the studio, we have Roberto Martinez, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Michael Ballack, as well as some South Americans, and the outcome has been excellent. Based on the junk I read on the BBC website, you are not so fortunate in the UK. We have one exception, Steve MacManaman, who was a classy player but should never be allowed near a microphone. So far, he has been covering the England games – perhaps I can hope that he goes home with the England team?

What will it take to win? The tournament seems very open, so I have come up with a few criteria to separate the winners from the also-rans.

First, look at the team and the coach. Are they a unit? Do they have passion? It seems strange to say it at what ought to be the pinnacle of a career, but most teams seem to lack a winning spirit. Argentina is in open revolt with their coach. Some star players are remote. Other teams have many players who seem to be coasting. Why might this be?

The dominance of the club game may have a lot to do with it. Players from the most successful clubs are most tired after their season. A mid career player at a big club has a big contract to protect, not one to earn.

The winning combination seems to be a bunch of fast, fearless, hungry young players, guided by a few old hands looking to leave a legacy, and a recently retired coach who can galvanise a team, not just impose a system. Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and Ghana all seem to have this, though you have to worry if later in the tournament the old-timer skill of holding on to win ugly matches might become more important and catch these ones out. Then look at Germany and France.

The second factor is goals. This is divided into some sub-factors. Most goals so far have come from either pacey counter attacks using width, from sheer brilliance in strikers, or from set pieces.

Pacey counter attacks with width argue for the same teams as the ones above, those with youth, energy and less fear. I used to think that the emergence of the defensive midfielder into the game was a bad thing for entertainment. With unimaginative coaches, it is. But we see here how the smart teams have used the extra central strength to free up their wide players to great effect. There is nothing more entertaining than the sweeping move, and we have seen many of those in Brazil.

No matter how beautiful your soccer, someone has to put the ball into the net, and this might be the most important factor, strikers who can turn half chances into goals. In Spain versus Netherlands, the teams created a similar number of half chances, but van Persie and Robben were clinical while the Spanish were not. Messi rescued Argentina in injury time. It is no coincidence that great strikers are the moneymen of the game, they are the ones who make the most difference.

The third way to score is set pieces. So far, goals have mainly come from corners and crosses, so teams must be able to defend them (can Chile?). But I predict more will come from direct free kicks in the second half of the tournament, as players finally get used to the ball. The balls are flying rather than dipping, and most free kicks have gone too high, but you can sure Ronaldo and others will adjust to this in the end.

So our winners will have flowing fast players, a quality striker on form, and set piece expertise. France is possible, though I am not sure about Benzema. Are the Colombian strikers good enough? Does Brazil have the pace? Germany seem to have all the elements though.

The third factor is luck. Posts are narrow, and margins are of inches. There are only seven matches – in how many years are there surprise leaders of major leagues after just seven matches? And there are the officials. Marginal off-side or penalty decisions make all the difference – just ask Croatia. All the teams are good and anyone can beat anyone else, so the winners will be lucky.

Given all this, I am backing Germany. They have team spirit, pace, strikers, maturity, and, usually, luck. I think the Ghana result was not as bad as it looked, as Ghana has a wonderful team as well.

Having jinxed Germany, now I have two complaints. The minor one is about statistics. There is so much more we can glean from statistics in soccer. Other US sports have stats for everything, and these are displayed in real time consistently. Stats cannot tell you everything, but they also don’t lie. I would love to know the passing accuracy of every player as the match progressed, and a summary of key stats per player to be part of the coverage. Instead we often get flawed opinions of lazy pundits. Just look at the BBC website England player ratings – not good enough, Mr. McNulty. I predict that stats will play a bigger part of our viewing experience in future, and it will be better as a result.

My second complaint is about use of technology. I just don’t understand why soccer persists in being ten years behind other sports. In the first match, we had the ludicrous spectacle of FIFA showing off their goal-line system for a ball that nestled in the back of the net for ten seconds, while allowing a poor penalty decision decide the game.

It would be so simple to employ technology. We could have multiple referees on the field, supported by others watching film, all communicating to each other. Offside can be decided in two seconds, fouls and simulations by a panel within five seconds. Suarez could have been sent packing straight away, to everyone’s benefit.

The only half-decent argument against this is the risk of slowing down play. But I actually think it would work the opposite way. Until a decision is confirmed, play would continue. A result could be a revolution in the use of the advantage law, to the benefit of open and attacking play and also continuity.

Soccer has a lot to learn from US sports, and officiating and statistics are just two examples. But don’t expect FIFA to enter this century anytime soon.

Meanwhile, let’s enjoy the rest of the spectacle, hopefully without Mr. Suarez. And probably without Germany too, now I fancy them. May the best team win, not just the luckiest or the best cheats.

Piketty Slit

It is heartwarming to see a scholarly work of Economics become so popular. In case you have missed it, the book in question is Capital in the 21^st Century, by Frenchman Thomas Piketty, and it is outselling pretty well everything except Twilight and hunger Games just now.

I understand the book is long and detailed, and I don’t intend to read it myself. So I am grateful to the Economist and some other publications for reviewing it so thoroughly. To its credit, the Economist has been quite balanced in its critique, even though the attitude of the book lies far to its left. The FT has also given serious attention, but seems more inclined to pick at the logic and proofs than try to see the bigger picture. Even that approach shows that the FT is scared.

The basic premise of the book, supported by reams of historical analysis, is that capital tends to grow faster than the wider economy, so those with capital tend to get richer quicker than those who don’t and inequality tends to widen. The period from about 1930-1980 was a historical exception, one that spawned the dominant economics agenda of today. Which, according to Piketty, is wrong-headed and disastrous.

Like most ground-breaking theories, this one is simple and elegant. It feels true, based on recent observations. And Piketty seems to show that it is true historically as well. He advocates a global wealth tax, among other unlikely measures, as the most effective antidote.

Some people have claimed that capital does not usually grow so quickly as Piketty claims. For me, the most elegant evidence is the assumptions capitalists make about future capital growth. Most notably, almost all our pension investments actually need to grow at something like 6% real to avoid a black hole appearing in state and corporate coffers, not to mention banks.

So 6% is dutifully assumed in pension models, pushing the can down the road. Piketty only claims 4%, which is probably attainable. It could be argued that the 6% assumption is the root cause of many failings, creating unrealistic expectations of company boards, passed on via ever-more desperate lobbying, aggressive short-term goals and heartless labour policies, and stressed out executives comforted only by their ridiculous bonuses.

6% is not attainable long-term, but maybe 4% real is, and that is roughly what Piketty calculates. And capital can hardly argue against that when their own models require an even higher return.

Once Piketty establishes his simple equation and demonstrates the devastating consequences, the really interesting is what global society can do about it. Piketty advocates socialist style redistribution remedies. Chief among them is a global wealth tax, supported by progressive income and property taxes and a heavy inheritance tax. I am sure Tobin will be in there too if I read into the detail.

As a European, I support all this, but, as someone living in the US, I see the scale of the gap to close before any of it gains currency here. The greedy have done such a thorough job of selling their liberty and small government message that it becomes political suicide (for now at least) to argue for progressive measures.

I am particularly pleased to see the Piketty focus on inheritance tax. This is such an emotional issue. We all want the best for our children, and to feel the state will steal our legacy is tough to accept. But don’t we have enough opportunity within our lifetimes to set our children up? If it is our true priority, wouldn’t we invest more in them while we were still alive? And isn’t this the single most obvious example of unequal opportunity?

I was staggered to learn that in the US the minimum inheritance tax threshold is five million dollars. That is enough to set up a small family for life without contributing even a cent of tax, or without taking account of what parents can do to evade the tax or pass on assets while alive. It is perhaps the loudest signal of all of a structural unequal society. But it is such a hard sell to change, striking at the heart of our desires as parents.

So we will wait a long time for progressive redistribution. Still, the tide has to start to turn before it can roll back, so well done Piketty (and the OECD, and even the Economist) for igniting the debate. But I think I have spotted an alternative opportunity, one that might just be more palatable to the vested interests.

Piketty highlights the period from 1930-1980 as an exception to his rule, a time when inequality declined. It is telling to understand why. In response to crisis and war, governments between 1930-1980 invested at an unusually high level.

It is important to distinguish government spending with investment. The difference is between running costs and capital improvements. You don’t necessarily have to spend more overall to invest more. The small government brigade will of course argue differently.

Now the question is – what stops a massive global injection of investment right now? The potential benefits are huge.

In the developed world, we could establish pre-school for all. We could upgrade roads and public transport and create green and sustainable cities. We could ensure quality housing for all. We could set up care systems for our old.

In the developing world we could establish infrastructure, including internet, for all. We could bring universal education to the current level of developed countries. We could eradicate many diseases and early deaths. With some help, we could establish corruption-free institutions.

All of this is feasible with current technology. All it takes is money. A by-product would be full employment, since many of the projects require many willing workers. Further, if addressed globally, the money can simply be printed. It is not possible for the world to rack up debt (at least not monetary debt), since debt is a zero-sum game.

What would be necessary is to prevent government from dominating the implementation. Government should nudge and steer, but not necessarily spend or employ. Since starting these projects up would add to government spending in the short-term, we should be open to privatisations and partnership financing to offset this. That argues for things like free schools and more market-based health. 

So why not? Blind orthodoxy is one reason – with the IMF doing a reasonable job but sometimes in thrall to financiers. A lack of global consensus is another – if for example Germany chose not to participate they would build up surpluses and plunge the rest into more debt.

All this could be overcome were it not for the vested interests. For this scheme creates billions of winners, but a few losers, that is those with capital today. There are a couple of reasons. One is inflation, which would grow with investment, deflating the value of savings, in other words reducing the net worth of the wealthy. Another reason is that full employment would rebalance power between capital and labour. Living wages would emerge from the market, reducing profits.

I can’t see any other downsides. And these don’t really feel like downsides, merely necessary rebalancing. We can even use the famous trickle down answer in reverse. Capital today argues that their orthodoxy maximizes growth, which trickles down to all. Recent evidence scarcely supports the claim but they still make it. We could argue the converse. Investment rebalances wealth, but even the wealthy benefit from the social gains.

The tragedy here is less inequality and more squandered global development. We could make the world so much better for every single citizen, right now. Progress was wonderful from 1930-80; there has been progress since but at a slower pace. What a waste that is, and all to protect the citadel of privilege. If Piketty can help turn that tide, we all owe him a huge debt.           

In Praise of Aimlessness

One of the joys of semi-retirement is that I can make decisions on the spur of the moment. On Monday, the forecast was lovely, so I got in the car and headed for a long walk on Long Island, after a cursory check of a possible venue on Google.

I love walking in new places. This trip recalled an article I had recently read about aimless walking. Here is the link. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27186709. Seemingly, to gain the most from the experience, it is not enough just to walk. According to the article, there has to be no fixed destination or time limit, and no distraction such as listening to an ipod. It is recommended to be alone, in order to let the mind wander.

I like the theory, and the article quotes walkers from the past such as Wordsworth and Virginia Woolf. But perhaps these people did not live near Long Island. If there is no route, how can one avoid getting lost? It was hard enough to find the dilapidated entry to Arthur Kunz Country Park, let alone anywhere to park the car, and going in route-free seemed likely to end in trouble.

Still, I did my best. Before, I did not look for any sort of map or trail guide (just as well, I don’t think they exist). And, once parked – a little precariously – I just set off to discover where it might lead. I did have to make sure I could always retrace my steps. Luckily, after a while, a marked trail appeared, so that became a bit easier to ensure.

Even so, concentrating even mildly on a route home probably broke the rules of the purists, who presumably had the luxury of servants to call upon whenever they were lost and far from home. On this occasion, I broke another golden rule as well, keeping the ipod on for maybe half of the walk. While I agree that listening to nature is an important part of a good walk, walks are also a great place to enjoy music. So I tend to mix it up a bit, half with the ipod and half without. Wordsworth probably would have listened to his ipod if they had existed in his day!

Still, Monday was a relatively good effort by me, since at least the place was new, the route unclear and the time horizon open. And I did experience some of the benefits. Apart from just being thankful to be alive and so blessed by the luxury of time and the bounty of nature, my mind was free to wander.

Aimless walking has a lot in common with mindfulness. Perhaps it should be called mindlessness. Or aimfull walking? In each case, we are encouraged to retreat to the core of our bodies and minds. For a period, we try to minimize physical distraction, beyond soothing repetitive activity or simply breathing. We use that repetition to slow down our minds, to remove clutter. Hopefully that can bring us some peace, some reflection, and spawn some useful thoughts. It can work, or at least it can work for me.

This made me wonder (aimfully?) about what else we can do to achieve the same effect. Most obvious is dreaming, the ultimate aimless activity since we don’t consciously control it. I love sleeping, and I am generally blessed with benign dreams. Sometimes I wake up with new perspectives or new thoughts.

We can’t force ourselves to dream, but we can try to get enough sleep, to give dreams a chance. I read that humans sleep an hour a day less than they did 100 years ago, yet another example of our arrogance in disturbing nature. One tip I picked up lately was to by goggles that cut out the blue light we receive from TV’s and other screens, for this blue light, especially in the evenings, sends signals to our bodies to make us less tired. Another tip is to try to get used to a siesta or power nap during the day. Many of my best thoughts and most peaceful wakings come after siestas.

What else can we do aimlessly? Aimless tourism in a city, or on a drive, is a good idea. When I walk in New York, I try to consciously take different routes and to have longer time than I need. I always find something fascinating and new. This I suppose is an extension to aimless walking.

Aimless cooking might be an idea, to complement the slow food idea. Paying less heed to ingredient balances and times and more to feel might help us find more peace. But, like walking on Long Island, this one must come with a health warning, both about uncooked meat and the risks of aimlessly handling hot objects.

I sometimes look on aspects of retirement as a sort of blissful aimlessness. Large parts of the week have a lack of deadlines and an open agenda. I can take time to enjoy things like breakfast or even a shopping trip. Some days I can decide what to do on the spur of the moment.

When I first retired, or actually a little before, I had a period when one of my goals was to say yes to anything. That has similar aspects to aimlessness, in that it shows the same openness to surprise and spontaneity. I have pulled back a little from the policy now, but for a while it gave liberation, which at the time was a priority.

Reference to goals recalls a blog of a couple of months ago in praise of goals. How can one praise both goals and aimlessness, surely they are opposites? Well, yes they are, but I content that each has its place in life. A project requires goals to retain momentum and to give something to celebrate. Any activity involving others requires goals to ensure shared direction. But some time periods benefit from aimlessness – indeed aimlessness can even be a goal. Wandering as a vagrant through life with no goal probably loses its appeal after a time and most likely starts to harm the brain rather than benefit it.

Almost four years in, I still have no regrets whatsoever about taking early retirement. Almost all the surprises have been pleasant ones. There has been absolutely no boredom, or loneliness, no sense or fear of decay. I chose well, and of course I was immensely fortunate to be given the opportunity.

Yet still the most common look I receive from others when I explain my choice is one of bewilderment. I can see people thinking: wow I could never do that. What would I do all day? The sentiment makes me smile inwardly, and to an extent I respect it. We are all different.

If I try to look for the root cause of why this has worked for me, but does not work for others and is something to avoid for many others, I wonder if aimlessness is one clue. I have always cherished periods of time stretching endlessly before me, and never felt short-changed by my own company. Now I have the chance to make that feeling more common than before.

Perhaps there is one deeper level of root cause. What I find in these situations is a sort of inner peace. Even anticipating the situation offers peace. Aimlessness, as well as mindfulness, is about finding oneself. When everything else has gone, there is only oneself left. Breathing helps to focus. So does a beautiful, aimless walk in nature, with the added benefit of being able to celebrate the wonders of our world and of life.

But I suspect that it is necessary to have the inner peace first in order to welcome and then to celebrate it. A fully reconciled mind can happily remove all distractions, sure that what will remain is peace. An irreconciled mind might find some temporary respite in a breathing exercise, but will eventually seek the distractions again. If this is true, mindfulness can only be a medicine, never a cure. The cure comes from reaching full inner peace.

So if you are one of those fearing retirement, consider what it is you are running away from. Is your fear really of the emptiness, or is it of what that emptiness might reveal? And if it might be the latter, is it smart to run away from yourself forever? Or might it be time to invest in discovering what those deep blockers to inner peace might be? That will take more than mindfulness or a few aimless walks, but the rewards might be as large as anything available to humans.