Why The Free Market is Not Made for Insurance Companies

Wealth is generated through innovation. And, it is impossible to create an innovative insurance company.

Think about it. Insurance companies make money by analyzing risk, and taking premiums that add up to more than the cost of acceptable risk. The problem is that there's no way to be innovative about analyzing risk. When you analyze risk, you hypothesize a certain event and count the number of times the event occurs over time. As an insurance company, you have no control over what the event is, or any aspect of it. What you get is reams of data about the event, and the knowledge that such an event is undesirable. Think a broken leg. Insurance companies all know exactly what a broken leg is, and they all have reams of data which count the number of times people tend to break their legs over a given time. Then they take everybody's money and pay money to the people with broken legs. That's all there is to it. Color me second-rater, but it doesn't take a John Galt to do that.

The only possible way for an insurance company to be innovative is to be innovative about analyzing risk. However, the innovation involved here is extremely insignificant. Everyone knows what a broken leg is. It's public knowledge. It's very obvious. And unless you're a Mafioso, it's really really difficult to be innovative about the way people tend to break their legs. The best you can do is count the number of times people break their legs, and factor that into your mind-blowingly simplistic equation for generating profit.

The idea that insurance companies can operate as businesses in the free market is insidious and stupid. Insurance companies calculate risk and take premiums that exceed the cost of acceptable risk. We've already discussed how it is impossible to be innovative about calculating risk. You calculate risk, and if you have enough money, you're correct. That leaves two ways to create profit. Either you 1) increase the cost of premiums, or 2) don't pay out the money you're supposed to. Surprise surprise; this is exactly what health insurance companies were doing before Obama passed the Affordable Care Act. Critics of the Affordable Care Act say that it will kill business. Hopefully, they're correct, because insurance companies shouldn't be businesses. The free market doesn't apply to them. They don't deserve to make profit, because they don't innovate.

A good way to think about it is the difference between reading a book and writing a book. You don't deserve to generate a profit by reading books. It's the writers who sold you the books who deserve to generate a profit. Studying the empirical world is like reading a book. Creating new products is like writing a book. And the moment you turn risk-taking into an innovative endeavor, and begin writing books, you're no longer in the business of insurance; you're in the business of investing.

Mainstreamology (Or: Why I'm Committed to Being an Indy Filmmaker As Opposed to Hollywood)

The idea of being mainstream has a different conceptual geometry than independent. Consequently, I don't believe that independent people will ever become mainstream, nor will mainstream people become independent, at least not without giving up their former status as independent or mainstream respectively. The two are mostly mutually exclusive. Here's why.

When you make a choice to become mainstream or independent, you choose to adopt something and discard something. Choosing to become mainstream means you adopt quantity of audience and discard unity within the individual. Choosing to become independent means you adopt unity within the individual and discard either money or the thing which brings it—quantity of audience.

Unity within the individual can be seen as vertical. Quantity of audience, of course, is horizontal. Thus we have independent movies, for instance, which are very deep. The word "deep" is not a misnomer: they're deep because each idea expressed in them was very personal to the artist, and thus touches the artist very deeply. Unfortunately, what this means is that the artist cannot and will not be accessible right away to anyone who does not already think like the artist. That is why quantity of audience is sacrificed. It isn't because the artist is unwilling to make money, it's because the artist's commitment to him- or herself as an artist is greater than his or her commitment to money.

Hollywood movies, on the other hand, are made for the purpose of garnering a large quantity of audience, and also money. What this means, of course, is that the movie must resonate on some level with a large number of people, many of whom think very differently about just about everything. This is why Hollywood movies are so very collaborative. Hollywood is a business. People are measured by the amount they cause something to sell. And causing something to sell is determined not by how much you listen to your soul, but by how much you listen to other people. This is why Hollywood likes the apprentice system—climbing the Hollywood corporate ladder starting as a prop boy means you listened very carefully to a large number of salaried employees for decades, and now you know how to make money.

This is where it gets interesting. Observe: listening to your soul and listening to others are both virtuous. But they're different and complementary kinds of virtues. This means that it's possible and even desirable for two people to be in the same room, one of whom is very adept at listening to his own soul and the other very adept at listening to others, and for both of these people to be very virtuous, not lacking a whit in virtue. Obviously, if they both were film directors, the former would probably be an independent film director, and the latter a Hollywood director. The former would also probably sustain himself on a second source of income, while the latter may bring in millions of dollars. This is the natural way of things.

It is possible, though very rare, for an independent movie to make it big. But this will only happen one of two ways. Either 1) some big name with a lot of influence is somehow touched by the film because it speaks personally to her, and she uses her influence to manufacture an audience for it, or 2) it just so happens serendipitously and inexplicably to strike a nerve with a large number of people, probably in a way that the director and others making it could never have foreseen.

This creates a difficulty for directors in both camps (independent and Hollywood). Hollywood directors sometimes decide they want to be more independent, and independent directors very often want to be mainstream. But I wouldn't recommend expending too much energy in either respective direction. Hollywood directors should stick to Hollywood, and independent directors should stick to independence. Hollywood directors who try to be independent don't often succeed. Though there's no harm in making a foray into independent production, there's also no harm in sticking to Hollywood. I'm not saying that introspection as a spiritual quality is bad for Hollywood directors, but rather that introspection will probably just make you a better Hollywood director rather than a truly independent voice. Likewise, a foray into Hollywood may be great for an established independent director. But the "boulevard of broken dreams" is filled with people who unwisely tried to take on Hollywood while remaining true to their idiosyncratic independent commitments. And the idiosyncratic directors who make it big in Hollywood are never truly accepted as independent voices by the people whose opinions in this regard really matter.

Note that these ideas, I think, can be extended to every area where the independent vs. mainstream dichotomy applies, which is pretty much everywhere. Thus, in politics, we have people like Senator Bernie Sanders and former Senator Hillary Clinton. The Clintons are very mainstream, while Sanders is very independent. They're both good at what they do. But I don't think either of them could or would want to switch places. The fact of the matter is, if you want to be mainstream, you're going to have to cater to mainstream opinions as much as possible. And if you want to be independent, you're probably better off in the House of Representatives. Obama may be an "independent," but he got lucky. (This is, of course, my perspective as a lifelong independent-minded Democrat who voted twice for Obama.) (It's important to note, also, the reason why this political perspective is important. People often get the mistaken idea that being an independent voice is ipso facto better than being mainstream, most vehemently, I think, in the realm of politics. But this is not true, and nobody I've talked to seems to have the slightest hint as to why it isn't true. It's not true not because compromise is good, or because sincerity comes from introspection or long-held ideals. It's not true because either you're good at being mainstream, or you're good at being independent, or you're mediocre at both. There's really no middle ground here.)

Being independent requires a specific type of mind, as does being mainstream. Neither should switch spots too often. As far as filmmaking goes, the independents have a long history of very intriguing and high-quality art films which people should try to watch. Independents should, and probably do, study these. Hollywood directors, on the other hand, have a long history of films of equal but different quality. Hollywood was conceived as epic ("Birth of a Nation") and because of the Depression, they took on the role of national cultural therapists. I love independent art films, but they don't make me cry. Hollywood almost always does—even the low-quality low-art films. The problem is, I don't always want to cry about the state of our country. Sometimes, I need fulfillment in other areas. I'm sure that many other people feel the same, and this is why we need both the independents and the Hollywood folks.

Bottom line: stick to what you're good at. Hollywood directors: it's better to make people cry with low-art movies than go broke making independent films. Independents: it's better to blow people's minds with simple, low-budget, high-art films than go broke trying to make an action flick which you intend to sell to an uninterested Hollywood exec. An "independent" Hollywood film will leave the true art critics gasping for air (in a bad way). A "Hollywood" independent flick will run you out of business (and leave the true art critics gasping for air, in a bad way). Don't do it; stick to what you're good at. It's better that way.

Muslims and Americans

It's interesting to note that Muslims and America are similar in that they both have global ambitions. According to the Qur'an, Islam is a religion for the whole world. Somewhat similarly, America has always had ambitions to be the world empire. Global imperialism of this style was descended from the Roman Empire, which also had global ambitions, but lacked the means to meaningfully rule the world. Right now, there are a lot of people who feel that the global ambitions of Islam and the global ambitions of America are in conflict. But a close examination of the nature of these ambitions should illustrate that that's not the case.

A global brotherhood.

Islam is meant to be a global brotherhood of believers, marked by religious ideals like faith, goodwill, and good social conduct. But nowhere in the Qur'an is it indicated that this brotherhood is to be political. Interestingly, political order and statehood seem to be missing from the Qur'an. What you will find in the Qur'an, however, is an edict that there is a good reason for mankind to be split up into different nations. "O mankind! We ... made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other" (49:13). This lays the foundation for cooperation and brotherhood between nations and political entities. If we focus on Islam, in theory, America, as just another nation among many, ought to be on friendly terms with Islam.

The nation of unquenchable fire.

America is criticized on a couple of counts. For one, our culture is very materialistic. Money holds a great deal of importance, the advertising industry and its attendant consumerism is all-pervasive, and the thirst for paying customers of American commodities is never quenched. For another, our government and education system are secular. Religion is deliberately placed at a distance and diminished in importance to a great degree. The second point seems to indicate that we are averse to religious guidance in a visceral way, and the first point seems to show that we are simultaneously attracted to non-religious things. Thus it seems we're doubly anti-religious. To a culture where religion is everything, that doesn't go down easy.

I, however, think American secularism is misunderstood. Secularism doesn't negate religion; it protects it. Adopting a secularist culture is like surrounding yourself with an unquenchable fire. Material goods are fundamentally unsatisfying, hence the fire is unquenchable. But material goods are forceful in their ability to transform things, and the results of the transformation are evident. If used wisely, a secularist perspective can help transform some situations into opportunities to express religion.

Religion is focused on specific infinite-scope phenomena. It is not secular. Secularism is focused on specific singular-scope phenomena. The nature of the dichotomy is not one of enmity. The Qur'an says, "And of everything we have created pairs: that ye may receive instruction" (51:49). Religion and secularism are a dichotomy and a pair. They are opposite ideas which both exist in reality. It is logical, then, that given time and ambition, a secularist empire would rise up as well as a religious one. But unless I'm missing something, the import of this is exactly nothing. Night and day also both exist. You can argue that religion is more important than secularism, which I think is pretty much true. But you can also argue that day is better than night. That doesn't mean that one or the other doesn't have a purpose.

Clearly, if secularists and religious people are at odds right now, the reason must lay beyond the mere ideas themselves. The Middle East is certainly riddled with problems, and many of these problems are caused by the West and by America. But some of America's problems are caused by America, and some of the Middle East's problems are caused by the Middle East. That doesn't mean that America is fundamentally at odds with America or the Middle East with the Middle East. Whatever the trauma of Western civilization that has led to the conflict, we should take heart that it is at the very least not fundamental to our differing perspectives as human beings. I think if we see it this way, it might help us understand one another better when we talk about the Middle East.

Neon Indian (FOR SMART PEOPLE ONLY)

Contents of a communication (version 1.1) to professor Janis Johnson (expert in American Indian culture, professor at the University of Idaho):

Intended for immediate circulation among academic professors (especially those who specialize in music, music history, American culture / literature, and the American Indian experience) direct from a nice little college town in Idaho:

SUBJECT:
NEON INDIAN (Am. Indian voice in (recurring?) Electropop revival fad)

BODY:
I'll contribute a little hard-hitting pop philosophy in the Western analytical tradition.

What I'm calling the (hopefully recurring) Electropop revival fad (otherwise known as synthwave, or retrowave, and things like that) is a very interesting grassroots movement in the independent music community. For myself, it's a little important to look into what appears to be the aesthetic focus of the movement.

Although many very legitimate exponents of the idea are cropping up all over the Internet, the aesthetic brainchild (properly understood) of the movement appears to be a man by the name of Seth Haley.

The whole focus of the new / revised genre involves exploring different ideas of organic[ity] regarding sequenced, looped, processed, sampled et cetera, digital and analog electronic, digital-electronic, and algorithmic sound synthesis / resynthesis techniques. So far my favorite exponents of this genre appear to be the work of Seth Haley and a private digital edit of my favorite track by Neon Indian (which I cannot release for copyright reasons).

The name of the track is exactly this: "Mind, Drips". (It's important to note that capitalization, grammar, and so forth are all fairly important in the title, and that it be properly quoted to signify that it is in fact the title of the work in question.)

I'll endeavor to use my knowledge of synthesis techniques to try to explain the cultural significance of the movement, as my knowledge, I think, is fairly extensive in this area. I'll try to keep it short, but it may take a while.

I think the most important cultural factor here is the well-observed and fairly obvious fact that digital synth techniques (digital-electronic as well as algorithmic) are almost never expensive, and very easy to come by. On the same hand, however, authentic analog electronic techniques are invariably difficult to procure in just about every possible way. This fact pretty much cuts to the root of scientific and philosophical inquiry itself in the Western tradition.

It would take an extremely long time to get into what I mean by that, and since that's not the focus of this, I'll let that by for now.

I'll first use a short burst of theory to explain this. Authentic analog electronic paths introduce true-random noise into the synthesis structure of the technology, whereas digital techniques are usually suffocatingly precise. In terms of a single step in my aesthetic journey as a musician: I had a struggle at one point trying to come up with powerful, bassy sounds. I assummed, incorrectly, that the right way to do it was with sharp and exact digitally-produced synthesized audio wave files. My working theory at the time was, the more sharp, and the more exact, the more powerful.

Upon even modest historical investigation of the subject, however, it became very clear that I was exactly wrong. The ONLY way I can think of to produce truly powerful sounds is the introduction of reasonably true-random noise.

We don't have to worry too much (as artists, anyway) about the mathematical/philosophical/theoretical notions regarding the definition of "true-random" as I'm fairly sure this is still a point of controversy. However. The salient point here involves organic[ity] using electronics and computers. (Although from time to time so far I also hear a guitar.)

I can't delve too much further into this due to lack of time, though it's all over the Internet. Perhaps it would be best to offer a couple of examples and how they illustrate the point. (Be aware, from time to time, I may fudge a few details.)

TITLE:
Com Truise (aka Seth Haley) — ControlPop

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This track involves some of the most cheezy synth techniques not from the '80s, but actually (I think) from the '70s (wide filter sweeps). It's very much looped, very repetitive. It begins by (and by? it did repeat at least once here) harsh and grating pop music (esque?) samples. The point of organi[city] mainly involves the exact model and build of the specific synthesizers used, and their respective circuit-paths. I actually don't know any of these models and builds at all, but that's the factor. It's very much about figuring out the exact right insane genius who created the exact right synthesis technique (and embodiment) and coming to terms with their particular and individual method of introducing randomness to generate powerful sounds. After that, the aesthetic decisions regarding placement (in the track) should be very simple, however, it may be difficult sometimes to procure the necessary funding to buy the equipment.

TITLE:
Com Truise — "VHS Sex" (listen on YouTube)

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This one is a little more controlled. By appearances, far less synthesis techniques were used than the last track, and the power here relies mainly on the theoretical notion of introducing randomness primarily regarding such-and-such synthesizer (I know not which). The main point is that there are less synths. (On a personal note, I find this track a little difficult, because of the vocal sample, because, as a budding filmmaker, I continue to have fantasies about using this exact track in the official My Little Pony (FIM) movie regarding important scenes focusing on Princesses Celestia and Luna, where power is particularly relevant. I find it difficult to imagine, unfortunately, how a large corporation could possibly get away with such a thing, though, even if the samples were removed, which sort-of would've been my creative decision.)

TITLE:
Jeff Mills — "Phase 4"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This isn't really part of the movement, per se, but it's still relevant, and I can explain quickly. Organi[city] was easily achieved using two repeated samples of some esoteric, virtuoso technique on the violin. The rest was mechanical.

TITLE:
Com Tuise — "Data Kiss"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This one is very difficult to explain. The track is actually one of his weaker ones, aesthetically (in my humble opinion, which of course should be understood within the context of my own, personal, aesthetic commitments as an artist at this point), but that's not what I want to talk about.

The main thing I want to talk about here is the video produced by a man named "David Dean Burkhart" for the track. It is only a remix of what appears to be a low-budget '80s flick by the name of "Looker." Organicity, here, appears to have been amazingly achieved merely through the editing of the video. There is one point of organicity I'm certain about, and one I'm not so sure about. The first (I'm fairly 100% sure) is exactly this: organicity achieved through asynchronous usage of rather categorically different modes of editing and capture technologies. If you watch some of the "subliminal"-(ish) cuts very closely, you'll notice that as the cuts get smaller, the screen flickers more. I cannot conceive of any possible way to achieve this except through exactly the method I described: asynchronous usage of (rather) categorically different modes of editing and capture technologies.

The second, which I'm not so sure about, is the very last motion clip at the end, where the protagonist-girl kind-of dissolves like a rainbow (except a little more like a mathematical rainbow of just one color). It looks like the kind of thing which you'd do using "analog, modular video synthesis" (emphasis on the word "video" and "modular"), but I don't think this technique was in vogue in the '80s, and is rather expensive to produce, particularly on a limited time-frame. But I'm not sure.

TITLE:
Neotone (aka Nathan Foster, the author) — "Crystadeline"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This is my own contribution, but it may be difficult for some. For one, of the one's I've mentioned, it appears (to me anyway) to be the least organic. And the main problem was that I was forced to use mainly weird math, as well as exactly 1 and 1/2 of exactly the wrong kind of synthesizer, as well as (luckily) exactly the right authentic, analog filtering technology.

In addition to stock FutureLoops (FruityLoops, I think, at the time, but they got sued) samples, I used two synthesizers. They were not authentic-analog, by any reputable understanding of the term. One of them was one or another of the Casio brand of synthesizers. However, interestingly, I somehow was able to get away (aesthetically) with using a fairly lossless and unmodified live-recorded sample line as the second bass track from this synth. Simply by choosing exactly the right preset. (I'm not sure how I did that.)

The second synth has a little more troubled of a history. The model of the synth is the "Korg Poly 800 MKII". First of all, the circuit path of this synth is pretty much flawed in every way a circuit path can be flawed in a digital-electronic synthesizer. It was produced, I think, to sell quickly. And second of all, the previous owner had no idea how to take care of vintage synths, and it's a miracle the thing still works. (I also kind-of broke the rules by playing on the synth keyboard directly, instead of sequencing through a midi connection. It does help, though, that this was one part of the way organicity was achieved.) Most of the synth samples were collected using this synth.

There were a couple of other ways, too. For one, I used an amplifier-to-microphone sampling technique using a fairly acoustically dirty amplifier. The dirtiness of the amp helped, and (though I didn't intend for this to happen) it also helped that some background noises involving the Audacity metronome were picked up, and I was able to accept this eventuality aesthetically.

The third, and most important factor in the synthesis technique I used was really the miracle of the story. Somehow, at some point, I was able to come across a good deal of money. One of the things I purchased (true-to-form in the musical tradition in question) was exactly the right synthesis (module) produced by exactly the right insane genius. The product is the revised version of the Sherman Filterbank (rack-mountable, but that's not important). I was able to create an ad-hoc modular analog synthesizer with a very pleasing circuit path simply by connecting an audio patch cable between the MKII and the Filterbank. I used automatic ADSR triggering techniques in the filterbank, as well as a little distortion, and it all seemed to work out. (It's a very nice module because it's not that expensive, easy to use, well-designed, and anyway, there are a lot of them in production, I believe. It has a strange reputation of being able to inject organi[city] everywhere it goes.)

Another important point to note was the focus of the track. I set out with exactly the intention of achieving exactly the same "sound" (or "style," or whatever) as the track "VHS Sex," and furthermore, by using exactly the same, minimalistic chord progression. While making, of course, my own artistic statement. And I achieved exactly that. I suppose due to echoes of my previous aesthetic commitments as a musician, the track also ended up being more minimalist in nature. I threw in exactly two strange, fetishistic female vocal samples derived in these respective ways: One was conceptually fetishistic ("I feel you coming"), which was shipped royalty-free and licensed as a stock sample in the version of FruityLoops I was using at the time, and strangly and a-tonally modified using various functionality in the program. The second was a woman (Psifon) faking an orgasm, who recorded the sample herself, and uploaded it for free to Freesound.org. (I feel strange noting this, as an artist, but by the way, she did a very good job.) A couple sequencing decisions later, and I had a track.

I'd also hasten to note that another sample is an extremely speeded-up one of a something-or-other (probably another Casio preset), and the other is a very well-collected, well-selected, and well-used sample of a Sanza (traditional African musical instrument). Hope no one's aesthetically offended by either of these.

TITLE:
Neon Indian — "Mind, Drips"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This track is extremely rare as an artistic achievement. It's very, very organic, first of all. Synthesizer techniques were used in exactly the right way. Some of the details were fudged, but it turned out very beautifully. And one, oft-overlooked aspect of this movement, by so many authors, is the presence of beautiful and complex poetic lyrics. (Only once did I see something like this on the Internet — what appears to be Com Truise's remix of Foster the People's "Helena Beat," but it isn't really the same, since two different sources produced the work. It's another amazing track which I also have fantasies about using in the official My Little Pony movie, but as a director, I'd be satisfied to settle with the track in question here ("Mind, Drips."))

I hate to bring this nonsense up AGAIN, but in my HUMBLE opinion as an artist, due to my current artistic commitments as an artist, I do wish the track were a little longer, though I'm willing to accept competing opinions. I've already produced my own edit, and I listen to it all the time. (Of course, for the purposes of the My Little Pony movie, it'd certainly be better to use the shorter version, which would run during the credits. Perhaps I'd be able to get away with both songs, if there were enough artists involved in the making of the film.)

TITLE:
Airliner (also Seth Haley) — "Illuminism"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
Organicity is achieved through dialectical negotiation between artistic intent and skillful prediction of / happy accidents regarding algorithmic results, all revolving around the musical notion of rhythm.

TITLE:
Airliner — "Everyday"

DESCRIPTION:
Organicity is achieved through dialectical negotiation between artistic intent and skillful prediction of / happy accidents regarding algorithmic results, all revolving around the musical notion of chord progression.

TITLE:
HYPERDRIVER — "KEEP IT HARDCORE (...RUSHES IN WITH A HAMMER)" (title in all-caps as it appears on my hard drive)

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
I'd better hasten to mention this track, although the genre is very different. I'm a little unaware of HYPERDRIVER's creative process. But organic[ity] was easily, and probably very quickly achieved in this track by what appeared to be a long-distance phone call between two friends in different countries who met over the Internet. (The story behind this one takes a while to explain, but I may have already gotten one or two of the details wrong, and I'm sure the folks in question can speak for themselves.)



Pretty much all of this music is available for free over the Internet. However, I'm absolutely certain that all these people REALLY REALLY REALLY want to make money. It is available for free, per se, but it's pretty much just a slick marketing technique, and in a sense (I suppose), all (or at least most) roads lead to Ghostly Intl. (a Corporation). (With the exception of a couple artists, for instance Neon Indian, who releases under a different label, and manages his own webpage: neonindian.com.)

It's important to understand the notions here regarding the concept of Organicity, and the various ways in which it is achieved, within my specific tradition of electronic pop music synthesis.