Healthcare expenses should be split between the state and it's people. It should be noted that up to a certain limit, healthcare expenses must be borne by the people and only anything above that is claimable- this is insurance parlance, the deductible. Similarly, there must be a component of co-payment over and above the deductible with the insurance company to prevent abuse. At the same time, it must be noted the possibility of healthcare expenses destroying wealth - in the event of catastrophic illnesses- and creating a financial burden beyond the means of the people. Therefore it must be noted that, healthcare insurance is at it best only when it is over and beyond the means of sick and the family.
Hence, basic healthcare insurance to me is mandatory to me in the sense, a reasonable deductible is included along with of a co-insurance component agreed upon with the insurance company. The premium must be deducted either from it's retirement fund agreed with the state or company. The problem probably then lies whether to make this a mandatory purchase or should it be up to the individual.
There are several components to healthcare expenditure to the state. Healthcare is provided by the state at state-run hospitals and medical clinics. In most cases, this is already subsidy to the people where subsidized medical care is already provided with or without medical insurance. Therefore the state has already foot a part of bill of the healthcare of it's people. Assuming that the healthcare provided is of a reasonable standard, the people then have to pay the rest of the medical bills- either via insurance or it's own means.
Assuming that a market-driven procedure cost $1,000 to- and if it's done at the government hospital, it would probably cost anything between $500-$600. Hence therefore, the government would then subsidized by up to 40-50% of medical bills. Therefore the people would then have to come up with rest $400-500 which for some might be out of reach especially so with the operation is a major one and therefore the cost escalates. Perhaps up to $5,000 even at goverment hospitals- suddenly it becomes unreasonable for the people with limited means to come up with the cash to save it's own life.
Therefore it is at this moment that healthcare insurance comes into play. Healthcare insurance is at it's best when things are at it's worst. Hence would it then be reasonable for a government to foot at least part of bill for the insurance coverage for it's people. The benefit for the government to foot the bill is twofold 1) it transfers the risk of catastrophic medical expenses from the public to the private sector at a fraction of the price- due to their bargaining power 2) it reduces the risk of losing lifes and conflicts with the people as a result of having the lack of means to pay
But the matter of making it mandatory for the people to buy insurance to protect themselves and for their own "good" is a matter of ideological debate rather than a practical one.
An "opting-out" option then would be useful tool. Hence, for those who wishes to opt out of government insurance program would then have to rely on their retirement funds or seek their own private medical insurance to protect themselves against an event of a medical emergency. The benefit of having standard insurance coverage is always much better than having to source one for their themselves hence the situation of that latter is more likely than not to happen. But in the event as such, I am sure there would be an emergency medical fund to rely upon on which criteria would be set to ensure that one is without means to pay for a lack of choice rather than that of design.
Similarly, it must be mindful the type of insurance that the government are looking to cover or the types of which is appropriate. In the event that insurance is optional, one must seek out it's own medical savings fund first, and if the person is astute enough, he/she would have purchased medical and hospilization insurance with this medical savings fund- this would have come a co-insurance and deductible component. This is the part which the government should help to pay if insurance is mandatory
And lastly, in the event that one does not wish to worry about medical bills the entire lifetime, one then uses cash to pay for the rest of the insurance premiums. And all medical bills in the future would then be on "as-charged" basis. Hence if one were to start young, one would not need to worry about a catastrophic medical event. The premiums are of course concern. My belief is that a healthy 30 year old would probably pay between $300-$500 a year on premium of which only about $200 is in cash. Meanwhile, it escalates up to $2000-$3000 a year above for those above 50s. But at that age, especially 10 to 20 years later, the likelihood of a prolonged illness which could have wiped out the entire life savings becomes all the more real. Suddenly $2,000 to $3,000 a year compared with worrying constantly about paying your next medical bill becomes quite a trivial concern.
Paying for medical bills for parents can be a contentious issue especially if the bills escalates. It becomes rather ugly and suddenly paying your parent's insurance premium even when they are old removes all the headaches of having worry about paying to bills. But the problem with that is insurance coverage starts only at that point of application and, if your parents get's too old and have a history of illnesses- the likelihood of approval gets lower with each passing age. Hence even before you become a parent, it's best to insure yourself because once you are covered, you are covered for life- so long as you pay the premiums-, and that's even if you developed illnesses much later in life.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
European Union
The European Union is the result of an union with a matter of political and economic conveniences and long term strategic benefits. But nonetheless the practical benefits would faced societal hurdles.
An European Union would benefit the countries as a whole as it's previous status as colonial powers has waned almost quite completely. Therefore, most the EU countries with it's exploratory history has all but lost this sense of entitlement around the world. In reality, most EU companies have made most of their money in Asia- it's previous colonial states. The world has more or less levelled itself out in terms it's size proportional to it's influence. No longer does the elitist few have a huge disproportionate amount of power over many because of better advancements in technology or intellect.
Hence the EU countries has diminished in it's influence even though it's history and contributions to many social institutions still command respect among many. Against this backdrop, the European Union was set up to addressed this concern. It recongizes therefore it's diminishing influence and waning clout and hence set up an union to provide economic, political and geopolitical securities.
Hence the Euro dollar and other political institutions have been set up to coordinate actions among it's member states. The EU is not just about it's financial union, and I believe it involves immigration, social, political and maybe to a lesser degree security union. But I do not believe that the EU is an union with a common identity. It is an union of economic, social and political conveniences and therefore has lumbered along and only focusing on incremental changes.
It would therefore has to decide what does the EU really stand for. Does it want to have a national integration [ which has little chance of happening in our lifetime] or does it just want to be a loose grouping of countries which would help each other from time to time.
Let us then focus on the near term which I do believe is the latter. EU then as a bloc would then become a marriage of convenience rather than of an union [ even if they does take steps towards the former in the very long term]. Hence in this case, this would become a matter of negotiation than as a matter of integration. There then is no greater good but rather a negotiation of self-interested parties with both long and short term views, both private and public calculus.
The time horizon would determined how hard one wishes to push for one's agenda without destroying or damaging the union in the first place. The private and public calculus would then determine how much to grounds to cede on nation's behalf [ since politicians are representatives of each state] without losing legitimacy or support of the electorate.
The near term problem facing the EU would be that the soverign bond crisis. This crisis is brought about by 2 things 1) shifting methodologies in rating of credits- the paradigm shift includes even questioning the assumption of sovereign bonds as risk-free assets 2) Further to the first, that Keynsian economics or deficit spending as a matter of benign goverment stimulus has been taken a negative turn and been perceived as poor fiscal management as opposed to that necessary economic tool- of which most EU countries has taken as conventional economic wisdom.
The paradigm shift impacts has been two fold 1) downgrading credit ratings hence increasing government borrowing cost 2) austerity measures resulting from complying with new methodology of balanced or at least restraint budgets. This ultimately served to be a double whammy for the EU countries 1) who found it too expensive to borrow from international capital markets 2) are unable to print money and support the economy- hence ultimately hampering growth and discouraging jobs creation, investment and risk taking.
Conventional economic wisdom and financial innovation coupled with the rise of the welfare state and existence of untapped markets meant that deficit spending and high debt/GDP ratio is considered necessary and normal. This situation was allowed to exist insofar that financial innovation allowed a constant flow of funds inflow- hence supporting liquidity without any genuine wealth creation. They had favourable credit ratings and therefore low borrowing costs hence insofar that they were the one whom created the tools of which to rate themselves in the first place- and was also at the same time given a default status as an risk-free assets as sovereign bond issuers.
Therefore, even with high tax rates, consistent deficit spending, they had continued to have economic growth resulting from in closer scrutiny, a higher leveraged economy. But most people looked at the economic growth and seldom therefore at how it's been achieved.
Hence, at this current juncture, this paradigm shift have now did away with this idea of an unquestionable attitude towards sovereigns as risk free and have punished them higher borrowing cost on current issues as methodologies changed of which previous issues have been graded using the previous conventional and more liberal methods. The new methods now rates issues on how growth and creditworthiness is been achieved as opposed to just having using statistical methods of which with practice and knowledged can be presented to obtain a favourable rating.
Therefore the shift towards this "how" method is definite and the markets, credit rating agencies have more or less comes to a consensus on this new method. Hence the embattled EU countries can do two ways 1) fight the markets and insist that their way is right 2) find a way of generating growth while negotiating for a fund injection to increase demand and conteract the rising borrowing cost.
A 5-10% borrowing cost for ten years meant that economy has to grow as much otherwise, it would be indebted even if it grows at pace of 2-5%- which is the normal pace of a developed nation. Hence considering that only emerging economies like that of India and China are able to grow at that pace, these EU countries therefore would be in a deadly spiral of rising borrowing cost and little growth- with no access to funding and hence the country would be in effect be bankrupt. Coupled with that of a contagion effect of which even healthy countries can be affected, the risk is rather real that the high borrowing cost is being addressed.
Hence, the urgent need would therefore to obtain cash injection. Pump liquidity to the system, loosen credit requirements while ensuring that at least budget requisistes in being met- since debt is a long term liability while encouraging investments and growth. Borrowing cost would probably remain stubbornly high for the foreseeable future as they clear up or at least restructure their debt and restraint their budgetary spending.
With cash injection, borrowing cost would at least drop a substantial amount as confidence is brought into the market and concrete steps are taken in conjunction to restructure their economy, tax system and sovereigns. Hence as confidence returns, the countries can take advantage to auction off bonds while paying off external emergency cash injections which often comes with very strict requirements. This would then give them leeway in jumpstarting their economy again.
An European Union would benefit the countries as a whole as it's previous status as colonial powers has waned almost quite completely. Therefore, most the EU countries with it's exploratory history has all but lost this sense of entitlement around the world. In reality, most EU companies have made most of their money in Asia- it's previous colonial states. The world has more or less levelled itself out in terms it's size proportional to it's influence. No longer does the elitist few have a huge disproportionate amount of power over many because of better advancements in technology or intellect.
Hence the EU countries has diminished in it's influence even though it's history and contributions to many social institutions still command respect among many. Against this backdrop, the European Union was set up to addressed this concern. It recongizes therefore it's diminishing influence and waning clout and hence set up an union to provide economic, political and geopolitical securities.
Hence the Euro dollar and other political institutions have been set up to coordinate actions among it's member states. The EU is not just about it's financial union, and I believe it involves immigration, social, political and maybe to a lesser degree security union. But I do not believe that the EU is an union with a common identity. It is an union of economic, social and political conveniences and therefore has lumbered along and only focusing on incremental changes.
It would therefore has to decide what does the EU really stand for. Does it want to have a national integration [ which has little chance of happening in our lifetime] or does it just want to be a loose grouping of countries which would help each other from time to time.
Let us then focus on the near term which I do believe is the latter. EU then as a bloc would then become a marriage of convenience rather than of an union [ even if they does take steps towards the former in the very long term]. Hence in this case, this would become a matter of negotiation than as a matter of integration. There then is no greater good but rather a negotiation of self-interested parties with both long and short term views, both private and public calculus.
The time horizon would determined how hard one wishes to push for one's agenda without destroying or damaging the union in the first place. The private and public calculus would then determine how much to grounds to cede on nation's behalf [ since politicians are representatives of each state] without losing legitimacy or support of the electorate.
The near term problem facing the EU would be that the soverign bond crisis. This crisis is brought about by 2 things 1) shifting methodologies in rating of credits- the paradigm shift includes even questioning the assumption of sovereign bonds as risk-free assets 2) Further to the first, that Keynsian economics or deficit spending as a matter of benign goverment stimulus has been taken a negative turn and been perceived as poor fiscal management as opposed to that necessary economic tool- of which most EU countries has taken as conventional economic wisdom.
The paradigm shift impacts has been two fold 1) downgrading credit ratings hence increasing government borrowing cost 2) austerity measures resulting from complying with new methodology of balanced or at least restraint budgets. This ultimately served to be a double whammy for the EU countries 1) who found it too expensive to borrow from international capital markets 2) are unable to print money and support the economy- hence ultimately hampering growth and discouraging jobs creation, investment and risk taking.
Conventional economic wisdom and financial innovation coupled with the rise of the welfare state and existence of untapped markets meant that deficit spending and high debt/GDP ratio is considered necessary and normal. This situation was allowed to exist insofar that financial innovation allowed a constant flow of funds inflow- hence supporting liquidity without any genuine wealth creation. They had favourable credit ratings and therefore low borrowing costs hence insofar that they were the one whom created the tools of which to rate themselves in the first place- and was also at the same time given a default status as an risk-free assets as sovereign bond issuers.
Therefore, even with high tax rates, consistent deficit spending, they had continued to have economic growth resulting from in closer scrutiny, a higher leveraged economy. But most people looked at the economic growth and seldom therefore at how it's been achieved.
Hence, at this current juncture, this paradigm shift have now did away with this idea of an unquestionable attitude towards sovereigns as risk free and have punished them higher borrowing cost on current issues as methodologies changed of which previous issues have been graded using the previous conventional and more liberal methods. The new methods now rates issues on how growth and creditworthiness is been achieved as opposed to just having using statistical methods of which with practice and knowledged can be presented to obtain a favourable rating.
Therefore the shift towards this "how" method is definite and the markets, credit rating agencies have more or less comes to a consensus on this new method. Hence the embattled EU countries can do two ways 1) fight the markets and insist that their way is right 2) find a way of generating growth while negotiating for a fund injection to increase demand and conteract the rising borrowing cost.
A 5-10% borrowing cost for ten years meant that economy has to grow as much otherwise, it would be indebted even if it grows at pace of 2-5%- which is the normal pace of a developed nation. Hence considering that only emerging economies like that of India and China are able to grow at that pace, these EU countries therefore would be in a deadly spiral of rising borrowing cost and little growth- with no access to funding and hence the country would be in effect be bankrupt. Coupled with that of a contagion effect of which even healthy countries can be affected, the risk is rather real that the high borrowing cost is being addressed.
Hence, the urgent need would therefore to obtain cash injection. Pump liquidity to the system, loosen credit requirements while ensuring that at least budget requisistes in being met- since debt is a long term liability while encouraging investments and growth. Borrowing cost would probably remain stubbornly high for the foreseeable future as they clear up or at least restructure their debt and restraint their budgetary spending.
With cash injection, borrowing cost would at least drop a substantial amount as confidence is brought into the market and concrete steps are taken in conjunction to restructure their economy, tax system and sovereigns. Hence as confidence returns, the countries can take advantage to auction off bonds while paying off external emergency cash injections which often comes with very strict requirements. This would then give them leeway in jumpstarting their economy again.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Values and Political Neutrality
There are always debate regarding that of culture, hierarchical system and that of political neutrality and rights. It is almost always assumed that we cannot have one without the other. It is not just complementary but in fact, it supports each other insofar that it protects both rights and values.
The common gripe that Western criticisms against traditional "authoritarian" or "paternalistic" rule is that it is not political neutral and therefore trespasses on the rights of the indviduals to express themselves and act without fear or repercussions.
Traditional Asians on the other hand criticizes the Western model that it is without morals and will descend into anarchy much like what we see in Clockwork Orange. Hence there is a constant tug of war between that of what is good[values] and what is positive [ which is political neutrality].
The Western model have been used to justify the attack of "traditional" hierarchical system as restrictive and draconian. But ultimately really, both are more similar than they are different.
Much of the Western system is predicated on upholding of the legal system and it has proven to be an anti-thesis towards the traditional system which prides on consensus and "non-foreign intervention". The reason being is that the hierarchical system can only continued via culture and seldom via law as it would be attacked on basis of political neutrality.
The traditional paternalistic and hierarchical system maintains order, rights and duties via rituals and "li" [ or manners and customs in Mandarin]. Therefore the process is as much as important as the outcome. The Western model focused on the legal system as a means to end: which is to upholding rights and duties. Hence the process is much more transparent and outspoken which is really quite antithetical to that of traditional hierarchical models which prides consensus and quiet understanding then naked display of displeasure.
Therefore the common accusation that Western model has on the traditional ones would be that one does not respect the rights of indviduals and hence a legal system must be enacted to protect the rights of all citizens. But the traditional model has a way of dealing with this inequality: which is the idea of "li". Follow the rituals and you would be rewarded accordingly.
This can be highlighted in the manner of which one have legal capacity to decide on matters of material concern or sui juris. Most legal systems both in the Western world and Asian ones, put it between 18-21. Hence in effect, the paternalistic instinct and rights should have stopped since insofar that legally, he/she is recognized by the law to be of capacity to decide. Traditional hierarchical system have a similar system: in which that he goes through a certain ritual of which to ascertain that he/she has attained adulthood. Most systems of this model normally put it on marriage hence there is a tendency of all Asian parents to ensure that they get married: as there is as much an economic incentive to do so as much as it is cultural. Therefore the paternal instinct would have to stop at this particular juncture.
Hence most traditional system protects the rights and ensure the duties of it's people therefore via means of rituals and manners. Rituals and manners are important insofar that they ensure that your rights are not trampled upon because you have performed your duties. But similarly, in the manners of rituals, there would caveats of which paternalism has it's limits. The only problem lies therefore in the "benevolence" of the leader of which to recognize the limits. Since there are no transparent rules stating any recourse insofar that the leader must follow these rules as much as his subjects follows them as well.
Therefore a revolt and rebellion is as much legitimate as one that of a revolution in the Western models. Insofar that I think there are more rebellion in Chinese history than there are in the Western ones because it is really more informal than they are formal. Unlike those of the Magna Carter or Declaration of Rights which is really quite watershed as it is formalized in form.
Like the above, the system biggest flaw insofar is that of an asymetrical flow of information. By definition, rituals and culture is transmitted via the older and the younger and if the young cannot read since it was not enacted formally then and the older would have unequal control of information and therefore can justify punishment on the basis of "not following traditions". One would then be forever beholden to the old for this culture transimission.
Hence, therefore Western model would then come in pretty useful in terms of that of a sui juris. Insofar that father/child relationship is kept paternalistic up to a certain age which intention is to guide the child along, up to a certain age- the father must relinquish paternalistic rights over the child. And if insofar that, the child did not "follow" traditions or of "ideal" models, then the fault would lies both with the child and the parent. In reality, this is no different from that of a traditional model, of which is the ritual of attaining adulthood.
Hence in effect, the child would have his own family or "domain" to "paternalize" over. Therefore then in effect, values- or what is good- can be ensured and political neutrality- which is rights and duties- can be obtained without in reality having to choose. Hence in reality, the Western Models and traditional Asian ones are really more similar than they are different- what I do believe the crucial factor in the latter would be that of "benevolence" which forms the basis of legitimacy of the latter. Benevolence therefore ensures a reciprocal relationship between the father/child and so on. Otherwise, a rebellion is more likely than not.
The common gripe that Western criticisms against traditional "authoritarian" or "paternalistic" rule is that it is not political neutral and therefore trespasses on the rights of the indviduals to express themselves and act without fear or repercussions.
Traditional Asians on the other hand criticizes the Western model that it is without morals and will descend into anarchy much like what we see in Clockwork Orange. Hence there is a constant tug of war between that of what is good[values] and what is positive [ which is political neutrality].
The Western model have been used to justify the attack of "traditional" hierarchical system as restrictive and draconian. But ultimately really, both are more similar than they are different.
Much of the Western system is predicated on upholding of the legal system and it has proven to be an anti-thesis towards the traditional system which prides on consensus and "non-foreign intervention". The reason being is that the hierarchical system can only continued via culture and seldom via law as it would be attacked on basis of political neutrality.
The traditional paternalistic and hierarchical system maintains order, rights and duties via rituals and "li" [ or manners and customs in Mandarin]. Therefore the process is as much as important as the outcome. The Western model focused on the legal system as a means to end: which is to upholding rights and duties. Hence the process is much more transparent and outspoken which is really quite antithetical to that of traditional hierarchical models which prides consensus and quiet understanding then naked display of displeasure.
Therefore the common accusation that Western model has on the traditional ones would be that one does not respect the rights of indviduals and hence a legal system must be enacted to protect the rights of all citizens. But the traditional model has a way of dealing with this inequality: which is the idea of "li". Follow the rituals and you would be rewarded accordingly.
This can be highlighted in the manner of which one have legal capacity to decide on matters of material concern or sui juris. Most legal systems both in the Western world and Asian ones, put it between 18-21. Hence in effect, the paternalistic instinct and rights should have stopped since insofar that legally, he/she is recognized by the law to be of capacity to decide. Traditional hierarchical system have a similar system: in which that he goes through a certain ritual of which to ascertain that he/she has attained adulthood. Most systems of this model normally put it on marriage hence there is a tendency of all Asian parents to ensure that they get married: as there is as much an economic incentive to do so as much as it is cultural. Therefore the paternal instinct would have to stop at this particular juncture.
Hence most traditional system protects the rights and ensure the duties of it's people therefore via means of rituals and manners. Rituals and manners are important insofar that they ensure that your rights are not trampled upon because you have performed your duties. But similarly, in the manners of rituals, there would caveats of which paternalism has it's limits. The only problem lies therefore in the "benevolence" of the leader of which to recognize the limits. Since there are no transparent rules stating any recourse insofar that the leader must follow these rules as much as his subjects follows them as well.
Therefore a revolt and rebellion is as much legitimate as one that of a revolution in the Western models. Insofar that I think there are more rebellion in Chinese history than there are in the Western ones because it is really more informal than they are formal. Unlike those of the Magna Carter or Declaration of Rights which is really quite watershed as it is formalized in form.
Like the above, the system biggest flaw insofar is that of an asymetrical flow of information. By definition, rituals and culture is transmitted via the older and the younger and if the young cannot read since it was not enacted formally then and the older would have unequal control of information and therefore can justify punishment on the basis of "not following traditions". One would then be forever beholden to the old for this culture transimission.
Hence, therefore Western model would then come in pretty useful in terms of that of a sui juris. Insofar that father/child relationship is kept paternalistic up to a certain age which intention is to guide the child along, up to a certain age- the father must relinquish paternalistic rights over the child. And if insofar that, the child did not "follow" traditions or of "ideal" models, then the fault would lies both with the child and the parent. In reality, this is no different from that of a traditional model, of which is the ritual of attaining adulthood.
Hence in effect, the child would have his own family or "domain" to "paternalize" over. Therefore then in effect, values- or what is good- can be ensured and political neutrality- which is rights and duties- can be obtained without in reality having to choose. Hence in reality, the Western Models and traditional Asian ones are really more similar than they are different- what I do believe the crucial factor in the latter would be that of "benevolence" which forms the basis of legitimacy of the latter. Benevolence therefore ensures a reciprocal relationship between the father/child and so on. Otherwise, a rebellion is more likely than not.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Education
I have always stop short of explaining the ultimate question: Who are we? This bears to the core of education. There are a few conventional methods 1) Science 2) Intelligent Design 3) Religion.
Capitalist education often focused on the first. They do not intend to mix Science with religion nor do they intend to imbue religion into their education cirriculum. Therefore the idea of Intelligent Design is not widely taught. Religious education are available in capitalist countries but they remain separate from mainstream education. and even when taught in conventional schools, the cirriculum or modules are separte from conventional academic ones. In other words, science is science and religion is religion: that much is clear in most education cirriculum.
When then is the difference in the three. The first teaches one to use observable and measurable data to deduce and induce conclusions. It assumes that everything can be observed: touch, taste, heard or smell. It believes therefore that everything is knowable.
Intelligent Design imbues both science and other-worldly bodies together. It believes that the created is created by an Intelligent Creator of which is not knowable but yet it's methods are consistent and knowable. Therefore to a certain degree, it is agnostic in nature.
The third one focuses on religious education. Knowlege is therefore obtained from traditions, culture and rituals. It therefore focuses much on character, devotion and respect in education and therefore continuity in culture and traditions is at the forefront as opposed to knowledge in the conventional sense per se. Knowledge in the first method is available but it is subordinated to that of it's religious character and therefore is taught as a separate cirriculum.
The first and the third is the most prevalent in most countries: 1) in more Westernized countries 3) in most Islamic countries. The second one I believe is only adopted in very few countries and only little pockets. The capitalist method often adopt the first and keep the second as an alternative and the third as an option for it's minority groups. Islamic countries with a capitalist bent keep the third as priroity and the the first as a required cirriculum. The second one exist perhaps in the markets like Islamic Finance but definitely not in education.
Separation of conventional education from that of religious education is well-advised as the second one would face the problem of where does the religion and science ends and stop.
But keeping them too far apart, runs the risk of educating and encouraging narcissim and egotism while in most cases, science is often used as an economic instrument while religion is used as method of character building and culture continuity hence they ultimately faced different ends. The means and modes of delivery perhaps remains relatively similar. Hence one could say, education is ultimately a means to an end, and really not an end itself. The reason is very simple and has been timeless: religion could be used to rule everyone.
Capitalist education often focused on the first. They do not intend to mix Science with religion nor do they intend to imbue religion into their education cirriculum. Therefore the idea of Intelligent Design is not widely taught. Religious education are available in capitalist countries but they remain separate from mainstream education. and even when taught in conventional schools, the cirriculum or modules are separte from conventional academic ones. In other words, science is science and religion is religion: that much is clear in most education cirriculum.
When then is the difference in the three. The first teaches one to use observable and measurable data to deduce and induce conclusions. It assumes that everything can be observed: touch, taste, heard or smell. It believes therefore that everything is knowable.
Intelligent Design imbues both science and other-worldly bodies together. It believes that the created is created by an Intelligent Creator of which is not knowable but yet it's methods are consistent and knowable. Therefore to a certain degree, it is agnostic in nature.
The third one focuses on religious education. Knowlege is therefore obtained from traditions, culture and rituals. It therefore focuses much on character, devotion and respect in education and therefore continuity in culture and traditions is at the forefront as opposed to knowledge in the conventional sense per se. Knowledge in the first method is available but it is subordinated to that of it's religious character and therefore is taught as a separate cirriculum.
The first and the third is the most prevalent in most countries: 1) in more Westernized countries 3) in most Islamic countries. The second one I believe is only adopted in very few countries and only little pockets. The capitalist method often adopt the first and keep the second as an alternative and the third as an option for it's minority groups. Islamic countries with a capitalist bent keep the third as priroity and the the first as a required cirriculum. The second one exist perhaps in the markets like Islamic Finance but definitely not in education.
Separation of conventional education from that of religious education is well-advised as the second one would face the problem of where does the religion and science ends and stop.
But keeping them too far apart, runs the risk of educating and encouraging narcissim and egotism while in most cases, science is often used as an economic instrument while religion is used as method of character building and culture continuity hence they ultimately faced different ends. The means and modes of delivery perhaps remains relatively similar. Hence one could say, education is ultimately a means to an end, and really not an end itself. The reason is very simple and has been timeless: religion could be used to rule everyone.
Occupy Movement
Does anyone find the "Occupy" movement progressive or does one find that it is actually a waste of time?
The common accusation is that this movement is considered to be without an agenda and the "Occupy" movement protestors consider this as a legitmate protest for the very sake that the presence is being felt.
The unconventional nature of the protest meant that it is accused of being a nuisance of being around just for the sake of sake of being around. Common protest is expected to have an agenda, a cause so to speak. Therefore an "Occupy" movement smacks almost of a couch potato who really sits on the sofa and does nothing really. Conventional protest on their hand, requires to be militant- violent even. I mean if I am protesting something, I must really disliking or protesting against "something" right. If that thing is "something", I then must be the "other thing". Therefore, the "other thing" acts are always considered to be "heroic"- simply because he is fighting against "something". Hence it's violent and often antoganistic nature.
The Occupy movement on the other hand really just sits there. He is not protesting neither is he supporting- what it does is that he/she is reminding you that they are sitting there and you jolly well don't do anything stupid. But on the other hand, it does not want to be violent, the people does not want to be a hero hence the Occupy movement has been relatively peaceful and free of any violence. But in the larger scheme of things, it's very presence meant that it provided an antithetical approach to conventions. It's mere presence meant that you might be forgetting what what you are suppose to remember: hence it goes really beyond the master/slave or capitalist/proletariat dichotomy. The slave who protest either gets censured and the proletariat that revolutionizes gets a new master: themselves. But the "Occupy" doesn't say anything, it just stands there. He did not break any rules by standing there, but he also remind you what life is really about.
Hence although, conventionally I do not really support this movement but I do believe what is the spirit of which the movement is trying to achieve. The "Occupy" movement is getting alot of curious stares and weird comments. Does doing nothing really achieves something?
As a political movement and seen from a larger perspective, it does makes sense. But the world doesn't pay you for doing nothing, even being a hero gets status and admiration but no outward rewards perhaps. But the effect thus far is that it makes the world a better place without you realizing it and that achieves a dual outcomes 1) no violence 2) interests articulation: which ultimately is the aim for all protests and political movements isn't it.
The common accusation is that this movement is considered to be without an agenda and the "Occupy" movement protestors consider this as a legitmate protest for the very sake that the presence is being felt.
The unconventional nature of the protest meant that it is accused of being a nuisance of being around just for the sake of sake of being around. Common protest is expected to have an agenda, a cause so to speak. Therefore an "Occupy" movement smacks almost of a couch potato who really sits on the sofa and does nothing really. Conventional protest on their hand, requires to be militant- violent even. I mean if I am protesting something, I must really disliking or protesting against "something" right. If that thing is "something", I then must be the "other thing". Therefore, the "other thing" acts are always considered to be "heroic"- simply because he is fighting against "something". Hence it's violent and often antoganistic nature.
The Occupy movement on the other hand really just sits there. He is not protesting neither is he supporting- what it does is that he/she is reminding you that they are sitting there and you jolly well don't do anything stupid. But on the other hand, it does not want to be violent, the people does not want to be a hero hence the Occupy movement has been relatively peaceful and free of any violence. But in the larger scheme of things, it's very presence meant that it provided an antithetical approach to conventions. It's mere presence meant that you might be forgetting what what you are suppose to remember: hence it goes really beyond the master/slave or capitalist/proletariat dichotomy. The slave who protest either gets censured and the proletariat that revolutionizes gets a new master: themselves. But the "Occupy" doesn't say anything, it just stands there. He did not break any rules by standing there, but he also remind you what life is really about.
Hence although, conventionally I do not really support this movement but I do believe what is the spirit of which the movement is trying to achieve. The "Occupy" movement is getting alot of curious stares and weird comments. Does doing nothing really achieves something?
As a political movement and seen from a larger perspective, it does makes sense. But the world doesn't pay you for doing nothing, even being a hero gets status and admiration but no outward rewards perhaps. But the effect thus far is that it makes the world a better place without you realizing it and that achieves a dual outcomes 1) no violence 2) interests articulation: which ultimately is the aim for all protests and political movements isn't it.
Views
The markets are messy right now. I believed that the reason is that politics dominated genuine economic talk.
It would appear that politics has become the new currency rather than economics and the markets. That being said, it has become a zero-sum game where innovation and risk is put on the back-burner. The climate is therefore more survival than improvement.
I see more hand shaking and summits than I see real policy decisions. The reason would be that of fragmentation. Certain countries and blocs have become so fragmented that it has become atomized, so much so that even individual countries have a say in a larger blocs. The reason is derived from politics. The elevation of smaller power blocs unto a larger platform meant that a small interest conversely can have a proponderant influence on a larger sphere. This meant that critical and larger issues are ignored for the sake of rather particularistic interest.
This works well perhaps in markets but definitely not in politics, as the balance is always hung on a precarious thread. In markets, innovations can be found in narrow areas due to their rather democratic nature but not in politics where, it is matter of bartering and exchanging as change is a much bigger risk in the area than it is in markets.
Hence the idea of an political economy is not that politics is economics and economics is politics but rather they are interwined. It would take a long time to unpack the nuances of an political economy but sufficed to say is that one would not be able to do without the other.
Hence how then can one have allocate their assets in such a climate.
I have seen a couple of trends due to the above situation 1) The reflex action towards authoritarian or hardline rule. 2) Endless bargaining and bartering 3) Staying below the radar.
There are certain industries which are taking advantage of the fragmented nature and consolidating their positions in the markets. At the same time, on the political front- hardline and use of force appear to be modus operandi in combating the conflict-rifed fragmentation of societies. The former is not good for innovation and the latter is not good for markets.
Therefore, in the markets, innovation is subdued resulting from the restive political climate. Suffice to say launching new products appear to be suicide, as authorities appear more hawkish than normal. And likewise, risk is subdued and in this bitter climate, consumption appears to be on the rise. Investment has dropped and government spending reduced- as a result of negative press coverage on deficit expenditure- has pushed consumption to the forefront. It would therefore be not surprising that retail stocks often appear on current financial news program.
The problem with buying retail stocks is that you do not know much of the upside has been priced in the market. Earnings could be poor the last quarter and would appear expensive but what if there is a 50% jump in sales the following quarter, then in this case, the retail stocks would then be cheap in nature. If one were to be insist on buying a retail stock, my guess would be buy your favourite shop or luxury brands. At least you would not be swayed by market sentiments and the latter has become quite mainstream nowadays as wealth grew in many emerging economies.
2) Endless bargaining and bartering. The recent slew of partnerships in tackling markets has confirmed the zero-sum trend outlook in many companies. Even Apple called their new phone: just New iPhone 4 rather than iPhone 5 for fear of attracting unnecessary competition.
I believed this trend is the result of sharp distinction between what is "your's" and what is "mine". Crowdsourcing and other social sharing websites used to be "cool" even though more likely than not financially would be a hard sell. But now, dictators are cool. The show "Dictator"has demonstrated that. If crowd sourcing is uncool and dictator cool, what this means is that the crowd sourcing will die. Because they have even lost their alternative status, and they do not have sufficient clout to be mainstream.
What this means is that websites will require more security- which is not a bad thing actually- and would be more didactic than before. Conversely, you can expect traditional companies to be more innovative. Retro is in vogue. Traditional and lynchpin companies seldom produce groundbreaking new products but are more focused on their core products. Hence we can expect more re-invention rather than innovation.
The focus would would then be on tech companies emphasizing more on their designs than harping on their powerful specs. Previous tech stars like Facebook would focused on empahsizing their security and could take the opportunity to seek control on their information.
Innovation and creativity in such a climate appear to be more cosmetic than real. Hence where can we find the next big thing: emerging economies. The recent wave of fallen authoritarian rule and change of guards provide opportunities for multi-national companies with expertise to penetrate into these newly open economies. Providing infrastructure and other forms of expertise and services in the nation building process. The process would differ nation to nation but the trend is definitely towards privatization.
We all want novelty things and where do we find "new" things and ideas then. I do not believe that the tech companies are dead. This process towards centralization is probably more for companies would have already established themselves and are looking to protect their interest. The world wide web can only bigger, and there is always space for everyone. It is not limited by geographical boundaries but rather your ability to type the addresses on your keyboard. Innovation would still comes from here but expect established names to secure their positions. Probably being more "old-school" but not boring at the same time.
Hence in such a climate where there is widespread deadlock of exchanging and bartering, stay with high dividend stocks but be mindful of the price that you are paying. Anything below 3% for low risk investments and 5.2% for those with higher risk investment profile appears to reasonable. At the same time, take note of their history of paying dividends otherwise stick with investment trusts whose mandate is to pay dividends. Stocks appear to be poorer option for this. For those with access, bonds would be a better due to lower volatile nature and credit markets appear to be in disjuncture. Asian bonds looks expensive due to their relative unscathed deficit spending media coverage. Pick up instead corporate bonds from around the world where, pricing seems rather attractive due to low-key profile resulting from the emphasis on politics than markets.
3) Staying below the radar. Certain industries and countries are at the crossroads of going towards centralization or accept the "natural" progression towards democratization. Therefore, they have adopted a wait-and-see attitude. They are the ones that you do NOT see anywhere in the mainstream media because they would want to be neutral until the dust has settled before committing. Therefore exposing themselves would mean being forced a hand.
Such industries include therefore those that are more cyclical and are more conservative in their approach. They ride the wave on the uptick but exit before the peak, and stay on course in spite of downturn but probably exit before the bottom.
But stocks and many investment products are mostly sentiment driven. Hence despite their healthy outlook and relative strength in tackling a downturn, prices would still be dragged down along with the rest of the markets.
Such companies and countries are probably those with a strong balance sheet and have a clear identity of their company and at the same time which are nimble enough to manouveour around downturn. Therefore such companies and countries are probably those medium size in nature, and not market leaders but probably comfortable in their market positioning and have a stable and sizeable client base.
I believe that the key point is having a strong balance sheet: being nimble can be quite relative. The identity of course would then depend on the culture of the company. The stonger and more intense the focus, the more likely the company or country would stay on course.
Hence therefore even though the No 2s and No 3s would probably bear less brunt of the downturn, having a "wait-and-see" attitude for this group also means that they would be overly-conservative and does not augurs well for the long term prospect of the company.
Therefore the critical factor is the industrial make-up and how prolonged the down-turn is expected to be. The longer, the down-turn, the more entrenched the position and all the more likely that industry will remain status quo and all the more set the demise of of the industry as a whole. Therefore the company might be in a sunset industry for all we know and therefore the long term trend might not augurs well.
Hence choose a No 2 and No 3 in a fast moving and innovative industry, this would then ensure the competive-ness of the company.
If one is always biased towards No 1, then choose one with a strong balance sheet in a relatively small market where mobility might not have such a huge impact. Alternatively, focused on the culture of the company and even though, the industry and market might not be doing well, it's intensity and focus might just be able to find ways of coping with the downturn.
Depending on your strategy and outlook, the above can either be a strategic or tactical one.
Strategically speaking, it is always good to stick with the market leader but a small market means that a big fund might find it rather risky to focused on a small area. Therefore, in allocating the assets, stick with the above and find the smart, innovative and ambitious no 2s and 3s in a larger market and hedged the risk by buying their bonds instead of the stock outright. But I do believed this is a low risk move- as a strong company with a strong balance has a limited upside in the credit market-, a medium and higher risk taker should participate in the equity outright.
Alternatively, one can buy into a convertible bond with a low equity premium and surf the upside in uptick and if indeed the company proved to be a winner- it then can be converted to shares. But such a move would require one to be mindful of both the bond and equity markets, this would prevent one from suffering an arbitrage loss.
Tactically, neither is a good move as more likely the stocks will fall along with the markets.
Eugene
* Disclaimer: The above is my views and my views only. Hence any decision taken by you as a result of the above information is at your risk.
It would appear that politics has become the new currency rather than economics and the markets. That being said, it has become a zero-sum game where innovation and risk is put on the back-burner. The climate is therefore more survival than improvement.
I see more hand shaking and summits than I see real policy decisions. The reason would be that of fragmentation. Certain countries and blocs have become so fragmented that it has become atomized, so much so that even individual countries have a say in a larger blocs. The reason is derived from politics. The elevation of smaller power blocs unto a larger platform meant that a small interest conversely can have a proponderant influence on a larger sphere. This meant that critical and larger issues are ignored for the sake of rather particularistic interest.
This works well perhaps in markets but definitely not in politics, as the balance is always hung on a precarious thread. In markets, innovations can be found in narrow areas due to their rather democratic nature but not in politics where, it is matter of bartering and exchanging as change is a much bigger risk in the area than it is in markets.
Hence the idea of an political economy is not that politics is economics and economics is politics but rather they are interwined. It would take a long time to unpack the nuances of an political economy but sufficed to say is that one would not be able to do without the other.
Hence how then can one have allocate their assets in such a climate.
I have seen a couple of trends due to the above situation 1) The reflex action towards authoritarian or hardline rule. 2) Endless bargaining and bartering 3) Staying below the radar.
There are certain industries which are taking advantage of the fragmented nature and consolidating their positions in the markets. At the same time, on the political front- hardline and use of force appear to be modus operandi in combating the conflict-rifed fragmentation of societies. The former is not good for innovation and the latter is not good for markets.
Therefore, in the markets, innovation is subdued resulting from the restive political climate. Suffice to say launching new products appear to be suicide, as authorities appear more hawkish than normal. And likewise, risk is subdued and in this bitter climate, consumption appears to be on the rise. Investment has dropped and government spending reduced- as a result of negative press coverage on deficit expenditure- has pushed consumption to the forefront. It would therefore be not surprising that retail stocks often appear on current financial news program.
The problem with buying retail stocks is that you do not know much of the upside has been priced in the market. Earnings could be poor the last quarter and would appear expensive but what if there is a 50% jump in sales the following quarter, then in this case, the retail stocks would then be cheap in nature. If one were to be insist on buying a retail stock, my guess would be buy your favourite shop or luxury brands. At least you would not be swayed by market sentiments and the latter has become quite mainstream nowadays as wealth grew in many emerging economies.
2) Endless bargaining and bartering. The recent slew of partnerships in tackling markets has confirmed the zero-sum trend outlook in many companies. Even Apple called their new phone: just New iPhone 4 rather than iPhone 5 for fear of attracting unnecessary competition.
I believed this trend is the result of sharp distinction between what is "your's" and what is "mine". Crowdsourcing and other social sharing websites used to be "cool" even though more likely than not financially would be a hard sell. But now, dictators are cool. The show "Dictator"has demonstrated that. If crowd sourcing is uncool and dictator cool, what this means is that the crowd sourcing will die. Because they have even lost their alternative status, and they do not have sufficient clout to be mainstream.
What this means is that websites will require more security- which is not a bad thing actually- and would be more didactic than before. Conversely, you can expect traditional companies to be more innovative. Retro is in vogue. Traditional and lynchpin companies seldom produce groundbreaking new products but are more focused on their core products. Hence we can expect more re-invention rather than innovation.
The focus would would then be on tech companies emphasizing more on their designs than harping on their powerful specs. Previous tech stars like Facebook would focused on empahsizing their security and could take the opportunity to seek control on their information.
Innovation and creativity in such a climate appear to be more cosmetic than real. Hence where can we find the next big thing: emerging economies. The recent wave of fallen authoritarian rule and change of guards provide opportunities for multi-national companies with expertise to penetrate into these newly open economies. Providing infrastructure and other forms of expertise and services in the nation building process. The process would differ nation to nation but the trend is definitely towards privatization.
We all want novelty things and where do we find "new" things and ideas then. I do not believe that the tech companies are dead. This process towards centralization is probably more for companies would have already established themselves and are looking to protect their interest. The world wide web can only bigger, and there is always space for everyone. It is not limited by geographical boundaries but rather your ability to type the addresses on your keyboard. Innovation would still comes from here but expect established names to secure their positions. Probably being more "old-school" but not boring at the same time.
Hence in such a climate where there is widespread deadlock of exchanging and bartering, stay with high dividend stocks but be mindful of the price that you are paying. Anything below 3% for low risk investments and 5.2% for those with higher risk investment profile appears to reasonable. At the same time, take note of their history of paying dividends otherwise stick with investment trusts whose mandate is to pay dividends. Stocks appear to be poorer option for this. For those with access, bonds would be a better due to lower volatile nature and credit markets appear to be in disjuncture. Asian bonds looks expensive due to their relative unscathed deficit spending media coverage. Pick up instead corporate bonds from around the world where, pricing seems rather attractive due to low-key profile resulting from the emphasis on politics than markets.
3) Staying below the radar. Certain industries and countries are at the crossroads of going towards centralization or accept the "natural" progression towards democratization. Therefore, they have adopted a wait-and-see attitude. They are the ones that you do NOT see anywhere in the mainstream media because they would want to be neutral until the dust has settled before committing. Therefore exposing themselves would mean being forced a hand.
Such industries include therefore those that are more cyclical and are more conservative in their approach. They ride the wave on the uptick but exit before the peak, and stay on course in spite of downturn but probably exit before the bottom.
But stocks and many investment products are mostly sentiment driven. Hence despite their healthy outlook and relative strength in tackling a downturn, prices would still be dragged down along with the rest of the markets.
Such companies and countries are probably those with a strong balance sheet and have a clear identity of their company and at the same time which are nimble enough to manouveour around downturn. Therefore such companies and countries are probably those medium size in nature, and not market leaders but probably comfortable in their market positioning and have a stable and sizeable client base.
I believe that the key point is having a strong balance sheet: being nimble can be quite relative. The identity of course would then depend on the culture of the company. The stonger and more intense the focus, the more likely the company or country would stay on course.
Hence therefore even though the No 2s and No 3s would probably bear less brunt of the downturn, having a "wait-and-see" attitude for this group also means that they would be overly-conservative and does not augurs well for the long term prospect of the company.
Therefore the critical factor is the industrial make-up and how prolonged the down-turn is expected to be. The longer, the down-turn, the more entrenched the position and all the more likely that industry will remain status quo and all the more set the demise of of the industry as a whole. Therefore the company might be in a sunset industry for all we know and therefore the long term trend might not augurs well.
Hence choose a No 2 and No 3 in a fast moving and innovative industry, this would then ensure the competive-ness of the company.
If one is always biased towards No 1, then choose one with a strong balance sheet in a relatively small market where mobility might not have such a huge impact. Alternatively, focused on the culture of the company and even though, the industry and market might not be doing well, it's intensity and focus might just be able to find ways of coping with the downturn.
Depending on your strategy and outlook, the above can either be a strategic or tactical one.
Strategically speaking, it is always good to stick with the market leader but a small market means that a big fund might find it rather risky to focused on a small area. Therefore, in allocating the assets, stick with the above and find the smart, innovative and ambitious no 2s and 3s in a larger market and hedged the risk by buying their bonds instead of the stock outright. But I do believed this is a low risk move- as a strong company with a strong balance has a limited upside in the credit market-, a medium and higher risk taker should participate in the equity outright.
Alternatively, one can buy into a convertible bond with a low equity premium and surf the upside in uptick and if indeed the company proved to be a winner- it then can be converted to shares. But such a move would require one to be mindful of both the bond and equity markets, this would prevent one from suffering an arbitrage loss.
Tactically, neither is a good move as more likely the stocks will fall along with the markets.
Eugene
* Disclaimer: The above is my views and my views only. Hence any decision taken by you as a result of the above information is at your risk.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Religion, Absolutism and Democracies
I have confirmed 3 things in the last couple of days as a result of funeral procession and transferring of power.
1) Religion and all other matters must be separated it
2) Democracy is flawed in having popularity as it's sole arbiter
3) All preponderant regime will have the propensity to consolidate regardless of human rights violation
On 1) During the wake of grandmother, the priest posed quite a several questions at me by way of their gesticulations. I answered every single one of day by way of my gesticulations. And just before the sanctifying of the procession, he stepped in, separating me from the rest of uncles and father. He was effectively telling everyone there, he is NOT legitimizing the whole process.
I had to step out because I did not want to curse the whole process.
Hence I have decided, he has NO right in deciding the outcome of the succession. He is there sanctifying and symbolize the entire process and NOT decide it. Reason is very simple: He is paid by us and was influenced by anyone who paid him directly and is subjected human influence and fallacies too
2) Democracy is flawed in having popularity as it's sole arbiter. Some of my relatives have been secretly pandering influence behind my back to get somebody else up there. This result in character assassination, coercion and all forms of other "soft" underhand tactics to dispose the rightful person.
Democracy is to put the best person forward, not the most popular person forward. It is therefore the tyranny of the majority. The majority were not sheep but rather packs of wolfs. Hence the bartering and the shifting alliances behind the scenes does not produce best person forward but the most merciless one instead. Hence we produce a dictator instead.
I would not endorse the person put forward simply because he was not the right person for the job. And these were my private thoughts from the start.
3) I had wanted to do the right thing: by respecting both the process and everyone's view hence I decided to step out.
But recent events suggest that a person on the cusp of power does not relent and would consolidate instead. One therefore is such situation does not respect human rights of others as his self-interest rules ahead of others. And if such situation were to arise where self-interest or welfare of other's were at stake- it would hence suggest, he would choose the former. The likelihood then in the future, he would do the same to everyone else.
Preponderance element in one's ambitious nature suggest therefore that he would have all peripheries would be eliminated. Therefore all form's advanced education in guarding the interest of other's would be wasted. And how far then, is your core and periphery. The shifting elements in human behaviour therefore suggest culling and negotiation- of which human rights, ideals and growth could no longer be together. We then would have to choose. We must not choose but rather to keep everything together.
Hence, it is obvious on three counts: 1) it was right to separate religion from the state 2) Tyranny of majority do exist - and majority is not sheep, but wolves would be a better analogy- in democracies 3) Concentration of power results in human right abuses of which would have no end and result in relentless and merciless pursuit towards homogeneity.
Therefore I would suggest then several things of which.
1) An independent body of which guard the interest of everyone- in the event of abuses.
2) Religion must never be used to sanctify any process
3) Media although partial to national interest must be open to alternative views and must not have an obvious slant. And if likewise, alternative media must not curbed.
I do not have leadership qualities but rather a student of life. I would then leave it to everyone to decide their next course of action.
1) Religion and all other matters must be separated it
2) Democracy is flawed in having popularity as it's sole arbiter
3) All preponderant regime will have the propensity to consolidate regardless of human rights violation
On 1) During the wake of grandmother, the priest posed quite a several questions at me by way of their gesticulations. I answered every single one of day by way of my gesticulations. And just before the sanctifying of the procession, he stepped in, separating me from the rest of uncles and father. He was effectively telling everyone there, he is NOT legitimizing the whole process.
I had to step out because I did not want to curse the whole process.
Hence I have decided, he has NO right in deciding the outcome of the succession. He is there sanctifying and symbolize the entire process and NOT decide it. Reason is very simple: He is paid by us and was influenced by anyone who paid him directly and is subjected human influence and fallacies too
2) Democracy is flawed in having popularity as it's sole arbiter. Some of my relatives have been secretly pandering influence behind my back to get somebody else up there. This result in character assassination, coercion and all forms of other "soft" underhand tactics to dispose the rightful person.
Democracy is to put the best person forward, not the most popular person forward. It is therefore the tyranny of the majority. The majority were not sheep but rather packs of wolfs. Hence the bartering and the shifting alliances behind the scenes does not produce best person forward but the most merciless one instead. Hence we produce a dictator instead.
I would not endorse the person put forward simply because he was not the right person for the job. And these were my private thoughts from the start.
3) I had wanted to do the right thing: by respecting both the process and everyone's view hence I decided to step out.
But recent events suggest that a person on the cusp of power does not relent and would consolidate instead. One therefore is such situation does not respect human rights of others as his self-interest rules ahead of others. And if such situation were to arise where self-interest or welfare of other's were at stake- it would hence suggest, he would choose the former. The likelihood then in the future, he would do the same to everyone else.
Preponderance element in one's ambitious nature suggest therefore that he would have all peripheries would be eliminated. Therefore all form's advanced education in guarding the interest of other's would be wasted. And how far then, is your core and periphery. The shifting elements in human behaviour therefore suggest culling and negotiation- of which human rights, ideals and growth could no longer be together. We then would have to choose. We must not choose but rather to keep everything together.
Hence, it is obvious on three counts: 1) it was right to separate religion from the state 2) Tyranny of majority do exist - and majority is not sheep, but wolves would be a better analogy- in democracies 3) Concentration of power results in human right abuses of which would have no end and result in relentless and merciless pursuit towards homogeneity.
Therefore I would suggest then several things of which.
1) An independent body of which guard the interest of everyone- in the event of abuses.
2) Religion must never be used to sanctify any process
3) Media although partial to national interest must be open to alternative views and must not have an obvious slant. And if likewise, alternative media must not curbed.
I do not have leadership qualities but rather a student of life. I would then leave it to everyone to decide their next course of action.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Defiance
What is defiance? What then justifies protest against prevailing power structures?
Defiance can be considered of two sorts 1) of willfulness 2) of against injustice. Willfulness exist insofar that it does not consider future implications of which means that a lack of thought for the collateral damage- whether indirect or direct- by one's actions or defiance. It's defiance is therefore random and should not be taken seriously.
Defiance against injustice carries an ethical weight. It's defiance is therefore not the result of unconsidered thought but rather one of deliberation and not the result of any random emotional outbursts. It's defiance is therefore grounded in the pattern of consistent injustice or behaviour of which the legitimacy is derived from a plundering of social equity or justice.
Willfulness is frequently linked with the young as it is associated with frequent emotional outburst defined by an inadequate understanding of cultural norms and frustration- an angst so to speak.
Defiance- those legitimate ones that is- is normally carried out by the weak whom are often disadvantaged and therefore incapable of deciding and administering. It's only recourse to justice often lies in the route of disruption as opposed to exploitation.
A defiance- however ethically right or morally fertile- often wraps itself in the idea of the end outcome. What this means ultimately is that of what use is defiance when it amounts to nothing other than disrupting normality. And therefore very often, defiance is often ultimately seen as just unruli-ness. And therefore loses even the moral capital that it so preciously procure as a result of their exploited position.
But what many conservatives and other status quo factions fail to recognize is that if there are no disruptions- the only recourse is a revolution. And that would be way more painful- for everyone- if one is to take this course of action.
Assuming that the moral capital is intact, the only way to utilize and to wager future outcomes on one's interest without fully using it is to disrupt. Therefore, defiance as a form of protest is therefore a negotiation tool and not full on wager on war. It is I believe in most people's minds not to ask you to quit- but rather to tell you that, look there is some unhappiness there.
A person or a faction who attempts therefore to crush a defiance therefore bankrupts his own moral capital and giving the so-called "rebels" an even stronger moral voice of which to strike against his own exploiters.
The exploiters therefore whom have raided their moral treasury in exchange for hard power would have to employ greater hard power in order to quell even further moral unrest. Handing even further power to the weak because it's only moral defence- that of an uncertain future- is put to rest with even greater violence.
And therefore causing a defiance into a full-on revolution exacerbated only by his own actions of escalating violence- a negotiation has therefore turn into an adversarial relationship.
Therefore defiance of the second kind is not a morally bankrupt move but rather a strategic one. It's fruition is calculated one of which the ultimate outcome is not to disrupt the normal workings of group but rather a negotiated one. One who wilfully or unwittingly crushed a defiance with a full force risk only bankrupting his moral authority- escalating violence and bringing about unnecessary unrest.
The result even though unknown but the resolve and moral authority is almost always lost.
Defiance can be considered of two sorts 1) of willfulness 2) of against injustice. Willfulness exist insofar that it does not consider future implications of which means that a lack of thought for the collateral damage- whether indirect or direct- by one's actions or defiance. It's defiance is therefore random and should not be taken seriously.
Defiance against injustice carries an ethical weight. It's defiance is therefore not the result of unconsidered thought but rather one of deliberation and not the result of any random emotional outbursts. It's defiance is therefore grounded in the pattern of consistent injustice or behaviour of which the legitimacy is derived from a plundering of social equity or justice.
Willfulness is frequently linked with the young as it is associated with frequent emotional outburst defined by an inadequate understanding of cultural norms and frustration- an angst so to speak.
Defiance- those legitimate ones that is- is normally carried out by the weak whom are often disadvantaged and therefore incapable of deciding and administering. It's only recourse to justice often lies in the route of disruption as opposed to exploitation.
A defiance- however ethically right or morally fertile- often wraps itself in the idea of the end outcome. What this means ultimately is that of what use is defiance when it amounts to nothing other than disrupting normality. And therefore very often, defiance is often ultimately seen as just unruli-ness. And therefore loses even the moral capital that it so preciously procure as a result of their exploited position.
But what many conservatives and other status quo factions fail to recognize is that if there are no disruptions- the only recourse is a revolution. And that would be way more painful- for everyone- if one is to take this course of action.
Assuming that the moral capital is intact, the only way to utilize and to wager future outcomes on one's interest without fully using it is to disrupt. Therefore, defiance as a form of protest is therefore a negotiation tool and not full on wager on war. It is I believe in most people's minds not to ask you to quit- but rather to tell you that, look there is some unhappiness there.
A person or a faction who attempts therefore to crush a defiance therefore bankrupts his own moral capital and giving the so-called "rebels" an even stronger moral voice of which to strike against his own exploiters.
The exploiters therefore whom have raided their moral treasury in exchange for hard power would have to employ greater hard power in order to quell even further moral unrest. Handing even further power to the weak because it's only moral defence- that of an uncertain future- is put to rest with even greater violence.
And therefore causing a defiance into a full-on revolution exacerbated only by his own actions of escalating violence- a negotiation has therefore turn into an adversarial relationship.
Therefore defiance of the second kind is not a morally bankrupt move but rather a strategic one. It's fruition is calculated one of which the ultimate outcome is not to disrupt the normal workings of group but rather a negotiated one. One who wilfully or unwittingly crushed a defiance with a full force risk only bankrupting his moral authority- escalating violence and bringing about unnecessary unrest.
The result even though unknown but the resolve and moral authority is almost always lost.
having it and not having it
Does one want to be popular, rich and powerful or does one prefer to be right?
Does the rich, powerful, and popular deserve to be right or does the right deserve to be rich, powerful and popular?
My feeling is that the intuitive answer that most would prefer to be rich, powerful and popular than be right. Of what use is being right- when it cannot be eaten nor enjoyed or felt.
Hence isn't being right also the path to richness, power and popularity as well. Unless that being rich, power and popular is the anti-thesis of being righteous, ethical and truthful. And if we cannot be right and enjoy life's labour at the same time- is everyone by extension living a lie as well.
I do believe that most of us live the assumptive that life is: cruel, short and brutal. But aspires to a life of which is righteous and ethical. And therefore we justify all these worldly pleasures by means of rewards and fruits of labour- even though then these are external comforts and meanwhile the aspiration towards a righteous life ideally remains an aspiration so as to allow an idealism to soothe us and to inspire us. The right is always too far and the pleasures is always too near.
Guilt is sometimes absent or present depending on the faiths one holds. Guilt is quickly soothed by confession of which lightens the emotional burden but not the lingering strands of self-loathing. Guilt is not present when the faith justifies the enjoyments via ideas of worldly rewards by way of other-worldly interventions. Wrong-ness will only come in when self-help is not rendered in times of crisis.
Hence the spiritual rewards the secular via it's secular acts with spiritual linkages.
And as such the haves almost always does not deserves to be right, unless they are done ethically- of which if come the assumption of the brutal world almost always precludes: sin. Meanwhile the have-nots by the virtue of their incapability to master the brutal world is almost always right because they are really in theory- weak and therefore unable to master the world.
Hence as such, the haves are almost guilty while the have-nots are almost guilt-less unless someone has the gumption to declare the world as one big Disneyland. And only in such instance, would the haves be guilt-less and the have-nots as guilty- since it is most likely the reason for their lack of property is that of sloth or laziness while the rewards for the hard work is therefore then worldly rewards.
I leave it to you to decide whether the world is a jungle or one big fairy tale. And in any case, you probably know it in your heart already.
Does the rich, powerful, and popular deserve to be right or does the right deserve to be rich, powerful and popular?
My feeling is that the intuitive answer that most would prefer to be rich, powerful and popular than be right. Of what use is being right- when it cannot be eaten nor enjoyed or felt.
Hence isn't being right also the path to richness, power and popularity as well. Unless that being rich, power and popular is the anti-thesis of being righteous, ethical and truthful. And if we cannot be right and enjoy life's labour at the same time- is everyone by extension living a lie as well.
I do believe that most of us live the assumptive that life is: cruel, short and brutal. But aspires to a life of which is righteous and ethical. And therefore we justify all these worldly pleasures by means of rewards and fruits of labour- even though then these are external comforts and meanwhile the aspiration towards a righteous life ideally remains an aspiration so as to allow an idealism to soothe us and to inspire us. The right is always too far and the pleasures is always too near.
Guilt is sometimes absent or present depending on the faiths one holds. Guilt is quickly soothed by confession of which lightens the emotional burden but not the lingering strands of self-loathing. Guilt is not present when the faith justifies the enjoyments via ideas of worldly rewards by way of other-worldly interventions. Wrong-ness will only come in when self-help is not rendered in times of crisis.
Hence the spiritual rewards the secular via it's secular acts with spiritual linkages.
And as such the haves almost always does not deserves to be right, unless they are done ethically- of which if come the assumption of the brutal world almost always precludes: sin. Meanwhile the have-nots by the virtue of their incapability to master the brutal world is almost always right because they are really in theory- weak and therefore unable to master the world.
Hence as such, the haves are almost guilty while the have-nots are almost guilt-less unless someone has the gumption to declare the world as one big Disneyland. And only in such instance, would the haves be guilt-less and the have-nots as guilty- since it is most likely the reason for their lack of property is that of sloth or laziness while the rewards for the hard work is therefore then worldly rewards.
I leave it to you to decide whether the world is a jungle or one big fairy tale. And in any case, you probably know it in your heart already.
Regulations and regulated
Does government actions interfere with workings of the market or does any actions- be it positive or negative- be construed as negative impact regardless of it's purported objectives.
Hence then, does any government actions which purports to improve efficiency, disclosure, supervision and risk management justifiable to be viewed dimly as such by the private sector and sometimes even by the government officials themselves.
Private profits and public regulates- that is the common assumption. But of what bite does the public have when considering the muscle power of the private.
What the public have is the hard power of the legal system and it's authority- but with the market-based system so pervasive, it's hard power is almost negligible in faced of overwhelming public opinion of the market. It could be said that the market almost represents the people: if the market dislike regulations, it is therefore the same as saying people do not enjoy the hawkish stance. And therefore even if all the regulatory authority were vested into a few people to take on billion dollar companies with a fraction of the pay of the private- it would take lot's of guts to take a contrarian view on the market with nary of monetary benefits but just alot of stick.
How effective then is the authority in managing and regulating the private of which he is tasked to do.
How then is some authorities more effective than others in regulating the sectors that he/she is tasked to manage while other's seem to lacked the bite.
But is an adversarial attitude critical in managing the private sector then or do we seek cooperation in compliance- and how far should the cooperation be before it starts looking like an co-option.
I have seen in most cases would be one of distant negotiation as opposed to cooperation or even an adversarial attitude. Taking the stance of a conflict context or compared with a harmonious one appears to be modus operandi.
A conflict stance is not of conflicting interest but rather one of negotiation of interest. It is the recognition that you are not my friend but neither are you my enemy but we understand that you have to make money but we have to ensure the long term well-being and interest of the market and society at large as well. Therefore very often the process of regulation- when it is effectively done- would often result in communication of the "spirit" of the objectives, it's ends, and coupled with means of which to achieve these ends.
And therefore regulator no longer is the watchdog but rather the guardian. It will only intervenes when the spirit is contravened but in matters of procedural rationality- it would also act as well to ensure that it's authority would not be questioned. Therefore the sector in question to be regulated is best to observe policies but are ultimately given leeway in extenuating circumstances- much like how most courts operate. If the procedural rationality becomes questionable- substantive rationality would comes into play and therefore in most legal systems- they have introduced the idea of equity, where judgements are discretionary as opposed to be absolute.
This conflictual stance allows the private market to operate in a manner of which would further their interest- within given a set of standard rules which in most common cases govern the well-being of the general public- without being overly restrictive. Therefore this stance would allow a negotiation of interest within the spectrum of guarding the spirit of ensuring various market or societal objectives. The spirit in itself is non-negotiable but means of achieving it thereby remains open to negotiation. It would therefore intuitively balance control, regulation with that of profit and freedom/enterprise.
A good authority would negotiate then to guard the spirit while the sector regulated would negotiate then not to contravene but rather to act within it as the spirit is such that it is universal which ultimately safeguard even the very existence of itself. Therefore it is matter of ceding grounds by both ends depending on market and societal context as opposed to synthetical approach of head-on clashes.
What I do believe is that ceding of grounds must be guarded by the idea of ensuring maximum benefits. And therefore only when timing is opportune- and this is the result of market and societal trends-, can one gain ground or cede ground. But they must be open to ceding ground so to ensure that the above spirit is not sacrificed. Therefore, in time of crisis, the sector must be prepared to cede as much as ground as possible to ensure it's survival- while the regulator must be prepared to cede as much ground as possible to ensure a proper functioning of markets.
Therefore in this context, a conflict stance would ensure a distant negotiation of which not that the regulator is absolutely incorruptible but rather that on both ends, it is a recognition that on both ends both sides would have to negotiate to guard it's spirit as opposed to conflict which really at the end of the day and in most cases, contravenes the spirit: of in most cases- is the proper functioning of markets and societies to ensure maximum benefits and welfare.
Hence then, does any government actions which purports to improve efficiency, disclosure, supervision and risk management justifiable to be viewed dimly as such by the private sector and sometimes even by the government officials themselves.
Private profits and public regulates- that is the common assumption. But of what bite does the public have when considering the muscle power of the private.
What the public have is the hard power of the legal system and it's authority- but with the market-based system so pervasive, it's hard power is almost negligible in faced of overwhelming public opinion of the market. It could be said that the market almost represents the people: if the market dislike regulations, it is therefore the same as saying people do not enjoy the hawkish stance. And therefore even if all the regulatory authority were vested into a few people to take on billion dollar companies with a fraction of the pay of the private- it would take lot's of guts to take a contrarian view on the market with nary of monetary benefits but just alot of stick.
How effective then is the authority in managing and regulating the private of which he is tasked to do.
How then is some authorities more effective than others in regulating the sectors that he/she is tasked to manage while other's seem to lacked the bite.
But is an adversarial attitude critical in managing the private sector then or do we seek cooperation in compliance- and how far should the cooperation be before it starts looking like an co-option.
I have seen in most cases would be one of distant negotiation as opposed to cooperation or even an adversarial attitude. Taking the stance of a conflict context or compared with a harmonious one appears to be modus operandi.
A conflict stance is not of conflicting interest but rather one of negotiation of interest. It is the recognition that you are not my friend but neither are you my enemy but we understand that you have to make money but we have to ensure the long term well-being and interest of the market and society at large as well. Therefore very often the process of regulation- when it is effectively done- would often result in communication of the "spirit" of the objectives, it's ends, and coupled with means of which to achieve these ends.
And therefore regulator no longer is the watchdog but rather the guardian. It will only intervenes when the spirit is contravened but in matters of procedural rationality- it would also act as well to ensure that it's authority would not be questioned. Therefore the sector in question to be regulated is best to observe policies but are ultimately given leeway in extenuating circumstances- much like how most courts operate. If the procedural rationality becomes questionable- substantive rationality would comes into play and therefore in most legal systems- they have introduced the idea of equity, where judgements are discretionary as opposed to be absolute.
This conflictual stance allows the private market to operate in a manner of which would further their interest- within given a set of standard rules which in most common cases govern the well-being of the general public- without being overly restrictive. Therefore this stance would allow a negotiation of interest within the spectrum of guarding the spirit of ensuring various market or societal objectives. The spirit in itself is non-negotiable but means of achieving it thereby remains open to negotiation. It would therefore intuitively balance control, regulation with that of profit and freedom/enterprise.
A good authority would negotiate then to guard the spirit while the sector regulated would negotiate then not to contravene but rather to act within it as the spirit is such that it is universal which ultimately safeguard even the very existence of itself. Therefore it is matter of ceding grounds by both ends depending on market and societal context as opposed to synthetical approach of head-on clashes.
What I do believe is that ceding of grounds must be guarded by the idea of ensuring maximum benefits. And therefore only when timing is opportune- and this is the result of market and societal trends-, can one gain ground or cede ground. But they must be open to ceding ground so to ensure that the above spirit is not sacrificed. Therefore, in time of crisis, the sector must be prepared to cede as much as ground as possible to ensure it's survival- while the regulator must be prepared to cede as much ground as possible to ensure a proper functioning of markets.
Therefore in this context, a conflict stance would ensure a distant negotiation of which not that the regulator is absolutely incorruptible but rather that on both ends, it is a recognition that on both ends both sides would have to negotiate to guard it's spirit as opposed to conflict which really at the end of the day and in most cases, contravenes the spirit: of in most cases- is the proper functioning of markets and societies to ensure maximum benefits and welfare.
Risk Management
With the constant reporting of various failures in banks,
government budgets and large trading losses, the focus is squarely on risk
management as opposed to risk taking.
What then is risk management and is it profit-making tool or
really a profit reduction tool instead?
There are two ways of which we can view risk management: 1)
it is in effect, a profit-making tool where we can take insofar that much risk
in lieu of rewards, without tipping over- give and take a certain amount of
buffer: like sitting on a knife’s edge without cutting ourselves and to give
sufficient space for any deviation- therefore giving maximum effect and minimum
loss.
Or alternatively we can give it a more straightforward way: 2)
basically reducing risk by increasing control. Or reducing risk by simply
reducing exposure. A linear approach, one could say.
Recent reports and bank failures have suggested that the
first approach: very much seen as the portfolio approach have failed- given the
humongous losses as a result of marked to market policies, a standard deviation
or probability approach. This approach assumes that we can minimize losses
given a certain probability and thereby maximizing profits rather than taking
an approach of an outright ban which might result in losing precious
opportunities. Therefore quantifying risk in this approach is of absolute
importance. Only when we can quantify risk, can we justify how much risk to
take and how much reward is justifiable to take in the first place.
Therefore there have
been quite alot of advancement in this area as one can see the sophistication
in this approach as opposed to the linear one. The problem in this approach
lies not in the philosophy but rather the confidence one has on historical data
to predict future losses or profits.
In actual fact, this approach is more similar to the second
approach than one might think: it is the assumption of linearity of history in
predicting the future. Historical data is useful only if we can predict with
confidence the relationship between the past and the present- and therefore in
most cases the linearity relationship.
The use of historical data would have no basis in calculating
risk if we would to take the opposite assumption which is that data is of a
random nature, then this approach would then be of no use whatsoever. The
utility in this approach would therefore lies in the assumptive assumption in
this approach that when we take this much risk, we can expect this much reward-
give and take a certain an amount of “negligible” deviation.
This approach therefore underestimates human capacity not to
conform to models but rather have a knee-jerk reaction to any form of emotional
shocks. And at the same time, the ability for humans to alter human reactions
by way of data presentation hence eliciting a positive response of which can be
made use of or exploited.
And thereby the financial crisis, the credit crisis, the
housing crisis is probably not the result of negligent handling since banks and
other halo-ed institutions would not wish to be perceived as such but rather a
very human propensity to assume that what used to work will always work in the
future: thereby meaning that since these models work so well on their
own-almost quite automatically and gives a very quantifiable report as well
which I can see clearly and a macro view as well- it should be fine. When
suddenly, an event which deviates from this rather underlying linearity prejudice
in our head, we are at a loss on how to explain it. And thereby swing quite
incorrectly I believe, to the primitive approach: of which is the second one-
which is to cut the head off from the body to stop the loss; or to impose
controls, reduce exposures, a black and white approach or enter and exit
strategy.
This second approach is useful insofar that command and
control is almost total and therefore encompassing. It means that one can enter
and exit almost cleanly as one can cut through butter. And at the same time,
this second approach requires almost clockwork vigilance and therefore requires
a simple organizational structure.
The complexity of institutions- both private and public-
meant that it would indeed be impossible to reduce risk at precisely the right
moment and with the entire organization working in tandem as well. And the
second drawback of this approach is it might show almost a lack of commitment towards
a certain orientation. Hence it attracts questions more then it attracts
decisive-ness. Its communications almost have to be as perfect as its delivery.
Such approach is almost always used only in times of crisis and in smaller
organizations with straightforward communication chains: otherwise, its
ramifications can be rather widespread.
And such organization must not be conflictual by nature-
which means that it would only contain only one person at the top with the
final decision almost always resting on his shoulders. And only can the
execution, delivery, communication be total, consistent and all-encompassing.
With the complexity of modern organizations, it would be quite impossible to
envision a person with such tentacle-like influence.
But the question then begs: would it be possible therefore
to allow such a person to sit on top while ensuring an effective and
well-managed organization. And would it be risky or risk-managed organization.
It is my belief that most organizations are already with
such an organization structure. It means, the President or CEO sits on top of
everyone - and being checked by a Parliament or board; and who responsible to its
people or shareholders. The leader is thereby supported by cabinet ministers,
and fellow C-suite personnel which reports to him periodically. In various
areas of concern, they formed committees focused on tackling pertinent issues-
he might or might not intervene but are given reports on the progress. He
ultimately more or less sets the agenda but does not interfere much in the
daily operations of matters unless required.
And an alternative appears to be a matrix one where-
responsibilities and functions are often cross-checked with multiple
departments and powers of which I think are most useful for a project-based
organization with diversified portfolio as compared with an organization with a
relatively constant mission and objective.
And even then, for such organizations, it perhaps arguable
that in times of crisis: the matrix organization would almost flatten out to
effect a more effective and efficient organization just in case, there would be
a deviated objective.
Hence the most effective organization for implementing the
first approach would of course be the existing structure of organization. The complexity
of business means that the single person sitting on top with tentacle-like
influence would not come into grasp quite a number of issues by which only
distinct business units are aware of. But having said that: it is of critical
importance that the leader is not just nothing more than a figurehead and a
facilitator but rather a person who knows what is going on rather than one
leaves everything to their department or committee heads.
Similarly, each and every single executive faces the same
problem of an agency problem. Of which he who acts might not act in the best
interest of those that he purports to represent or protect- and the board and
other checking institutions would come into play to ensure its fidelity to the
objective at hand.
Hence the present structure of which most
companies and modern organizations are predicated on- and as far as all the
malaise is concerned- would it be fair therefore to lay blame on the structure
or rather the individual organization or company concerned. Is then the way we
organize structures the cause of poor risk management or basically just poor
risk management on the part of organizations.
My feeling is that in most cases, people really don’t know
what is going on. And can we blame them for not knowing when they have very
well paid executives below them managing individual areas or should we lay all
the blame on them since they are the ones presiding over all meetings and
reports.
Very often, this is what happens when one’s influences
outstrips one’s functions and vice versa. The people below them might be
smarter than them and therefore are able to skirt around the controls and
issues but at the same time, how do we blame them for skirting around them when
there are profit and organizational objectives are at hand. The leaders
therefore as the leader would have to take the moral responsibility of not
steering the ship correctly- and for not knowing what is going on effectively-
but is probably incapable of knowing too, since things are moving so fast and
complex that it would be quite impossible to be in the know of everything.
This at the end of the day seems apparent that it has almost
nothing to do with methods of risk management but rather the economic realities
that we lived in. And we are ultimately complicit in all the malaise that
plagued the various sectors of our societies: and we all are to blame in one
way or another in causing a crisis, a bubble- when we did not say no to the
current state of affairs. We did it not you.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Women and Culture
Does women deserve equal rights to men? And on what basis, should we then differentiate.
It would be easy for me to re-hash all the evidence that women are as good as men or sometimes even better and apparently lot's of evidence suggest that- if pay was the only indicator- that we under-pay women as compared with men in doing the same job.
My feeling is that it is not because the market favour the men over the women, it is rather that the market and the world at large would rather prefer women to help out at home.
And that to me since to get the cause and effect on the opposite end. And I do believe and I sincerely believe that the number of chauvinist men is greatly outnumbered by men who think that women should be treated equally but somehow or rather, they would still prefer that women be the "family" person as compared to them as I think a majority of men's inclination is towards work as opposed to minding family matters.
Therefore the market to me I believed had the pay thing sitting on his head. Most men would prefer equal pay but unequal pay is unequal in spite of efforts of both side to equalize it because no one truly believes that women are encouraged to be workaholics but rather the inequality acts as an disincentive therefore to shift the division of labour to more culturally acceptable one- even to the women themselves.
Therefore despite of opinion polls and civil society actions- the pay is still loop-sided.
Society and everyone at large have to grapple with the idea of introducing women to the workforce- attracting them and retaining them- with that of child-bearing and rearing. Feminist ideals and women rights advancement have made it possible in legal and constitutional terms both men and women equal in the eyes of the laws- perhaps only in the area of marriage of which issues get a little more complicated. Therefore it is only in cultural terms that there is any inkling of any inequality.
Therefore this pay inequality between men and women is unequal in spite of the efforts of both sides and rather than despite of. The market has tweaked itself insofar to make it socially acceptable on both sides without losing women as a valuable contributors to the economy and discouraging them from setting up a family.
But having said that, men and women are fundamentally similar. There is no such thing as better or a poorer sex. The risk of trying to equalize everything on all fronts means trying asexualizing everything- of which there is no difference between a men and a women. If everything is asexual, of what value is being a man or a woman.
Women deserve equal rights but we must be sensitive to the cultural context surrounding the so-called "prejudices" in the first place. Or we all end as tadpoles, born asexual and not knowing our identity until much later in our life.
We are born anatomically different and therefore we are brought up culturally different. There are no biological linkage between the two but culturally we are valued differently. And therein lies the basis of our identity- but intrinsically we are remain largely similar.
It would be easy for me to re-hash all the evidence that women are as good as men or sometimes even better and apparently lot's of evidence suggest that- if pay was the only indicator- that we under-pay women as compared with men in doing the same job.
My feeling is that it is not because the market favour the men over the women, it is rather that the market and the world at large would rather prefer women to help out at home.
And that to me since to get the cause and effect on the opposite end. And I do believe and I sincerely believe that the number of chauvinist men is greatly outnumbered by men who think that women should be treated equally but somehow or rather, they would still prefer that women be the "family" person as compared to them as I think a majority of men's inclination is towards work as opposed to minding family matters.
Therefore the market to me I believed had the pay thing sitting on his head. Most men would prefer equal pay but unequal pay is unequal in spite of efforts of both side to equalize it because no one truly believes that women are encouraged to be workaholics but rather the inequality acts as an disincentive therefore to shift the division of labour to more culturally acceptable one- even to the women themselves.
Therefore despite of opinion polls and civil society actions- the pay is still loop-sided.
Society and everyone at large have to grapple with the idea of introducing women to the workforce- attracting them and retaining them- with that of child-bearing and rearing. Feminist ideals and women rights advancement have made it possible in legal and constitutional terms both men and women equal in the eyes of the laws- perhaps only in the area of marriage of which issues get a little more complicated. Therefore it is only in cultural terms that there is any inkling of any inequality.
Therefore this pay inequality between men and women is unequal in spite of the efforts of both sides and rather than despite of. The market has tweaked itself insofar to make it socially acceptable on both sides without losing women as a valuable contributors to the economy and discouraging them from setting up a family.
But having said that, men and women are fundamentally similar. There is no such thing as better or a poorer sex. The risk of trying to equalize everything on all fronts means trying asexualizing everything- of which there is no difference between a men and a women. If everything is asexual, of what value is being a man or a woman.
Women deserve equal rights but we must be sensitive to the cultural context surrounding the so-called "prejudices" in the first place. Or we all end as tadpoles, born asexual and not knowing our identity until much later in our life.
We are born anatomically different and therefore we are brought up culturally different. There are no biological linkage between the two but culturally we are valued differently. And therein lies the basis of our identity- but intrinsically we are remain largely similar.
Authoritarian and Democratic Regime
Most states are organized into three organs of the state: mainly 1) the legislative 2) the executive 3) the judiciary. The reason for this organization is such that each can form a check and balance against each other from being a preponderant force.
But in practice, each of this state of organ is never ever separate or mutually exclusive. Very often the judiciary is nominated by the Prime Minister or the President and the executive is often headed by the cabinet which reports to the Prime Minister. The civil service merely acts as an administrative body. And a derivative of the constitutional monarchy is the presidency which normally have veto power over material policies and if there is a monarch, the king or queen would have such powers but not able to set the agenda of the governing body.
Therefore in theory, the division of labour among the different organs is nothing more than a constitutional and a theoretical one of which in the actual functioning: all three organs actually worked hand in hand with each other and dependent on the status quo.
Therefore there would be a need to separate the powers who exert powers as a result of their position from the actual functioning of their seat within a political organization.
This to me puts into question the actual definition of an authoritarian regime. A dictator who commands all sectors of a country via his personal influence and political organization is really not much different from a democratic one where the President and Prime Minister gets to nominate his heads of his executive and those that would judge him/her in the first place. The only difference therefore would be the existence of an elections of which means that the Prime Minister or President has a limited time period to exert his/her influence or at least in theory subjected to be disposed by those that they govern.
And unless according to this idea, one can prove that an authoritarian regime is proving detrimental to the welfare to his people, it would be difficult to justify replacing an authoritarian one with a democratic one when in reality the fundamental difference appears to be one of a periodic elections.
But it would indeed difficult to endorse an authoritarian regime just based on the above because consent and assent can be manipulated by a totalitarian regime. Public opinion with no form of check and balance is highly susceptible to propaganda and information control.
Therefore the question comes in would be that: how much violence is too much violence to ensure complicity.
And since the similarity in almost all regimes across the world is one of concentration of powers: both constitutional and authoritarian- why then does the former seem to have lesser violence against it's own people as compared with the latter.
The answer of what I do believed lies not in the despot nature of the latter but rather for the former, democratic rights enshrined in the constitution and the political system meant that any form of unjust violence against legitimate dissent provided a restraint on the leaders: of which the idea of "democracy" brings to mind the idea of freedom and human rights, a prejudice any political leader of such political system would not dare contravening.
Hence the idea of a more benevolent or altruistic leader in a democratic system would not fly but rather as a matter of political capital. Therefore, if violence is the sole arbiter of the success of a regime then, a democratic one would be the likely winner but if welfare is the final understanding of a regime- then the jury is still out on the better-ness of one over the other.
But in practice, each of this state of organ is never ever separate or mutually exclusive. Very often the judiciary is nominated by the Prime Minister or the President and the executive is often headed by the cabinet which reports to the Prime Minister. The civil service merely acts as an administrative body. And a derivative of the constitutional monarchy is the presidency which normally have veto power over material policies and if there is a monarch, the king or queen would have such powers but not able to set the agenda of the governing body.
Therefore in theory, the division of labour among the different organs is nothing more than a constitutional and a theoretical one of which in the actual functioning: all three organs actually worked hand in hand with each other and dependent on the status quo.
Therefore there would be a need to separate the powers who exert powers as a result of their position from the actual functioning of their seat within a political organization.
This to me puts into question the actual definition of an authoritarian regime. A dictator who commands all sectors of a country via his personal influence and political organization is really not much different from a democratic one where the President and Prime Minister gets to nominate his heads of his executive and those that would judge him/her in the first place. The only difference therefore would be the existence of an elections of which means that the Prime Minister or President has a limited time period to exert his/her influence or at least in theory subjected to be disposed by those that they govern.
And unless according to this idea, one can prove that an authoritarian regime is proving detrimental to the welfare to his people, it would be difficult to justify replacing an authoritarian one with a democratic one when in reality the fundamental difference appears to be one of a periodic elections.
But it would indeed difficult to endorse an authoritarian regime just based on the above because consent and assent can be manipulated by a totalitarian regime. Public opinion with no form of check and balance is highly susceptible to propaganda and information control.
Therefore the question comes in would be that: how much violence is too much violence to ensure complicity.
And since the similarity in almost all regimes across the world is one of concentration of powers: both constitutional and authoritarian- why then does the former seem to have lesser violence against it's own people as compared with the latter.
The answer of what I do believed lies not in the despot nature of the latter but rather for the former, democratic rights enshrined in the constitution and the political system meant that any form of unjust violence against legitimate dissent provided a restraint on the leaders: of which the idea of "democracy" brings to mind the idea of freedom and human rights, a prejudice any political leader of such political system would not dare contravening.
Hence the idea of a more benevolent or altruistic leader in a democratic system would not fly but rather as a matter of political capital. Therefore, if violence is the sole arbiter of the success of a regime then, a democratic one would be the likely winner but if welfare is the final understanding of a regime- then the jury is still out on the better-ness of one over the other.
Nuturing
The question in most people's mind when it goes into question of nurturing is that does: discipline helps or is contextualization better or in other words, does tolerance and respect works better?
Teenagers and young adults are often typecast in two different ways, one of which they are errant childs or a blank piece of paper which requires much moulding and "firing" in order for one to be of useful character or alternatively, they viewed as a work in construction with unique creases and folds of which rather to be pressed down- must be emphasized and respected as talents to be horned and lovingly nurtured as opposed to be moulded.
Popular culture therefore in order to justify different "nurturing" methods typecast teenagers and young adults as 1) extremely fun seeking, slightly unruly, sensitive and worldly-wise beyond their years with unique talents and strangely quite introspective for their out-going nature, a maelstrom of quite deep and clever emotions within a rather messed up world not ready for their precocious minds 2) They are viewed as wholesome child, errant even though in certain ways and ignorant but yet all the more eager to live up to expectations and ultimately a good kid, gone wrong which requires moulding and therefore discipline- sort of like the prodigal son or daughter.
The narrative would therefore be moulded to shape different nurturing techniques I suppose.
Actually for 1) I find the narrative quite rather incredulous. When I was growing up, I have never met an introspective, and fun loving peer of mine which have emotional depth of an adult. There were smart ones and there were fun loving ones, the fun loving ones are really emotionally stunned and have a maturity of their age. The "good" ones are that studied hard which might have emotional depth beyond their years but have the breadth of a child. They are quite incapable of focusing on what they have already know.
2) Wholesome children which is ever willing to accept discipline and moulding by seniors is a narrative of which I believe exist but only because the environment does not allow them anything but that. Children and teenagers, and young adults who play their roles well and as such, hide beneath a melting pot of emotions of which deviance is strongly suppressed and have pent-up emotions where catharsis sometimes can comes in forms of confusion and dishonesty. An inauthentic personality lacking in charm and genuine affection for things that they enjoy.
The first to me put realism so far ahead that I do not think that it corresponds with actual reality. The second to me, puts idealism so far ahead that realism have to correspond with that.
Ultimately, we must always bear in mind that these are models of which we utilize to help us rather than to follow religiously.
We would at the end of the day must remind ourselves that things can go wrong and will go wrong and these are humans with quite sometimes random nature involved- and we might at the end of the day try too hard and lose the end sight in mind- which is to nurture a full individual and well rounded one rather than an one-dimensional one that both tries to portray.
Teenagers and young adults are often typecast in two different ways, one of which they are errant childs or a blank piece of paper which requires much moulding and "firing" in order for one to be of useful character or alternatively, they viewed as a work in construction with unique creases and folds of which rather to be pressed down- must be emphasized and respected as talents to be horned and lovingly nurtured as opposed to be moulded.
Popular culture therefore in order to justify different "nurturing" methods typecast teenagers and young adults as 1) extremely fun seeking, slightly unruly, sensitive and worldly-wise beyond their years with unique talents and strangely quite introspective for their out-going nature, a maelstrom of quite deep and clever emotions within a rather messed up world not ready for their precocious minds 2) They are viewed as wholesome child, errant even though in certain ways and ignorant but yet all the more eager to live up to expectations and ultimately a good kid, gone wrong which requires moulding and therefore discipline- sort of like the prodigal son or daughter.
The narrative would therefore be moulded to shape different nurturing techniques I suppose.
Actually for 1) I find the narrative quite rather incredulous. When I was growing up, I have never met an introspective, and fun loving peer of mine which have emotional depth of an adult. There were smart ones and there were fun loving ones, the fun loving ones are really emotionally stunned and have a maturity of their age. The "good" ones are that studied hard which might have emotional depth beyond their years but have the breadth of a child. They are quite incapable of focusing on what they have already know.
2) Wholesome children which is ever willing to accept discipline and moulding by seniors is a narrative of which I believe exist but only because the environment does not allow them anything but that. Children and teenagers, and young adults who play their roles well and as such, hide beneath a melting pot of emotions of which deviance is strongly suppressed and have pent-up emotions where catharsis sometimes can comes in forms of confusion and dishonesty. An inauthentic personality lacking in charm and genuine affection for things that they enjoy.
The first to me put realism so far ahead that I do not think that it corresponds with actual reality. The second to me, puts idealism so far ahead that realism have to correspond with that.
Ultimately, we must always bear in mind that these are models of which we utilize to help us rather than to follow religiously.
We would at the end of the day must remind ourselves that things can go wrong and will go wrong and these are humans with quite sometimes random nature involved- and we might at the end of the day try too hard and lose the end sight in mind- which is to nurture a full individual and well rounded one rather than an one-dimensional one that both tries to portray.
Fragmentation and "Natural Selection"
I have discovered a rather worrying trend. The world is tending towards fragmentation and fluidity and this is held together only the doctrine of "survival of the fittest". What this trend would result is an ever relentless pursuit of fads and a ruthless assault of what they consider "old": which ultimately caused the best of us insecurity, loneliness, alienation and a sense of helplessness, caused by a sense of rootedless-ness
The speed of which knowledge is blasted apart by not considered thought but rather polemic and polarization is rather worrying. No longer do most of us worry about traditions and culture which would have held us together but rather to consider what is to be broken just so that one can spawn one new fad so to show that one is ahead of the curve.
And the relentless pursuit towards anything mindlessly "new" has caused most of us to be "stupidly" led. Innovation and creation is the beacon of capitalism and advancement but it should not be at the expense of breaking it just for the sake of breaking it. I have noticed a worrying trend towards an almost blindless optimism towards anything new and a absolute disregard towards anything that might have work as a result of experience or evidently.
This fragmentation and fluidity is held together only by an misunderstood concept of Darwinian idea of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest". Wrapping new-ness around the idea of natural selection resulting in a stronger species is to transform an animal-nistic metaphor to an actual one. Biologically and physiologically we are similar to animals but the distinct difference between humans and animals is our ability to see from a third person perspective.
An animal is driven by instinct to eat when one is hungry and run when he is danger- he has no concept of which that his action is the result of a larger scheme of things. And that makes him a brilliant specimen for "natural selection" and of which Darwin has rightly pointed out.
But a human on the other hand has the ability to see from a "God" like perspective- in which he himself is nothing more than an actor in a larger scheme of things. And therefore we are able to withhold our instincts even though we are hungry, or we are fearful or we are thirsty. And that is where 4 thousand years of culture, ethics and social norms comes into play.
And if we were to act like there was a "natural selection" in play every single day, the world would have destroy itself much earlier than we would have today.
And Science has also proven conclusively that there is no such thing eugenics or a superior gene and therefore a blindless pursuit towards "contrived" "natural selection" is foolhardy.
Therefore I find this trend of justifying this type of faddish behaviour on the back of pseudo-scientific analogies is dangerous and all the more ideological and narcissistic. Such tendencies towards the "cult of individual" on strength and superiority breeds a misplaced sense of narcissism and egotism. Of which to me is nothing more than fad and if otherwise I am proven wrong- and I seriously do not hope so- spells the start of an Armageddon.
The speed of which knowledge is blasted apart by not considered thought but rather polemic and polarization is rather worrying. No longer do most of us worry about traditions and culture which would have held us together but rather to consider what is to be broken just so that one can spawn one new fad so to show that one is ahead of the curve.
And the relentless pursuit towards anything mindlessly "new" has caused most of us to be "stupidly" led. Innovation and creation is the beacon of capitalism and advancement but it should not be at the expense of breaking it just for the sake of breaking it. I have noticed a worrying trend towards an almost blindless optimism towards anything new and a absolute disregard towards anything that might have work as a result of experience or evidently.
This fragmentation and fluidity is held together only by an misunderstood concept of Darwinian idea of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest". Wrapping new-ness around the idea of natural selection resulting in a stronger species is to transform an animal-nistic metaphor to an actual one. Biologically and physiologically we are similar to animals but the distinct difference between humans and animals is our ability to see from a third person perspective.
An animal is driven by instinct to eat when one is hungry and run when he is danger- he has no concept of which that his action is the result of a larger scheme of things. And that makes him a brilliant specimen for "natural selection" and of which Darwin has rightly pointed out.
But a human on the other hand has the ability to see from a "God" like perspective- in which he himself is nothing more than an actor in a larger scheme of things. And therefore we are able to withhold our instincts even though we are hungry, or we are fearful or we are thirsty. And that is where 4 thousand years of culture, ethics and social norms comes into play.
And if we were to act like there was a "natural selection" in play every single day, the world would have destroy itself much earlier than we would have today.
And Science has also proven conclusively that there is no such thing eugenics or a superior gene and therefore a blindless pursuit towards "contrived" "natural selection" is foolhardy.
Therefore I find this trend of justifying this type of faddish behaviour on the back of pseudo-scientific analogies is dangerous and all the more ideological and narcissistic. Such tendencies towards the "cult of individual" on strength and superiority breeds a misplaced sense of narcissism and egotism. Of which to me is nothing more than fad and if otherwise I am proven wrong- and I seriously do not hope so- spells the start of an Armageddon.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Ambitions
I do not intend to rile anything here.
But it has come to my attention that apparently I have been guardian to quite alot of things both past and present. I can quite categorically tell you that I have no interest in guarding what is considered my "kingdom". Everyone is open to say what they are interested in- and the final arbiter are those in power and not me.
I am not in the position to be in any seat of power or influence precisely because I lacked the means to protect what is supposed to be "mine" and secondly it is my belief that everyone has the freedom to choose insofar that it does not step into the realm of others.
You do not need to pay homage to me because you think you belong to "me" as I do not think that nobody or nothing belongs to anyone. Neither do you need to prove to me that your master is better than me because I am not in business of proving anybody wrong.
I do not have the lofty ambitions of which you think that you make me out to be.
As such, if you feel so inclined that you are better than me or covert what is supposed to be mine- do not hide behind shadows and strategize behind my back, but rather meet me face to face. I would gladly let go if you have some ambitions as to better me because your desire to be better- would make for better benefits in the larger scheme of things.
Hence, let this be the final word that whatever I have is up for grabs- because I have no desire of which you think that I have.
May peace be with you.
Eugene
But it has come to my attention that apparently I have been guardian to quite alot of things both past and present. I can quite categorically tell you that I have no interest in guarding what is considered my "kingdom". Everyone is open to say what they are interested in- and the final arbiter are those in power and not me.
I am not in the position to be in any seat of power or influence precisely because I lacked the means to protect what is supposed to be "mine" and secondly it is my belief that everyone has the freedom to choose insofar that it does not step into the realm of others.
You do not need to pay homage to me because you think you belong to "me" as I do not think that nobody or nothing belongs to anyone. Neither do you need to prove to me that your master is better than me because I am not in business of proving anybody wrong.
I do not have the lofty ambitions of which you think that you make me out to be.
As such, if you feel so inclined that you are better than me or covert what is supposed to be mine- do not hide behind shadows and strategize behind my back, but rather meet me face to face. I would gladly let go if you have some ambitions as to better me because your desire to be better- would make for better benefits in the larger scheme of things.
Hence, let this be the final word that whatever I have is up for grabs- because I have no desire of which you think that I have.
May peace be with you.
Eugene
Denouncing all things foreign
There has been alot of recent debate about foreigners versus the locals. This is especially covered in print and online as well. This will always be perennial question largely unresolvable; the framing by print media and certain websites is unnecessarily polarizing and polemic.
Such debates did not exist until recently when suddenly the distinction becomes rather flamed up. It reminds me of North Korean propaganda really- where in order to keep it's people stunned, it reminds the locals of the "demonic" qualities of anything foreign. This really snaps of a regime of which is really losing grip where the only way of keeping hold is via mind and ideological control.
It would be surprising that 95% of what we use is foreign made and yet we riled against foreigners. Recent reports even highlight the unsavoury qualities of isolated accidents where so-called foreigners were involved. There are many such luxurious cars around and most are driven by locals really.
Foreigners used to be foreign talent and now they have been framed as "Us versus Them"- suddenly they have become them and for so long we are trying make "them" "us". This nationalistic fervour is extremely unhealthy and it is not patriotism when we attack them selectively. We pick on issues not on the personal attributes. The framing of certain issues almost suggest that they deserve such treatment just because they were "bad" people. We almost wish they were dead just because they were "bad": at least according to some polemical and divisive reports I have read so far. Reports have become drama soap operas polarizing the bad- the foreigners- and the good- the locals-.
It is almost like the moment we raise the temperature abit, considering the influx of foreigners- we become instinctive animals, losing the ability to think of the benefits without separating from the personal. We have a citizenship for a reason and so therefore control of immigrants is a macro issue rather than focusing on the micro and everyday life. Such debate- especially this type of polarizing ones and almost vicious and ideological should not have a place in rational debates.
I have always constantly followed current affairs and this is by far- given the progress we have made so far- the most vicious and polarizing debates I have read thus far.
Sorting out the cause and effect would be impossible. Perhaps the government was trying to frame the debate just so that certain nationalistic policies can go do more smoothly or alternatively the government is following local trends and framing in a way that most locals know how. Therefore this is a chicken and egg story and I do believe that the both parties are complicit in the state of matters right now. Both believing both sides wanted it this way.
But it is sure that having nationalistic policies serve only to perpetuate existing structures as opposed to changing it. While serving nationalistic policies serve only to cement local positions: hence by having such policies, I am not sure whose interests would it serve.
But a case in point as to be considered, many nations have degenerated after having a bout of isolation tendencies. This is often the result of an ruling class hanging onto power after exposure to new cultures and practices by it's people. The end result almost always results in being blown apart by foreign invaders whom have remain open and searching and where they have advanced far ahead while they have become closed to foreign "barbarians".
This much is true. Therefore I have remained concerned of the state of affairs of which I view is the precursor to a degenerative state- the start of denouncement of all things foreign.
Such debates did not exist until recently when suddenly the distinction becomes rather flamed up. It reminds me of North Korean propaganda really- where in order to keep it's people stunned, it reminds the locals of the "demonic" qualities of anything foreign. This really snaps of a regime of which is really losing grip where the only way of keeping hold is via mind and ideological control.
It would be surprising that 95% of what we use is foreign made and yet we riled against foreigners. Recent reports even highlight the unsavoury qualities of isolated accidents where so-called foreigners were involved. There are many such luxurious cars around and most are driven by locals really.
Foreigners used to be foreign talent and now they have been framed as "Us versus Them"- suddenly they have become them and for so long we are trying make "them" "us". This nationalistic fervour is extremely unhealthy and it is not patriotism when we attack them selectively. We pick on issues not on the personal attributes. The framing of certain issues almost suggest that they deserve such treatment just because they were "bad" people. We almost wish they were dead just because they were "bad": at least according to some polemical and divisive reports I have read so far. Reports have become drama soap operas polarizing the bad- the foreigners- and the good- the locals-.
It is almost like the moment we raise the temperature abit, considering the influx of foreigners- we become instinctive animals, losing the ability to think of the benefits without separating from the personal. We have a citizenship for a reason and so therefore control of immigrants is a macro issue rather than focusing on the micro and everyday life. Such debate- especially this type of polarizing ones and almost vicious and ideological should not have a place in rational debates.
I have always constantly followed current affairs and this is by far- given the progress we have made so far- the most vicious and polarizing debates I have read thus far.
Sorting out the cause and effect would be impossible. Perhaps the government was trying to frame the debate just so that certain nationalistic policies can go do more smoothly or alternatively the government is following local trends and framing in a way that most locals know how. Therefore this is a chicken and egg story and I do believe that the both parties are complicit in the state of matters right now. Both believing both sides wanted it this way.
But it is sure that having nationalistic policies serve only to perpetuate existing structures as opposed to changing it. While serving nationalistic policies serve only to cement local positions: hence by having such policies, I am not sure whose interests would it serve.
But a case in point as to be considered, many nations have degenerated after having a bout of isolation tendencies. This is often the result of an ruling class hanging onto power after exposure to new cultures and practices by it's people. The end result almost always results in being blown apart by foreign invaders whom have remain open and searching and where they have advanced far ahead while they have become closed to foreign "barbarians".
This much is true. Therefore I have remained concerned of the state of affairs of which I view is the precursor to a degenerative state- the start of denouncement of all things foreign.
Irrational Skepticism
The level of pessimism is so high, and I do believe that it is much unwarranted.
We are led to believe that the world would collapse as a result of small country defaulting on a loan when there are much bigger ones that has happened before- think of Russia and Argentina. I have noticed that although indexes are falling, blue chip companies volumes have remained to be rather thin.
Very often, the counters which dominate the volume chart are companies which have remain rather obscure or rather seasonal. It is almost the market is finding any excuse to push itself down.
Previous paradigms of positivity and optimism as a norm no longer rings true as a the wave of "skepticism" sweeps the market. It is almost like any news put out by any agency must be viewed with suspicion.
I do believe that the market is changing itself from "irrational exuberance" to an "irrational skepticism" paradigm. The assumption have changed from cheering any positive news to one of dampening down any positive numbers. The result is therefore that for any positive upward trend, there must be be "ironically" nothing happening. Only when nothing happens- would the market have see any uptick.
It would appear rather that the market have shifted from one of optimism and pessimism to one of stability and volatility. Any news that changes is bad, any news that remains is good. Therefore the market is tired from extracting value on predicting the future and have taken the easy route of taking a straight forward trajectory has opposed to allocating capital in the most efficient way.
Therefore we can extract a permutation of :1) positive/volatile 2) negative/ volatile 3) postive/stable and 4) negative/stable. On 1) the result would likely up slight downward trend as the effect of volatility would dampen any positive news. 2) The market will correct itself by more than 1% 3) It is the ideal- where positive news is met stable outlook. Eg of such news include: positive job numbers coupled with steady growth 4) This might even have slight upward trend as the market is tending towards stability in spite of weak numbers.
This orientation towards stability as opposed to values is going to have a 2 fold effect 1) those with political upheavals can expect poor market response, as the market is adverse to change of any sort right now 2) The market will not respond to pro-action as compared to pre-emptive measures. It is therefore one can see trending towards status quo as compared to innovation and creation.
Therefore market leaders with strong cash flow balance and constant product line is expect to do much better as compared with companies who are game changers by nature.
It is perhaps understandable that given the recent upheavals in the market the last couple of years that players are putting premium on longevity as opposed to new-ness.
But this trend I do believed would not last too long. It's aversion to risk and volatility is the result of change fatigue rather than participating in a retro vogue. And indeed if this trend were to continue, we would be throwing away our iPhones and using our pagers in time to come.
This retro fad is one I which believed will fade in time, once the pent-up instinct for efficient capital utilization kicks in, in time to come. And that's when they announce the arrival of iPhone 5- then it is time to buy into the high beta stocks.
We are led to believe that the world would collapse as a result of small country defaulting on a loan when there are much bigger ones that has happened before- think of Russia and Argentina. I have noticed that although indexes are falling, blue chip companies volumes have remained to be rather thin.
Very often, the counters which dominate the volume chart are companies which have remain rather obscure or rather seasonal. It is almost the market is finding any excuse to push itself down.
Previous paradigms of positivity and optimism as a norm no longer rings true as a the wave of "skepticism" sweeps the market. It is almost like any news put out by any agency must be viewed with suspicion.
I do believe that the market is changing itself from "irrational exuberance" to an "irrational skepticism" paradigm. The assumption have changed from cheering any positive news to one of dampening down any positive numbers. The result is therefore that for any positive upward trend, there must be be "ironically" nothing happening. Only when nothing happens- would the market have see any uptick.
It would appear rather that the market have shifted from one of optimism and pessimism to one of stability and volatility. Any news that changes is bad, any news that remains is good. Therefore the market is tired from extracting value on predicting the future and have taken the easy route of taking a straight forward trajectory has opposed to allocating capital in the most efficient way.
Therefore we can extract a permutation of :1) positive/volatile 2) negative/ volatile 3) postive/stable and 4) negative/stable. On 1) the result would likely up slight downward trend as the effect of volatility would dampen any positive news. 2) The market will correct itself by more than 1% 3) It is the ideal- where positive news is met stable outlook. Eg of such news include: positive job numbers coupled with steady growth 4) This might even have slight upward trend as the market is tending towards stability in spite of weak numbers.
This orientation towards stability as opposed to values is going to have a 2 fold effect 1) those with political upheavals can expect poor market response, as the market is adverse to change of any sort right now 2) The market will not respond to pro-action as compared to pre-emptive measures. It is therefore one can see trending towards status quo as compared to innovation and creation.
Therefore market leaders with strong cash flow balance and constant product line is expect to do much better as compared with companies who are game changers by nature.
It is perhaps understandable that given the recent upheavals in the market the last couple of years that players are putting premium on longevity as opposed to new-ness.
But this trend I do believed would not last too long. It's aversion to risk and volatility is the result of change fatigue rather than participating in a retro vogue. And indeed if this trend were to continue, we would be throwing away our iPhones and using our pagers in time to come.
This retro fad is one I which believed will fade in time, once the pent-up instinct for efficient capital utilization kicks in, in time to come. And that's when they announce the arrival of iPhone 5- then it is time to buy into the high beta stocks.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Que Sera Sera
The local political election has been done and dusted- it happened last year in May. Some have call it a watershed event and some said that it ended in a whimper: but it is in my belief, that it cannot be considered as a watershed event. It is to me a non-event: precisely because the transfer of power was so orderly that I wondered was there any change in the first place beneath the veneer of electoral politics.
The opposition gain a GRC and an additional 5 seats in Parliament: their vote count aggregated was a total of 40% but accounted for only 8% of the Parliament seats. There was much talk about the opposition mounting a overturn in the results in various constituencies but eventually only one went their way in spite of much fanfare. The emergence of several civil servants and ex-establishment personnel entering into the opposition calls into question the allegiance of these new members.
The orderliness of the defection- where previously it was much ingratiated- appeared to be much choreographed even though the true intentions remain rather elusive. The timing and drama unfolding as one after another gold-plated opposition candidate appeared surrealistic given the historical experience of opposition politics is to go by.
The orderliness of seismic changes appears almost like a roller coaster ride: where you think you are in danger but the actual fact is that you steadily fastened to your seat with nary of chance of falling off. To be frank, I was taken by the spectacle: but after thinking back- it would almost appear too good to be true, what made them changed their minds in the first place.
The media coverage, the liberal-ness of the coverage almost had everyone believed that finally something was happening. But one year on, nothing really changed. Media coverage continued to be one-sided, community issues almost always lurk a paternalistic hand behind it. Certain articles continue to whiff off an authoritarian bent to it. Watershed event: what watershed event?
I cannot differentiate between the opposition politician from the establishment ones because it almost appear that they toe the same line. It is almost that they come to an agreement to disagree and only to agree at the end of it.
Debate in Parliament is non-existent and continued to be unilaterally agreed by one side. When the opposition argued, it is almost like nit-picking on non-existent points without taking on the substance of any bill and that is in spite of having a number of gold-plated candidates on their side.
I have watched a number of Parliamentary sessions and it is still symptomatic of previous years: one side speak, the other side listen; and to give a token debate of which to show that points were truly picked up.
But in recent months, I have given myself to the argument that in order for things to happen- true debate cannot happen in the spectacle of everyone. It gives everyone a chance to prise open an issue only for it to stall as a political maneuver and hampering the welfare of everyone at large.
I admittedly in previous posts gave the idea of a two party system where debate happens and consequently results in a synthesis of better policies and ideas. But practically speaking, like everything else, politics also has it's own culture. The idea of an authentic conflict of which the result is better ideas and policies is virtually non-existent.
It is better that authentic conflict appear away from the prying eyes of public so as to not allow opportunistic politicians mislead an ignorant public. Therefore the idea of conflict and debate in the Parliament would not exist simply because all members in the ring are playing by the same rules: which is to win the fickle minds of the electorate- and therefore to provide a spectacle for all to see and watch in awe.
Like someone always say: It appears that everything has changed but nothing really actually changed. It takes a madmen who do not play by the rules to effect the changes but who would risk their political career in doing so.
Que Sera Sera.
The opposition gain a GRC and an additional 5 seats in Parliament: their vote count aggregated was a total of 40% but accounted for only 8% of the Parliament seats. There was much talk about the opposition mounting a overturn in the results in various constituencies but eventually only one went their way in spite of much fanfare. The emergence of several civil servants and ex-establishment personnel entering into the opposition calls into question the allegiance of these new members.
The orderliness of the defection- where previously it was much ingratiated- appeared to be much choreographed even though the true intentions remain rather elusive. The timing and drama unfolding as one after another gold-plated opposition candidate appeared surrealistic given the historical experience of opposition politics is to go by.
The orderliness of seismic changes appears almost like a roller coaster ride: where you think you are in danger but the actual fact is that you steadily fastened to your seat with nary of chance of falling off. To be frank, I was taken by the spectacle: but after thinking back- it would almost appear too good to be true, what made them changed their minds in the first place.
The media coverage, the liberal-ness of the coverage almost had everyone believed that finally something was happening. But one year on, nothing really changed. Media coverage continued to be one-sided, community issues almost always lurk a paternalistic hand behind it. Certain articles continue to whiff off an authoritarian bent to it. Watershed event: what watershed event?
I cannot differentiate between the opposition politician from the establishment ones because it almost appear that they toe the same line. It is almost that they come to an agreement to disagree and only to agree at the end of it.
Debate in Parliament is non-existent and continued to be unilaterally agreed by one side. When the opposition argued, it is almost like nit-picking on non-existent points without taking on the substance of any bill and that is in spite of having a number of gold-plated candidates on their side.
I have watched a number of Parliamentary sessions and it is still symptomatic of previous years: one side speak, the other side listen; and to give a token debate of which to show that points were truly picked up.
But in recent months, I have given myself to the argument that in order for things to happen- true debate cannot happen in the spectacle of everyone. It gives everyone a chance to prise open an issue only for it to stall as a political maneuver and hampering the welfare of everyone at large.
I admittedly in previous posts gave the idea of a two party system where debate happens and consequently results in a synthesis of better policies and ideas. But practically speaking, like everything else, politics also has it's own culture. The idea of an authentic conflict of which the result is better ideas and policies is virtually non-existent.
It is better that authentic conflict appear away from the prying eyes of public so as to not allow opportunistic politicians mislead an ignorant public. Therefore the idea of conflict and debate in the Parliament would not exist simply because all members in the ring are playing by the same rules: which is to win the fickle minds of the electorate- and therefore to provide a spectacle for all to see and watch in awe.
Like someone always say: It appears that everything has changed but nothing really actually changed. It takes a madmen who do not play by the rules to effect the changes but who would risk their political career in doing so.
Que Sera Sera.
A social individual
There are indeed quite a number of ethical issues regarding sociability and human relationships. Does being a hero makes you more social- as you are sacrificing for the greater good- or does conforming to norms make you more social- as you are a cog in a large wheel, and if you do not perform well, the wheel cannot spin.
This to me lies in the crux in being individualistic or sociable.
When you watch war movies, very often you see the hero braving his personal life for the sake for his family, nation or tribe. And it makes him/her endearing, likable and heroic. He steps out of line for the sake of his community- doing what most would not do. And on the other hand, you see a family comedy where everyone toes the line and not wanting to step on another's toes- and resulting in quite a number humorous happenings. In fact, the extent of which one goes to length to conform is almost of comfort and telling everyone that one is not alone.
And therein, this cement the idea of holding a sociable person- in spite of his ordinariness- over one who is individualistic and who might perform the job a hundred persons.
A social person in this sense is easy to understand, easy to relate to and allows a sense of continuity which is comforting to everyone. He might be a clown or a joke, but the function lies not in it's ability to generate work so to speak but rather in the comforting thought that he is of no threat. And this idea of knowing one's place is crucial in that even the hero in the first instance is fighting not for breaking of a system but rather the continuation of an existing system- and therefore he/she is exalted rather than condemned. In his danger, lies the comfort of continuation of one's existing way of life.
The individualistic person on the other hand denounces the community. The individual believes that in order for a community to survive- we must be tolerant to views of others in spite of the differences. By extension, the community survives only because the individual exist.
And therefore as a twist to a family comedy, an individualistic take on it- who not be denouncing the family but rather exaggerating the differences- and providing comedic references by not trying to show the together-ness of the family but rather by showing the cool-ness of each individual family member, and therefore making it desirable for anyone to assume the role outside of the movie screen. They are stereotypes and caricatures but nonetheless they are a collection of largely similar characteristics of which we make fun of rather than be tolerant of. And only by laughing at the prejudices and stereotypes, can we recognize the differences in all of us.
And at the end of the day, everyone recognizes we are all different- in spite of any orientations we might have- and at the same time, we too recognize the need to live with one another but we attempt to split the two apart only for one to easily spill into the other category. And therefore, rather than pushing each other into different continuum's, it is best to recognize that we are both achieving similar ends but have a different mean of doing so.
This to me lies in the crux in being individualistic or sociable.
When you watch war movies, very often you see the hero braving his personal life for the sake for his family, nation or tribe. And it makes him/her endearing, likable and heroic. He steps out of line for the sake of his community- doing what most would not do. And on the other hand, you see a family comedy where everyone toes the line and not wanting to step on another's toes- and resulting in quite a number humorous happenings. In fact, the extent of which one goes to length to conform is almost of comfort and telling everyone that one is not alone.
And therein, this cement the idea of holding a sociable person- in spite of his ordinariness- over one who is individualistic and who might perform the job a hundred persons.
A social person in this sense is easy to understand, easy to relate to and allows a sense of continuity which is comforting to everyone. He might be a clown or a joke, but the function lies not in it's ability to generate work so to speak but rather in the comforting thought that he is of no threat. And this idea of knowing one's place is crucial in that even the hero in the first instance is fighting not for breaking of a system but rather the continuation of an existing system- and therefore he/she is exalted rather than condemned. In his danger, lies the comfort of continuation of one's existing way of life.
The individualistic person on the other hand denounces the community. The individual believes that in order for a community to survive- we must be tolerant to views of others in spite of the differences. By extension, the community survives only because the individual exist.
And therefore as a twist to a family comedy, an individualistic take on it- who not be denouncing the family but rather exaggerating the differences- and providing comedic references by not trying to show the together-ness of the family but rather by showing the cool-ness of each individual family member, and therefore making it desirable for anyone to assume the role outside of the movie screen. They are stereotypes and caricatures but nonetheless they are a collection of largely similar characteristics of which we make fun of rather than be tolerant of. And only by laughing at the prejudices and stereotypes, can we recognize the differences in all of us.
And at the end of the day, everyone recognizes we are all different- in spite of any orientations we might have- and at the same time, we too recognize the need to live with one another but we attempt to split the two apart only for one to easily spill into the other category. And therefore, rather than pushing each other into different continuum's, it is best to recognize that we are both achieving similar ends but have a different mean of doing so.
Valuations
Further to what was being said earlier, the paradign shift happening around the world has at the same time caused an upheaval in valuation of quite a number of assets as well.
The upheaval is as such: previous valuation method is predicated on cash flow and focused entirely on valuing the essence of present money; but in recent times, there is a shift towards monetizing the probability of political events.
This new paradigm takes into consideration the existence of a political economy as opposed to a political and an economic one. Therefore, previous methods takes into consideration valuing visible cashhflows and profits- and now it takes into consideration the impact of the larger social-political context that might impact future cash flow and profits. And it is largely true that we lived in a world where the economy and politic will find it difficult to be separated but the novelty also meant that any minute policy changes would have a knee jerk effect on the markets. This has caused to me, largely unjustified volatility in the markets as a result of some obscure policy announcements.
The political economy must be seen in the context of power structure and relations rather than policy movements. Taken into considerations of a political economy means finding out who gets what and when- and not changes in policy wordings. It is foolhardy to place influence onto an executive or politician whose job is not to safeguard the market but rather to that larger context- whom at most times have nothing to do with global markets.
It is also at the same time the cause of disjuncture in valuations in the global markets as a result of divergent views of various policies. One think it is good and the other think is bad- and this caused an schizophrenic effect almost ruining the science of investment and finance in the first place.
It is my view that previous methods in valuation remain rather robust and exhaustive in predicting valuations of assets- but it is in the art of predicting the impact of future events that remain elusive. And therefore in trying to rationalizing and determining largely I believed random future events would take more than analysing policy wordings but rather a studious understanding of how the world really works.
The biggest mistakes most of these models makes is trying to fit reality into categories and models as opposed to the other way round. And when I know your model, it would indeed easy to game it.
And you make the also the biggest mistake any smart person normally would make- by determining what is largely rather fluid aggregating parts.
The upheaval is as such: previous valuation method is predicated on cash flow and focused entirely on valuing the essence of present money; but in recent times, there is a shift towards monetizing the probability of political events.
This new paradigm takes into consideration the existence of a political economy as opposed to a political and an economic one. Therefore, previous methods takes into consideration valuing visible cashhflows and profits- and now it takes into consideration the impact of the larger social-political context that might impact future cash flow and profits. And it is largely true that we lived in a world where the economy and politic will find it difficult to be separated but the novelty also meant that any minute policy changes would have a knee jerk effect on the markets. This has caused to me, largely unjustified volatility in the markets as a result of some obscure policy announcements.
The political economy must be seen in the context of power structure and relations rather than policy movements. Taken into considerations of a political economy means finding out who gets what and when- and not changes in policy wordings. It is foolhardy to place influence onto an executive or politician whose job is not to safeguard the market but rather to that larger context- whom at most times have nothing to do with global markets.
It is also at the same time the cause of disjuncture in valuations in the global markets as a result of divergent views of various policies. One think it is good and the other think is bad- and this caused an schizophrenic effect almost ruining the science of investment and finance in the first place.
It is my view that previous methods in valuation remain rather robust and exhaustive in predicting valuations of assets- but it is in the art of predicting the impact of future events that remain elusive. And therefore in trying to rationalizing and determining largely I believed random future events would take more than analysing policy wordings but rather a studious understanding of how the world really works.
The biggest mistakes most of these models makes is trying to fit reality into categories and models as opposed to the other way round. And when I know your model, it would indeed easy to game it.
And you make the also the biggest mistake any smart person normally would make- by determining what is largely rather fluid aggregating parts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
