Values and profit

I have experimented with many methods in money-making schemes. From stocks to starting my own business, to upgrading my negotiating skills, after a while I began to realise that technically competent I am, I cannot seem to last long in a single direction. This got me thinking if I am so good, why am I not rich as I am suppose to be.

I then realise that techniques, profits, strategies and tactics might not be as important as values.

In everyday life, we often favour profit above everything else. It might not necessarily be money but any form of competitive advantage or leverage that we can get from our actions. This means that our actions are often targeted at personal enrichment-  be it tangible or intangible benefits. This I believed only leads to short term gains.

We only profit from the gains that we can see but often loses on other areas that we missed out. Take for example, an aggressive salesmen who would do everything for sales, he might be successful in bringing in sales for the short term. But he often looked at his remuneration and who well he is supposed to be paid relative to the sales that he bring in. Thereafter, when he no longer feels adequately compensated, he become distracted and his sales begin to drop.

This is a personal story, I was quite a successful banker in the finance industry. I was always the top few in my team in sales. I was doing so well that I begin to realise that everyone was beginning to copy my sales pitch. I didn't like it as I had spend time and effort in coming my own sales pitch that I didn't like it when people enjoyed the fruits of my labour. I complained to my boss but it was ineffectual as I do not have any patent of what people can say or cannot say.

I then begin to ask for more benefits since I was not able to gain any advantage from complaining. I asked for a promotion and I got it. I then begin to ask myself if I am such a valuable part of the team I should then begin to adequately compensated from other means. Since I am so important, I told my boss I wanted to be the CEO- not now but at least to be build to be one, it was preposterous but it was worth a try. My boss didn't laugh at my request but she referred to the HR department. After a while, I felt I was making a no headway in my request, I began to be distracted and my sales fell and my hunger for furthering a career in the bank begin to waned. I left the job even without a job but I got another quite quickly after quitting due to my sales record.

You see I worked very hard to get what I was and I felt that I inadequately compensated. I didn't really believed in what I was doing- I was really doing for the money, doing for own egotistical satisfaction and it was not about helping people in their financial matters. It was not about others but about myself. I failed because I don't value the people that was helping me to succeed. I was not thankful for my customers for believing in me and my bosses for pulling me up and my colleagues who were helping me in other ways. I did not realise that I was who I am because so many people had helped me along. I totally missed the big picture. Had I viewed this more positively, I would probably been a managing director now but I did not made it there because I did not do it for the right reasons and I was not prepared to make the personal sacrifices to succeed.

Hence I believed that if you put profit over everything else, it would lead you only to defeat. Just like what happen to me.

Therefore in my recent posts and my other posts, I have stressed the importance of values. When you have positive values, you will meet people that will help you towards the common goal. The strategy will settle itself. Hence when you have the right values, it is not just about monetary profit, it is about strategic or tactical profit, it is also important in politics, in economics and in business.

What then are the values that are important to be successful, firstly we must place positive performers over result performers. We must encouraged positive colleagues who often placed others before self over result performers. This will encouraged teamwork and unity in working towards a common goal over colleagues who performed very well in various metrics but are often discouraging and selfish in their  actions and care more about their own personal metrics than the team performance.

Secondly we must encourage ethical behaviour over achievement-oriented behaviour. We must be ethical in our actions rather than going all out in search of "conquests". When we do it right, we treat our customers right or our electorate right, and they will come back. When we "overcome" everyone, we only choose to convince them through external rewards, they will not be loyal neither will they stay when the goings get tough.

Lastly we must do it right over what is profitable. We must always do what is right even it is not profitable- in monetary or strategic terms. We will only attract only the right people to our organization and that's the only way to build a long-lasting institution.

Eventually with all the right people in place which are both positive and ethical, this will only leads to overperformance. The organization will be an out-performer over all other similar organizations.

In sum, and I cannot stress it further, we must placed our values over profit. Only in this way, can we have our long-term vision in place.

Affluenza and Happiness

I have written quite a lot about political and economic issues and I have a social-psychological issues that I thought would be interesting to highlight. You know Facebook can be interesting to people who like to observe how people lead their daily lives. I have nothing against my friends but I feel that their lives are a little too perfect for us to imagine living. It's like their lives are lived in snapshots. I believed that the problem is their inability or incapability to take risk.

I was reading this book called "Affluenza" by Oliver James and he defines this outward projection for material goods can lead to a host of psychological issues. My friends are not "materialistic" persons in the traditional sense, where consumerisms overtakes them. They are too smart for that. They are captured by material goods in that they derive satisfactions from external goods/ relics/ artefacts. They want to look "good" in front of everyone- they want to be "perfect". Take for example, their picture perfect photos are often defined by photos which shows them in various state of bliss- wedding bliss, parental bliss and any other forms of bliss by which they seem to surrounded by happy, like-minded people. I might be picking on bones but recently, I was reading a newspaper article where people can actually rent a buddy for their weddings- to give "speeches" and be "sabo-ed" during the crash party. You have to show that you are "surrounded" by people who "loved" you. I find it quite ironic actually.

Let us bring back to the book. The books mentions that these people suffer from a host of psychological issues such as insecurity, being inauthentic, always comparing with others and feeling inadequate.

Maybe we can expand the above a little. They do not feel genuinely happy and they can only derive satisfaction from shopping or from material goods and let their external goods define them. These are the people who suffer classic case of "Affluenza" where consumerisms and their goods define their self-worth. This means that their self-worth are defined by how much they make or how successful. But you see my friends are too smart for that. They have gone past them and actually I think they are too smart for their own good.

They defined themselves by how "happy" they appear to other's and how ordinary their lives and hence how blissful their lives are. Hence photos are extremely important to them. Wedding photos cost thousands of dollars in Singapore and some actually got in the debt because of their wedding- as what an newspaper article attest to. They are not addicted to Louis Vuitton, they are addicted to the idea of "happiness" and not happiness per se. They seek only external gratification through the photos and videos and not actually feeling genuinely happy simply because they do not feel adequate and constantly comparing themselves to others. They have to "out-happy" others.

Facebook photos can cause lots of envy. I was reading an article and it says that Facebook can actually make one feel depressed simply because you always see happy photos and you feel "left out". These photos makes us compare ourselves to other's and made us inadequate to other's. It is like why is other's living such happy lives and I lived such miserable lives. Hence I believed that these people have to out-do each other and in such tacit manner that they have post photos in enjoying themselves in the company of others without appearing to be jealous or envious of other's, or appear to compete with them. They really out-smarted themselves sometimes.

Outwardly, I believed some of my friends are happy but actually deep down inside, I believed that they are unhappy with their lives. These lead to poor psychological states of mind and very latent personality issues. All these will not lead to classic cases of high divorce rates, poor financial situation because the pull factors of appearing "normal" and "put-together" is so strong that they will not appear to other's to have "failed" in life.

But they will not be genuinely happy because they did not stretch their potential as they refuse to take risks that would appear to be out mode of being "normal". They are really double bluffing themselves which is an even worse case than a person who is genuinely afflicted by "Affluenza" or being addicted to material goods.

I am not even sure what I am describing has an equivalent psychological term or just pop science but I believed that these people has to go beyond the superficial. They have to look past appearing "perfect" or "normal" or "put-together" in front of others. They have to learn to take some risk in their lives.

They need to nourish their mind through enrichment, and not some popular self-help classes but rather following their passion and seeing where these classes bring you to. They need also to break their own stereotypes of others and of themselves. They need to broaden their definition of what is success to other's and not be taken in by "popular images" of success. With these in mind, I believed they can break the cycle of unhappiness that they are living in.

Brexit and the Limits of Democracy

It did not occur to me who bad the situation was on the ground was about anti-globalization and anti-immigration sentiments. The Brexit had showed that people are angry about having too many foreigners in the country- the strange faces that are taking the jobs away from the poorer and less-educated classes of the country.

Brexit have demonstrated the short-comings of democracy. There have been reports that London want to establish it's own state because it voted mostly for the "Remain" camp and hence differ greatly from the rest of England. Therefore it want's to create a new state just because of one singular issue.

There are even reports that the young people want to break away from their older electorate because the latter are the ones that are holding the younger citizens back in their search for greater social and work mobility. Democracy can cause fissures in society and fragmentation in society, nationhood and politics can occur as different interests group articulate their needs.

Democracy can caused divisive-ness in society and politics. The "Remain" and "Exit camp" split down the middle as leaders fight desperately for their agenda- personal attacks, negative campaigning and vitriolic jibes made at either camp. It made people wary of each other.

Lastly, Brexit also reared it's ugly head when it clearly showed racism won the referendum. Ignorant electorate voted on leaving on the basis of the negative campaigning led by the "Exit" camp on anti-immigration policies- similar to those allegations made by Donald Trump on Mexicans. Anti-immigration is in effect racism or national discrimination as governments tries to limit people of other countries from entering the country. Only citizens can enjoy the full rights of a country but let us not forget that many immigrants also do the jobs that many locals do not wish to do. We should not forget their contributions as well.

It is so painfully obvious to many the limits of western style electoral democracy. The camp that should not won, won.

In a one party system like in China, such a referendum would not have occur in the first place hence there would be no argument about even the benefits and cost of an action. The policies are firstly decided by a political elite and argument would be internal rather than aired for the public to see.

I was reading a book by Daniel Bell called "The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy." The writer is a sino-phile and is a big China fan. It is painfully obvious that he writes only positively about China and it's political system. He writes that the political elite is chosen by various methods from the examination and assessment by it's peers. Hence the political elite represents not just the cream of the crop of the country but also held in high regard by it's own people and therefore would represents the will of the people. In fact, these people are chosen based on political merit- as the book suggests.

It also suggests to a lesser degree- in authoritarian fashion- Singapore has risen through the economic ranks by muzzling press that is critical of it's policies hence the ruling party has been able to maintain a hegemony over the nation-state. This is in spite of it holding regular periodic elections over it's relatively short history.

Does this autocratic and authoritarian style of politics presents a new hope for the fragmented and divisive politics that the Western-style of democracy presents.

I do not think so.

In my opinion, the electoral democracy continues to present the best way to create a polity with long-lasting institutions.

The autocratic and authoritarian political system only presents a step back in empowering the humankind in determining their political fate and destiny and therefore their own lives.

To take the choice away from the people would be to undermine their values as humans and as citizens of the world.

The electorate remains a work-in-progress. The goal is not to disenfranchised the people but to educate, enlighten the people in choosing and striving towards common good and value.

Totalitarianism and Freedom of Press

I was reading a series of essays by George Orwell on his views of the intellectual life, reading habits and his views on totalitarianism in post-war Britain.

He is a well read man and boasts a large collection of books which he had amassed over a number of years and laments on how the Brits with a 100% literacy rate even in 1940s prefer to spend money on cigarettes than on books. He is rather frustrated with the intellectual life of the common public.

But his thoughts on the freedom of press and speech in Britain is by far the most distinct. It is quite obvious in his essay that he is strongly against totalitarianism- which is quite evident in his well-known book "1984. It is obvious in his essay, his disdain for the former Soviet Union's propaganda efforts and inclination to distort historical facts to suit national interests.

But it has got me thinking- is living in a totalitarian state all that bad. Is there nothing worth redeeming about a country who controls what it's people reads and watches. It is often portrayed as leading to despotism and tyranny.

One thing for sure, every country in this world practices censorship of one kind or another. What makes some country's censorship "better" than other's? Why is this hero-worship of a so-called a human being like in North Korea really all that bad? Aren't we all doing that in Christianity, Islam and Buddhism- they were all humans before they were risen to diety-ism right.

Is this remnants of the past where the religiosity has been settled and everything else has to be secular now.

These are words of an anti-social being which does not conform to social rules and norms of today and hence deemed dangerous to modern society now. After all, isn't this exactly what the Islamic State wants- to establish a primitive caliphate. But let us think instead of what the above means for freedom of speech and association in a country and what an average intelligent person have to fulfil without being seen as non-patriotic and deemed anti-social to the very people he is trying to raise- his own countrymen.

For sure, the critical intellectuals of any country and the censors of a country both want a betterment of society. The robotic bureaucratic and over-zealous censor that is portrayed in books such as "1984" are really a caricature of an actual human doing a job that requires lots of discretion on his part. Slogans such as " war is peace" and " slavery is freedom" really appeals to intellectually curious of us who wants to find out how such blatant twist of words can actually happen in society and yet work in real life. In reality, it is non-practicable.

Censors and authorities have to create cartoons and clever advertisements to convince the people to do what they want them to do. In reality most censorship and authorities' propaganda efforts are targeted at public safety and protecting the public health and interests.

 Occasionally, they use scare tactics to warn people of the public health hazard such as advertisements on cigarette boxes and in Singapore, of emptying puddles of water lying around to prevent breeding of mosquitoes so that diseases such as malaria and dengue and more recently the Zika virus does not spread. [ In fact, I have written on one occasion of the over-zealousness of people destroying the puddles of water, just to prevent this from happening, that is the flip side of course] This is a staid job but someone's got to do this job simply because someone have to warned people of the potential health hazards. Not everyone have the sexy jobs of being foreign diplomats, economists or the central bankers.

There is simply one more charge constantly made against these staid bureaucrats of course and it is exactly what Orwell warned against as well: they are used in the perpetuation of an unjust or unfair order of society. Half a century ago, there are the secret police which locks up against anyone who spoke up against the prevailing government, interests or class. Today, in Singapore at least, there is the Internal Security department (ISD) or in some variation of it, in other countries. These are the people who lock people up for speaking up well against not necessarily the government but well who are deemed dangerous to society.

But of course, the definition of "dangerous" is contested and it is precisely because of this many so-called left wing intelligentsia constantly use this as a weapon for authorities against acting them. They deemed well exactly what was mentioned earlier about the bureaucrats, they are protecting the ruling class interests. Therefore, in this case, their belligerence towards the authorities is justified because they are simply lackey's for the ruling class.

Let us then bring back the duty of the intellect in society. Their role in society is to critique and comment the state of society for their betterment. But what makes an intellectual function well in such a set-up. They must as Orwell said be: intellectually honest. And in his words, sometimes " dare to do it alone."

But what I noticed about intellectual honest statements is that authorities do not actually clamped down on such reports. If an intellectual has made a statement that is honest and does not favour anyone, it is often left to it's devices.

What the authorities actually clamped down are polemical statements which is often so intellectually elitist- that it deems anything that run contrary to the government line must be considered benevolent simply because the government are merely mouthpieces for the ruling class hence anything to the contrary must be good for the "oppressed". Why intellectual elitist- simply because they believed that they are only ones with the knowledge of a government conspiracy to oppress a certain group of people.

What then must these so called left-wing intellectuals do to prevent such clampdown on their words- which they deemed beneficial for the people. For betterment of society, there must be a national duty towards it's country. With rights, comes with duties towards the nations and therefore we must not indulge in our so-called intellect and ask ourselves before: Whatever we are going to do, is it true to what we are seeing? Are we honest with ourselves or are we simply being " intellectually elitist"- thinking that by speaking up, we achieve martyrdom?

The other day, I read a very well-written article by Chee Soon Juan on the internet. Chee Soon Juan is a well-known opposition figure in Singapore. He has ruffled the feather's with the political elite and has several run-ins with the authorities. It was well-argued, well-written and, salient and very pertinent. The Internet posting went on to say that the Strait Times- the purported mouthpiece of the government, it is publicly listed as well and responsible to a wide-class of shareholders as well- did not publish the comment on it's forum page.

The public broadsheet has lot's of responsibilities- and one of them is to reflect national interest of the country. Chee Soon Juan's article had argued for an curtailment of the immigration policy of which as free and open country, the broadsheet is loathed to broadcast a policy based on national discrimination dependent on the prevailing political mood of another country. But yet, there was no clampdown on this article even though, the website had charged the broadsheet for being biased on it's reporting. In this age free-flowing Internet, the comment would have spread freely and openly. On the flip side, the recent sedition charges on two editors of the Real Singapore for inserting two false articles to incite racial tensions in Singapore. Consider the two cases: Can they be considered as oppression? Where then is the so-called oppression of un-free people of Singapore.

Are we being honest with ourselves or are we simply being "ideological" in our thinking.

At the end of the day, both intellectuals are looking towards the betterment of society by critiquing the pockets of unfair state of affairs, while the authorities and censorship have the duty of protecting national and public well-being. I believe there are good people in both camps and they are responsible and righteous people.

Both sometimes, must practice self-restraint in not being over-zealous in carrying out their duties but ultimately both must pledge allegiance to society that they served.

Orientalism and Islam

I had one political science lecturer who once told the class " one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It stuck onto me because it expanded a whole lot of possibilities.

But as a grew older, I begin to realise, as intelligent and insightful as it sounds, it is extremely amoral in light of the terrorist attacks around the world and also the presence of an Islamic State in the world. It is almost cruel to tell the family of the people that died that they died simply because of different perspectives. It was like they died in vain hence I never really told anyone of my opinion except to some family members.

Yesterday, I read a collection of Edward Said's essays. Some of it were on his essays on literature and other's were on his famous essay: "Orientalism" and other's were on his Palestinian background. You see the only reason I bought this book- it was bought from an old and quaint second-hand bookshop- was that his essay on Orientalism was rather interesting. In the sense that it questions my entire education as nothing more than looking at myself, culture and society as nothing more than looking from the lens from another world far from where I was from- the western- Eurocentric world. He was defending the East from lens of his own euro-centric lens as well.

But yesterday wasn't about Orientalism per se, it was about why Muslims are so angry with the West per se or even any establishment for that matter. It dawned onto me that the Edward Said, a rather angry man of Middle-Eastern origin, and I am not sure whether he is Muslim for that matter is angry at the world at the world for being euro-or western-centric.

He illuminates the historical baggage that the West have with his Middle-Eastern neighbours starting from the idea of statehood to the idea of Christianity/ Western versus Islamic dichotomy. What he suggests is that Islam is the one thing that the West have never been able to grapple with or "colonize". And it is exactly for this reason that through the millennia, there have been conflicts between the west and states of Islamic origin. He sees Islam as bastion against the decadent or self-interested Western World. And the West sees the Orient especially Islam and the middle east as stuck in primitive and dark ages.

I am not trying to say that I agree with him, but I would glean from this is that Islam sees itself vis-a-vis the West and the West sometimes see itself vis-a-vis Islam. Look at Donald Trumps statements and you will know.

It is precisely for this reason that it might be interesting to hold any multi-lateral or any bi-lateral meetings between the West and the Middle Eastern countries on a neutral ground. On a ground with no historical or cultural baggage that comes from conflict for more than 2 millennia.

Based on his essay on Orientalism, what better place than the Far East to hold such a meeting. Firstly it breaks the idea of exoticizing the "East" as mystique and mysterious place - as Orientalism suggest-and secondly, we have no problems with two thousand years of Christianity and Islam conflict. What better place than a country which does not have statehood embedded with Christian/ Muslim origins or either portrayed as having biases on either side. Countries such as China, South Korea and Japan or even Singapore are good examples.

Countries such as China even swear off religion as a way of governing the state. They would be an ideal neutral ground for any talks with an religiously charged atmosphere to be held. There would be no talk such as radical Muslims pronouncing " infidels at the gates", or the Western stereotype of the "deranged ideologically challenged" Muslim.

Last year, I saw the meeting of China and Taiwan in Singapore. It was a brilliant idea simply because it was an ideal neutral ground for two sides with Chinese ethnic composites and competing claims to meet in a neutral Chinese-majority Singapore.

This idea can be transplanted in resolving the West versus Islam/ Middle East conflict. A would be a great idea to remove two thousand years of fighting and to discuss issues in a place which swears off religion and is in itself a rising power of the world- China.

China can even gain some political capital from this meeting by establishing itself as a benevolent ally to both sides in a rather complicated and complex political and historical issue.

It would be interesting to see this pans out if it would ever materializes.

Donald Trump is not fit to be the American President

I don't think Donald Trump is fit to be American Presidential candidate, let alone the American President.

His speeches are build around common sense which are deceptively prejudicial and biased. It appeals to the common sense to just like how Darwin's "survival of fittest" concept or "Origin of Species" appeals to putting that scientific analogy to our daily lives.

He is in effect trying to say that we need to protect ourselves so we must build walls around ourselves to protect ourselves. This is circular reasoning, tautological and basically: self-fulfilling prophecy.

Take for example, building walls to prevent Mexican immigrants from coming in- they say they bring guns and violence to America and therefore we should keep them out. What he is trying to say is that: Mexicans are dangerous so we must keep them out. There is something very wrong with that statement isn't it. Firstly it brushes a broad stroke and it so common-sensical that it is dichotomizing of quite a complex issue to an either/or concept. It easily sparks moral outrage and bigotry.

This is unbecoming of an American President simply because if the leader of the strongest nation in the world can speak like that, it sets a terrible example for other's to follow- especially as it attempts to exert it's influence all over the world.

The problem with this campaign talk is that it is seen as rhetoric. And all news agencies report it as rhetoric. This means that everyone does not believes that he does not intend to carry it through.

The safe-ness of the word "rhetoric" is extremely dangerous as it means that he can say whatever he wants whether he means it or not.

What if he means it, and what if he wishes to set an example for everyone to see. This is not "rhetoric", this is simply a bad candidate for any leadership position of any kind, let alone the leadership position of the world's most powerful nation.

Debate and Subversion

I value debate a lot. I believed that we become better after going through a round of discussions where opinions are seek from diverse perspectives.

But what I do not like is memes or postings that have absolutely no substance at all. I believe this is an absolutely waste of time and adds no value to the debate at all.

I do not intend to write about what makes a good debate but about the value of a good debate.

There are many who believes that being positive about everything is the only way to gain consensus and add value to any decisions being make. It is like being nice can result in any good decision being made.

But is not to say being antagonistic about everything can result in good debate. This can result in a decision gridlock where nothing is being done.

But the problem with many publications and debate is that there are simply too many " yes" and "more please" men in the discourse.

I believed the problem is that there is a taboo towards subversive thoughts.

It is believed many believed that subversion in itself can result in disunity, antagonistic debate and policy gridlock. But what many does not realised is it is precisely because of these subversion that have resulted in the comfortable standard of living that we have now.

Subversion results in changes in the status quo from the unequal and unfair state of affairs to one which is more equitable.

You see, subversion can itself lead to lots of hatred and results in violence and antagonistic behaviour. This is evidenced in the Charlie Hebdo attack by Islamic State. This is result of a group of people being offended by another group of people who poked fun at them for things who they valued importantly.

 Comics and political satire is the short-hand for people to understand different sides of an issue without going through a doctoral thesis. It is highly important in a debate- be it political or economic or social one. It is meant to be precisely biased to demonstrate a point of view. But the caveat is that it is all in good fun and nothing else.

This subversion of the debate process is precisely meant to angle the entire debate in it's different spectrum and demonstrates the biases and prejudices of the arguments. It pushes you to think about the whole issues altogether.

Freedom of speech and association is precisely the rights to guard against people from hijacking this value.

But what if people precisely abuse this right and this result in hatred and violence?

That to me, I believe that people can understand the differences between people pushing a personal agenda and inciting violence and other's who are merely pushing the envelope and inciting them to think about the issues altogether.

 

Debt.

I don't like debt. I don't like the feeling of owing people and having to pay them back. It almost feels that what I have does not belong to me.

Personally, I don't like to owe people money. That is my personal opinion on debt but there are many other's who beg to differ.

I believed being overly-indebted is a symptom of financial imprudence and a sign that he/she is spending future money. This financial imprudence is actually to me a character flaw which needs to be corrected.

But in the modern day, who is not indebted in one way of another? 99% of us have mortgages on our houses, education loans are needed to paid off and our cars and vehicles are on hire purchases. It is not to say that debt in itself is bad but rather a sure sign of financial imprudence and character flaw.

This I believe is result of prevalence of debt as way of stimulating the economy. The result of Keynsian economics in modern society. The idea of helicopter money of boosting growth in the economy. The idea that growth should not be sacrificed at the altar of fiscal discipline.

I was reading Thomas Piketty's Capital and he estimated much of the developed world's public debt is 80-90% of the nation's economic output. This means that a country's wealth is wrapped up in debt. Whether the country itself is rich remains in question.

This in itself sets a bad example for the rest of the country. If a country's government is in itself incapable of getting itself of a debt trap, what more for it's citizens.

I did not do an in-depth study of companys' balance sheets but I was looking at Johnson's and Johnson's balance sheet- a blue chip of blue chip company, as claimed by a best-selling stock tipping book-, it was actually in large debt. This is not to say that it is over-leveraged or facing financial difficulties but rather if a blue chip of blue chip company has a great debt burden, what more can we say about the rest of companies in the so-called developed world. At the same time, this company is rated AAA+ by rating agencies, this means that it is the gold standard on all credit metrics.

Without looking into all other companies balance sheet, it is safe to say that most of them are probably in debt and are an even more precarious financial position.

I would have to add a further caveat that some companies actually borrow money to avoid taxes even if they are in a net cash position, but Johnson and Johnson actually uses more cash than it produces after they distribute dividends. This means that they are incapable of growing organically without resorting to external debt.

How can a company that is incapable of producing sufficient cash for it's own usage after distributing profits to it's shareholder's be rated AAA+. Any growth than in this case, is leaning on a debt crutch.

USA is a leader in the financial world and it is well-known that is heavily indebted country and does not practice financial prudence. This means that the government spend beyond their means and this is well-known. This I believed has also results in it's companies relying heavily on debt and also the common person on that street as well.

You can read in the news everywhere how heavily in debt many Americans are- education loans, housing loans and credit card loans. Less the said, the better.

Debt is important but it should not be a crutch that one relies on. Financial discipline is just as important.

A pre-writing mortem.

I have to admit that it is tough thinking about something to write on an blog that might interest somebody. It is even tougher to have a thousand of great ideas swimming in your head and not having know where to start.

There are so many things that interest me that just writing itself will take me away from a great many of things that I wish to do, want to do and have to do. That itself is a dilemma in itself, in choosing a topic that is worthy of my time in writing.

And of course, I write in general terms just so that whatever I write has the ability to affect everyone on a basic level.

Maybe I shall not write any particular topic on this juncture but explain that whatever that I write on this blog is the result of my internal dilemma in choosing the right topic which have the greatest amount of positive effect on everyone.

I would have to apologize if anything written here excludes anyone in any way possible.

Tyranny of the intellect

It has been two years since I have written anything. I am guessing that my writing skills would have deteriorated dramatically this past few years since I have not practicing it lately but bear with me.

The reason that I have come to write this particular post was that there are some things that have frustrated me which I felt that must be written rather than acquiesce on.

For those that have read my blog, you would have known that I enjoy an intellectual argument and written with an intellectual bent but I have noticed something such as " tyranny of the intellect" or the "intellectual superiority complex".

What this means that our intellect rules over our values. This means that our actions can be justified by any means possible regardless whether it is against some agreed upon values. Take for example, we believed that gays have rights too but at the same time, I also do not mixed around with gays. This means that only an intellectual level everyone are ascribed universal human rights but at the same time, we really think/ believe that what they do is wrong/ or make us awkward.

This might seem trivial but consider that a traditional Muslim just killed 50 gays in the land where universal human rights is suppose to reign free- in America. This is a matter of values triumphing over the intellect.

Our values define us and not our intellect. The reason that I brought up the above case is that everyone on an intellectual level believed that gays have their rights- the right to live without someone taking their lives without rule or law is one of them but yet the values by which one lives by this rule does not exist at all. This means that we actually don't like them [ by we, I mean those who believed that their lifestyle is wrong or incorrect]

But yet the gay movement exists. Why does it exist- because on an intellect level we believed that we cannot deny them their rights but yet the movement find little salience with many sections of the population simply because it is merely intellectual movement and not one driven by deep-rooted values. We cannot deny them the rights is not quite the same as we should not deny them rights.

This brings me to my first point: the tyranny of the intellect. There are many instances of where the intellect triumphs over our values: where our actions is dictated by what we think is rather than what should be.

I have noticed that locally there have been lots of brickbats on what we considered as those who are incumbents. Every mistake by anyone associated with the ruling parties is free game for criticisms. They have been ridiculed at, personally attacked at or character assassinated at just because they belong to an existing ruling bloc.

This I believed that is from an existing intellectual strain which calls us to constantly question the status quo. This means that their interests have triumphed over all other interest.

As a sociologist, as a person who have studied inequalities in society, I am more than qualified to tell you that it is an intellect movement to bring about social mobility but at the same time, it is an universal value for the betterment of humans in general. Hence the value itself is not just exclusive to a certain enlightened group of people but rather for mankind in general.

This means that the so-called left-leaning bloc which constantly barrage well-meaning intentions for what they believed to be positive for society has to called into question their behaviour in bringing about change.

It has to reflect on their actions that magnify the human failings of their opposition and heckled at those who might have fallen. Their modus operandi, seems to be picking on their mistakes of their opponents and then calling for change- as an evidence of "corrupt" or "unfair" state of society. Take for example, the crucifying of a certain "ruling party" grassroots leader for scolding a disabled service personnel even after she has apologized publically.

This left leaning bloc has to develop a conscience for their actions by which their actions brings into question their effectiveness as a political entity. Their actions driven by the intellectual discourse of the humanist movement must not conflict with that of human values. They must see themselves as humans first before seeing themselves as agents of change.