A contemporary thought on the changing landscape of global power is that of the prominent rise of China and the apparent decline of the US as a hegemonic power.
Authors such as Ikenberry have elegantly conceived of the possibly of such an occurrence of China overtaking the US and becoming the new global power as not happening because the structure of global politics defies history - the globalised world today doesn't play by conventional rules of interstate relations.
For one, the decisiveness of nuclear weapons in settling a war has rendered the possibility of a world war - the classical instrument for overthrowing the world order - unlikely. Secondly, the global institution based on the principles of capitalism created by the US after World War II is one that is 'hard to overturn and easy to join'. Thirdly, the many agents within the system ensure that any drastic action by any one is kept in check by a collective governance of states.
The trade regime in place creates a huge incentive for states to cooperate rather than resort to conflict. With more states within the Western order, the more wealth there is to create and gain, and the more likely one will lose out if one doesn't join in the trading playing field.
This economically-dominant system is seen as vastly different from global systems led by hegemons in the past, when the world order was created and run by the state with the greatest physical force. This contemporary and globalised world order appears benign and inclusive, more liberal than imperial, brings democracies and market societies closer together and facilitates the participation and integration of both global powers and newly developed states. This US-led world order also caters to the interests of market societies, creating incentives for states to participate and avoid being left out.
If the US focuses its efforts not in beefing the power of its country up but in ensuring that the Western order is enforced to encourage engagement, integration and restraint, countries that are rising global powers will have no choice but to play by the rules that have been established. China's economic rise is imminent, but remains checked by the system that is highly interdependent among many states. China's policy changes suggest that Chinese leaders do recognize the inevitable advantages of playing by these rules as they have increasingly embraced global trade rules.
However, history always has a sly and enduring way of ensuring that trends never change. It may be argued that the global system now may buck the trend simply because it is different. However, there is the chance that the global trade regime may fail to hold as the declining hegemonic power - The US - does what any declining power will typically do - it will desperately try to secure its own interests. One can observe this happening in its increasingly protectionist measures and socialist policies which signal its lack of commitment to the global world trading order it created and would constrain the growth of other global powers with.
By loosening its position as the foremost supporter of the global system of governance that underpins the world order, there can be (and is) increasing disincentive for countries to open up their doors to trade and resort to protectionist measures, causing liberal trade to collapse (this is especially highlighted by the neverending difficulty in ratifying trade agreements during WTO meetings). The weakening interdependence among countries can allow runaway global powers to attempt to rise up and overthrow the world order which would otherwise have been kept intact by the many countries it serves.
This seems to me to be another possible case of power shifting history occurring again, and it would signal a sense of inevitability when it comes to the tyranny of history's dictates - there can be no system so privileged that it that escapes the trend of the past.
Realists will also love to contend that the cooperation that liberalists like to proclaim as good between countries isn't so much a harmonious feature of interstate relations, but rather one that is chock-full of political conflict. As Keohane points out, harmony occurs when everyone's interests naturally align, but cooperation occurs because conflict or potential conflict arises, and cooperation then entails that patterns of behaviour must be altered.
Game theorists have shown that strategies that involve threats, punishments, promises and rewards are more effective in attaining cooperative outcomes than those that rely on persuasion, often the cornerstone of the capitalist's argument for the free market.
Cooperation hence does not imply an absence of conflict. Without the looming potential of conflict, there is no need for cooperation. The role of realism in focusing on the insecurities between states is still prevalent.
So, it is still early yet to say for sure if the new world order can hold out and that realism is dead in the idealised promise of liberal theory.
Saturday, 12 September 2009
Friday, 11 September 2009
Weirdo
I secretly like that look and the 'err. ok' response I get when I throw a scientific theory out instead of some standard human response when replying to typical mundane things. This enjoyment for depriving someone else of a typical human response becomes secretive only because other people don't understand it. Love it that way.
Sorrow can be alleviated by good sleep, a bath and a glass of wine.
- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Sorrow can be alleviated by good sleep, a bath and a glass of wine.
- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Generalisation
"I might often be accused - correctly - of over-generalising in some of my comments, making the odd sweeping statement here and there, and so on. But who cares? I know I'm generalising, you know I'm generalising, so what's the problem? There are too many pedants on the Net who insist that people attach a mass of qualifiers to everything they say, preface every statement with an IMHO and follow it with a list of exceptions. But such qualifiers don't make anything more true - just more boring. Truth, if it is to be found at all, lies somewhere in a dialectical space between a statement and its antithesis. Better to push at the boundaries of such a space than potter about in the middle."
- Stephen Bonds
This perhaps for every excessively cynical person who can't see the value behind a psychology theory, political concept, economic theory or philosophical idea, rejecting it just because there are inevitable exceptions.
- Stephen Bonds
This perhaps for every excessively cynical person who can't see the value behind a psychology theory, political concept, economic theory or philosophical idea, rejecting it just because there are inevitable exceptions.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
The Community Spirit Myth
Capoeira is a lovely activity, not just as a CCA, for me. It involves a great deal of individualism and doesn't demand commitment. Structure is merely basic; the exco behaves like a minimalist government - it exists to serve administrative functions, not to lord over the group members and demand tributes. The hierarchy is largely egalitarian as nobody, formally or informally, discriminates against anyone else, be it due to seniority or gender (there is a huge amount of respect for girls in Capoeira). The only overriding factor for demanding respect is one's skill, one's contribution to the game, and one's commitment to the sport itself, not the capoeira group.
Of course, this doesn't mean we can do without commitment; a steadily returning group of people are necessary for Capoeira SMU to even exist. But the individualistic nature of Capoeira SMU makes it such that we will come back even if it is not demanded of us. In an 'invisible hand' way, non-committedness transforms into committedness because of our common understanding and love for the game beyond our obligations to club members. And IMHO this is far better than being obligated to commit to something.
Our structure can also be contrasted to that of the symphonic band or the aikido group. In those groups, hierarchy is clearly present with distinct levels of seniority. Those delineating divisions are almost non-existent in Capoeira SMU. One does not fall under the authority of the structure the moment he/she steps in.
Structure always breeds a latent sense of obligation and commitment to it. It is wonderful that this isn't the case for Capoeira SMU, which is why I keep coming back more than I used to for Samba Masala (and eventually left). Why make, or even allow, some degree of your participation be due to fearing that someone else will get upset that you're not there? If you don't feel like turning up, I'd rather you not come. Granted, initial structure is good to ensure some stability before a club, group or society can run freely this way, but once that stage in a group's life is cleared, the best way the show should be run is one that isn't in the shadow of a rigid, iron-fisted structure.
Then, there will always be some people who can't let go of being part of the structure. Think of the people who frequently run for elections and return to the same excos year after year, to fight the same battles they have become so accustomed to fighting. These old guard, system-suckers love to try and keep their generation's way of doing things alive for the longest time. When it's time to let the new guns fight it out, it really is just about time to grow up and let it go.
For better or worse, the role of structure, systems and community is becoming overrated as we become more affluent, better educated, more rational and more individualistic. It is difficult to say if this is good or bad, but to dismiss it as wrong by those who believe strongly that we should be committed and community-loving are just disillusioned (these people, not coincidentally, often also have a naively strong regard for the responsibility of the government to care for us). Such thinking belongs to a past era when it still wasn't easy for us to gain the enlightenment through education to understand what is the best way for us to lead our lives, and rely on the structure, system or community to tell us what to do. Fat governments and sluggish bureaucracies often weigh heavy on the burdened backs of people.
The reality is that these structures don't exist without us holding them up. There is a strong case to assert that we should be looking at things from the actor, agent or individual's point of view, if we do not want our existential liberties to be compromised. In that vein of thought, everything else should be considered from oneself as the starting point.
A simple anecdote from the army goes as follows. Trainees are often punished for not being able to keep one's sleeping quarters in clean and healthy condition, not being able to maintain the functionality of one's rifle, or not being able to keep one's uniform polished. If you can't take care of your own welfare, you can forget about taking care of your fellow soldier's.
Community people have a strong dependence on structure - it dictates to them their roles, from which they know what they are supposed to do, who they can lead and who they must follow, and what they are or are not entitled to, without having to think much at all. Community people are rooted in things like family, friends, their jobs and their community groups, and attain life's meaning and validation from them.
Because of this fundamental congruence between structure and their personalities, community people are diametrically opposed to change. Change is not a readily embraceable thing to the community person, so when change happens, there is instability and often unhappiness in the community person's life.
Live life as an individual, knowing that who you are value-adds to the community you have chosen to be a part of, to the friends you have chosen to associate yourself with. Give more credit to individualism so that you'll always have yourself to fall back on. It is tragic when you lose meaning in life because these structures have altered or disappeared.
In the past, it took bloodshed for the instincts of men to tell them that something was wrong and made them revolt against their oppressors. Now, all it takes is the perception of many that their voice and thoughts are stifled for them to demand change and more freedom.
Of course, this doesn't mean we can do without commitment; a steadily returning group of people are necessary for Capoeira SMU to even exist. But the individualistic nature of Capoeira SMU makes it such that we will come back even if it is not demanded of us. In an 'invisible hand' way, non-committedness transforms into committedness because of our common understanding and love for the game beyond our obligations to club members. And IMHO this is far better than being obligated to commit to something.
Our structure can also be contrasted to that of the symphonic band or the aikido group. In those groups, hierarchy is clearly present with distinct levels of seniority. Those delineating divisions are almost non-existent in Capoeira SMU. One does not fall under the authority of the structure the moment he/she steps in.
Structure always breeds a latent sense of obligation and commitment to it. It is wonderful that this isn't the case for Capoeira SMU, which is why I keep coming back more than I used to for Samba Masala (and eventually left). Why make, or even allow, some degree of your participation be due to fearing that someone else will get upset that you're not there? If you don't feel like turning up, I'd rather you not come. Granted, initial structure is good to ensure some stability before a club, group or society can run freely this way, but once that stage in a group's life is cleared, the best way the show should be run is one that isn't in the shadow of a rigid, iron-fisted structure.
Then, there will always be some people who can't let go of being part of the structure. Think of the people who frequently run for elections and return to the same excos year after year, to fight the same battles they have become so accustomed to fighting. These old guard, system-suckers love to try and keep their generation's way of doing things alive for the longest time. When it's time to let the new guns fight it out, it really is just about time to grow up and let it go.
For better or worse, the role of structure, systems and community is becoming overrated as we become more affluent, better educated, more rational and more individualistic. It is difficult to say if this is good or bad, but to dismiss it as wrong by those who believe strongly that we should be committed and community-loving are just disillusioned (these people, not coincidentally, often also have a naively strong regard for the responsibility of the government to care for us). Such thinking belongs to a past era when it still wasn't easy for us to gain the enlightenment through education to understand what is the best way for us to lead our lives, and rely on the structure, system or community to tell us what to do. Fat governments and sluggish bureaucracies often weigh heavy on the burdened backs of people.
The reality is that these structures don't exist without us holding them up. There is a strong case to assert that we should be looking at things from the actor, agent or individual's point of view, if we do not want our existential liberties to be compromised. In that vein of thought, everything else should be considered from oneself as the starting point.
A simple anecdote from the army goes as follows. Trainees are often punished for not being able to keep one's sleeping quarters in clean and healthy condition, not being able to maintain the functionality of one's rifle, or not being able to keep one's uniform polished. If you can't take care of your own welfare, you can forget about taking care of your fellow soldier's.
Community people have a strong dependence on structure - it dictates to them their roles, from which they know what they are supposed to do, who they can lead and who they must follow, and what they are or are not entitled to, without having to think much at all. Community people are rooted in things like family, friends, their jobs and their community groups, and attain life's meaning and validation from them.
Because of this fundamental congruence between structure and their personalities, community people are diametrically opposed to change. Change is not a readily embraceable thing to the community person, so when change happens, there is instability and often unhappiness in the community person's life.
Live life as an individual, knowing that who you are value-adds to the community you have chosen to be a part of, to the friends you have chosen to associate yourself with. Give more credit to individualism so that you'll always have yourself to fall back on. It is tragic when you lose meaning in life because these structures have altered or disappeared.
In the past, it took bloodshed for the instincts of men to tell them that something was wrong and made them revolt against their oppressors. Now, all it takes is the perception of many that their voice and thoughts are stifled for them to demand change and more freedom.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
But It's Easier Said Than Done Leh!
"Another good option is to ignore the other party's attempts to intimidate you, because intimidation can only influence you if you let it. While this may sound too simplistic, think for a moment about why some people you know are intimidated by authority figures and others are not - the reason often lies in the perceiver, not the authority figure."
- Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, Negotiation, pp. 67
This is some solid, in-your-face advice for but-it's-easier-said-than-done spouters. Everything is more difficult than you think until you make the effort.
- Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, Negotiation, pp. 67
This is some solid, in-your-face advice for but-it's-easier-said-than-done spouters. Everything is more difficult than you think until you make the effort.
When There's Nothing Left To Burn
You have to set yourself on fire.
When the excuses are gone, it's time to face the light.
When the excuses are gone, it's time to face the light.
Yeah Yeah Sour Grapes
Something that should've happened to me a long time ago but hasn't is a person coming up to me and telling me, "hey, did you know X is on the Dean's List? Impressive!"
Truth be told, this is something I don't really know how to respond to. In all honesty, I'm a lot more impressed if someone has intellectual curiosity, not if someone has a high GPA. A high GPA in SMU could mean so many things - the person is book smart, the person knows how to pick group mates, the person knows which profs are good to bid for, etc; ultimately, the person knows how to churn out the grade no matter what.
The closest I've ever come to a taste of the DL feeling is in secondary school when I was in the top 20 of my cohort. While most people feel an immense sense of pride being there, it never meant anything to me. I don't remember deriving the joy most Singaporeans would being declared a top student because getting 1 and 1 or 2 and 2 correct wasn't the important thing to me. As a good prof recently said in class, standard deviations and NPVs can deal with themselves. They're correct once you get them. But it's in the art of uncertainty where excitement and exploration really is. I think most locals are good with the math, and it's just not interesting to me at all.
Granted, I don't think I'm a fantastic student, so this could sound like sour grapes. But the thing is I've never tried and I've never really been bothered to. I've spent the most part of my education fucking up my grades because I'm more keen on pitting myself against uncertainty. I know a whole lot of people who wouldn't dare to try a mod because it's not known to produce fixed answers, which equates to not having the certainty of a grade if one works hard enough. In my SMU life so far, I've dabbled with OBHR, marketing, psychology, political science, sociology and economics, in the process failing to score many times but happy to have learnt something new from everything I had a hand in. University life couldn't have been any more fulfilling for me if not for this.
Truth be told, this is something I don't really know how to respond to. In all honesty, I'm a lot more impressed if someone has intellectual curiosity, not if someone has a high GPA. A high GPA in SMU could mean so many things - the person is book smart, the person knows how to pick group mates, the person knows which profs are good to bid for, etc; ultimately, the person knows how to churn out the grade no matter what.
The closest I've ever come to a taste of the DL feeling is in secondary school when I was in the top 20 of my cohort. While most people feel an immense sense of pride being there, it never meant anything to me. I don't remember deriving the joy most Singaporeans would being declared a top student because getting 1 and 1 or 2 and 2 correct wasn't the important thing to me. As a good prof recently said in class, standard deviations and NPVs can deal with themselves. They're correct once you get them. But it's in the art of uncertainty where excitement and exploration really is. I think most locals are good with the math, and it's just not interesting to me at all.
Granted, I don't think I'm a fantastic student, so this could sound like sour grapes. But the thing is I've never tried and I've never really been bothered to. I've spent the most part of my education fucking up my grades because I'm more keen on pitting myself against uncertainty. I know a whole lot of people who wouldn't dare to try a mod because it's not known to produce fixed answers, which equates to not having the certainty of a grade if one works hard enough. In my SMU life so far, I've dabbled with OBHR, marketing, psychology, political science, sociology and economics, in the process failing to score many times but happy to have learnt something new from everything I had a hand in. University life couldn't have been any more fulfilling for me if not for this.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Fail
Microsoft names new software Microsoft CIBAI:
http://josh.my/2009/05/microsoft-cibai-microsoft-names-new-software-after-slang-term-for-vagina/
Google testing new payment system called GBuy:
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2006/02/06/google-testing-paypal-killer-gbuy
More tickles:
Fun scrabble game between Shaq and Jimmy Kimmel. Check out my vagonads.
And finally, a video of my fellow SMU Capoeirista who has made it to fail blog fame (no, I'm serious), effectively living up to his name of Falha Épico. Enjoy!
http://josh.my/2009/05/microsoft-cibai-microsoft-names-new-software-after-slang-term-for-vagina/
Google testing new payment system called GBuy:
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2006/02/06/google-testing-paypal-killer-gbuy
More tickles:
Fun scrabble game between Shaq and Jimmy Kimmel. Check out my vagonads.
And finally, a video of my fellow SMU Capoeirista who has made it to fail blog fame (no, I'm serious), effectively living up to his name of Falha Épico. Enjoy!
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Up In Smoke
There's been furore over the video of the little China kid who was smoking while his elders stood around him and watched and at times encouraged him. I've noticed words like 'disgusting' and 'disappointing' being used, with someone going so far as wanting to 'bitchslap the kid's parents'.
I think an alignment of cultural perspectives is in order. When I was in China in the summer, one of the things that struck me was that people smoked there because it is what they do. There are probably many reasons for this, some of which I would speculate to be smoking being one of the ways people deal with the cold climate there, smoking as a social lubricant, or simply that smoking is so culturally ingrained in their lives it is actually a necessity there. A China person I spoke to speculated that the average age one picks up smoking in China is around 14. Mind-boggling stuff for people (mostly local Singaporeans) who can't conceive of such an alternate reality.
And China isn't the only country that has such a strong smoking culture. Japan, Mongolia and Korea are also countries with high smoking populations, and I even think it's silly that I'm trying to list countries because I think that almost every country except ours is a smoking country.
The reality is that we, as Singaporeans, are the ones who are different. I'm not even a smoker myself, but I can see where most of this anti-smoking sentiment is going. We are trying to look at the behaviours of people in other countries with our own holier-than-thou, I've-got-scientific-proof-so-I'm-right-you're-wrong mentalities and then getting upset because they are different. We need to wise up more than this.
We may have our scientific evidences to tell us that smoking is harmful because we have our own ideals of trying to develop a country that doesn't smoke. We have the right to such a goal because we are collectively striving for it (at least from what I can see, the majority do not like smoking, and even smokers are aware of the harmful effects of smoking). But it's just silly to try and impose a moral high ground on the behaviour of people from another country who do not share these ideals. None of these other countries are going to buy the idea that one could actually live longer if one stopped smoking. It's just not an issue to them.
If anything, most of these countries with high smoker densities do not smoke for pride's sake. They do it because it is normal that they smoke. I am less inclined to give Singaporeans the benefit of the doubt that smoking isn't a matter of pride.
A friend recently did a psychology report on social smoking in Singapore. In our society, there is a growing stigma against smoking. The interesting thing he found about social smoking is that most social smokers often make the claim they can smoke as and when they like to without succumbing to its addiction (isn't that an interesting point to make? A smoker wouldn't have to do this if he did not buy the stigma against smoking himself). Many social smokers often say that they're not smoking because they're addicted but, rather, it is because of the occasion that they do. So my friend concluded, rather well, that while most social smokers often take pride in the ability to resist addiction, the fact that they need to smoke while socialising reflects an inability to resist peer pressure.
I think an alignment of cultural perspectives is in order. When I was in China in the summer, one of the things that struck me was that people smoked there because it is what they do. There are probably many reasons for this, some of which I would speculate to be smoking being one of the ways people deal with the cold climate there, smoking as a social lubricant, or simply that smoking is so culturally ingrained in their lives it is actually a necessity there. A China person I spoke to speculated that the average age one picks up smoking in China is around 14. Mind-boggling stuff for people (mostly local Singaporeans) who can't conceive of such an alternate reality.
And China isn't the only country that has such a strong smoking culture. Japan, Mongolia and Korea are also countries with high smoking populations, and I even think it's silly that I'm trying to list countries because I think that almost every country except ours is a smoking country.
The reality is that we, as Singaporeans, are the ones who are different. I'm not even a smoker myself, but I can see where most of this anti-smoking sentiment is going. We are trying to look at the behaviours of people in other countries with our own holier-than-thou, I've-got-scientific-proof-so-I'm-right-you're-wrong mentalities and then getting upset because they are different. We need to wise up more than this.
We may have our scientific evidences to tell us that smoking is harmful because we have our own ideals of trying to develop a country that doesn't smoke. We have the right to such a goal because we are collectively striving for it (at least from what I can see, the majority do not like smoking, and even smokers are aware of the harmful effects of smoking). But it's just silly to try and impose a moral high ground on the behaviour of people from another country who do not share these ideals. None of these other countries are going to buy the idea that one could actually live longer if one stopped smoking. It's just not an issue to them.
If anything, most of these countries with high smoker densities do not smoke for pride's sake. They do it because it is normal that they smoke. I am less inclined to give Singaporeans the benefit of the doubt that smoking isn't a matter of pride.
A friend recently did a psychology report on social smoking in Singapore. In our society, there is a growing stigma against smoking. The interesting thing he found about social smoking is that most social smokers often make the claim they can smoke as and when they like to without succumbing to its addiction (isn't that an interesting point to make? A smoker wouldn't have to do this if he did not buy the stigma against smoking himself). Many social smokers often say that they're not smoking because they're addicted but, rather, it is because of the occasion that they do. So my friend concluded, rather well, that while most social smokers often take pride in the ability to resist addiction, the fact that they need to smoke while socialising reflects an inability to resist peer pressure.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Brief Jadedness
I've been recently dissatisfied with psychology. I think I'm at a phase where I've an idea where I'm headed academically and intellectually and psychology isn't keeping up fast enough while political science is offering itself as a serious contender and outlet for me to channel my thoughts. Wading through the deeply cognitive aspects of psychology just makes me wonder where this is going. Nothing ever fascinates me more than the Durkheimian social perspective that makes all the detail come to life. I can't wait for an evolutionary psychology module to pop up, and I'm curious to see where this political science detour is going to take me.
On another level, psychology term papers are terribly unexciting. The agenda of a psychology article always seems to be to try to be as complicated and jargon-laden as possible, whilst exercising minimal writing flair.
There's definitely something more than this.
On another level, psychology term papers are terribly unexciting. The agenda of a psychology article always seems to be to try to be as complicated and jargon-laden as possible, whilst exercising minimal writing flair.
There's definitely something more than this.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Falling Apples
The reports on exploding Apple products are still unceasing. Apple is the prime example of why the free market can't work the way we wish it should because people don't make the best decisions even when given perfect information.
I mean Creative is probably dumb for not channeling more funds into marketing itself better so that its value can be realized by consumers, but still?
I mean Creative is probably dumb for not channeling more funds into marketing itself better so that its value can be realized by consumers, but still?
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Affirmation
Here's why economics matters. To me at least, it's not so much the pursuit of a perfect system in which the world can run its resources, because I doubt that there can ever be such a thing, but it's the fact that economics shapes reality because it concerns every layperson. It's the reality of who's getting what part of the pie and how is that part of the pie attained. Am I going to work for it? Am I going to receive it through welfare? Is it going to be taken from me? These questions are going to be answered by the form of politics that my country employs.
Economics, and what kind of economy a tribe, a kingdom or a state is going to have, is the driving force and the legitimacy behind power and politics. Politics is power, because it refers to governance and the legal use of force, and power can only be gained when one controls resources.
The history of man is peppered with battles that have been waged for the attainment of resources. Modern history has seen us shift the basis of power from a physical one to one of economic ideology. The fight between the Democrats and Republicans is essentially due to the difference in economic management - more socialist (and left-wing) or more conservative (and right wing)? The cold war was a battle between capitalism and communism. Americans are dissatisfied with Obama because of the inadequate validity of his economic agenda which have turned out to be rather expensive, ineffective and socialist, which is disappointing in today's world where we are still trying to move on from the Keynesian era of full employment as the goal. Politicians are battling it out every election day to promise better economic packages because this is what matters to the people most - how much less will you be taxed?
Politics exists because power drives the world. Power is about the ability to gain control over people. The control of people is gained through the manipulation of the economy, because people depend on resources.
That's why economics is important, because if everyone knew to some degree the impact that the economy of our state has on our lives, then we would know how to revolt, how to vote and how to decide what kind of country we want to have and live in. We would know the extent of our rights and how to differentiate between a government that is serving us well and a government that is just pulling political bull. We would know if we would rather live in a competitive society or one that redistributes wealth. We would look at the ideologies expounded by our leaders with more enlightened eyes. We would know where on earth we're going.
Economics, and what kind of economy a tribe, a kingdom or a state is going to have, is the driving force and the legitimacy behind power and politics. Politics is power, because it refers to governance and the legal use of force, and power can only be gained when one controls resources.
The history of man is peppered with battles that have been waged for the attainment of resources. Modern history has seen us shift the basis of power from a physical one to one of economic ideology. The fight between the Democrats and Republicans is essentially due to the difference in economic management - more socialist (and left-wing) or more conservative (and right wing)? The cold war was a battle between capitalism and communism. Americans are dissatisfied with Obama because of the inadequate validity of his economic agenda which have turned out to be rather expensive, ineffective and socialist, which is disappointing in today's world where we are still trying to move on from the Keynesian era of full employment as the goal. Politicians are battling it out every election day to promise better economic packages because this is what matters to the people most - how much less will you be taxed?
Politics exists because power drives the world. Power is about the ability to gain control over people. The control of people is gained through the manipulation of the economy, because people depend on resources.
That's why economics is important, because if everyone knew to some degree the impact that the economy of our state has on our lives, then we would know how to revolt, how to vote and how to decide what kind of country we want to have and live in. We would know the extent of our rights and how to differentiate between a government that is serving us well and a government that is just pulling political bull. We would know if we would rather live in a competitive society or one that redistributes wealth. We would look at the ideologies expounded by our leaders with more enlightened eyes. We would know where on earth we're going.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from
somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
- Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005
somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
- Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Step Aside Kotler
Every marketing guru will tell tales about how to use SWOT analysis, name a product or pitch a service to do good marketing but nobody ever pinpoints the true reality of marketing so here goes.
Marketing is all about manipulating the supply and demand curve in your favour. As long as prices can be raised without demand falling, that's marketing at work and profitability coming in. And there are tons of ways to exploit the psychology of consumers in order to keep both demand and prices high. It all boils down to who is the most creative, scheming and manipulative bugger there is out there to discover these supply-demand mechanism loopholes.
Marketing is all about manipulating the supply and demand curve in your favour. As long as prices can be raised without demand falling, that's marketing at work and profitability coming in. And there are tons of ways to exploit the psychology of consumers in order to keep both demand and prices high. It all boils down to who is the most creative, scheming and manipulative bugger there is out there to discover these supply-demand mechanism loopholes.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Holla!
For anyone who cares about local politics, believes that it is important, and/or took interest in the recent parliamentary uproar, read these in order:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/nmp-viswa-sadasivan-let-us-take-a-chance-on-our-people-on-ourselves/
http://nmpviswasadasivanmaidenspeech.blogspot.com/2009/08/nmp-viswa-sadasivans-maiden-speech-in.html
http://leewatch.info/2009/08/20/govt-accountable-in-actions-has-worked-towards-non-discrimination/
Let's get on the radar.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/nmp-viswa-sadasivan-let-us-take-a-chance-on-our-people-on-ourselves/
http://nmpviswasadasivanmaidenspeech.blogspot.com/2009/08/nmp-viswa-sadasivans-maiden-speech-in.html
http://leewatch.info/2009/08/20/govt-accountable-in-actions-has-worked-towards-non-discrimination/
Let's get on the radar.
Friday, 21 August 2009
The Playing Field Dynamic Of Love
If there was ever an ideal kind of relationship, I would reckon it is one that thrives on ideas (and wants), not needs, with both parties in it of enough egotism and self-esteem to be self-interested but not selfish, and spared from the chains of emotional dependence.
In psychology, there are two types of relationships that work - the secure-secure relationship and the anxious/ambivalent-avoidant relationship. For the uninitiated, secure people are those who are trusting, socially comfortable and form typically healthy relationships with people, be they friends, significant others or kin. Anxious/ambivalent and avoidant people are people who have trusting issues. Anxious/ambivalent people manifest it by being neurotic, clingy and possessive because they are afraid to lose those they finally dare to allow into their lives. Avoidant people manifest the difficulty to trust by being anti-social, reclusive and introverted, keeping to themselves most of the time.
Anxious/ambivalent-avoidant relationships often comprise of the female taking on the emotional possessive role and the male taking on the avoidant, silent role, and it works because these are socially accepted gender roles. It also works because both parties are a good fit when they can provide what each other needs. The anxious/ambivalent person thrives on the uncertainty and ambiguity of the avoidant person's reclusiveness, while the avoidant person thrives on the possessiveness and persistence of the anxious/ambivalent partner.
When a relationship sustains itself through needs more than desires, I would doubt its synergy. It is like Maslow's hierarchy of needs - if you're still grappling with the basal necessities of food and water, you will never get to the higher levels of satisfaction.
That's where a healthy dose of self-esteem and egotism comes in. It is unfair to say that everyone should be like secure people, because secure people don't happen overnight, and people are who they are because of their life experiences. But the reality of the situation is that secure people, with their healthy doses of self-esteem, have enough pride in them for them to believe that they deserve a certain level of return when they invest in a relationship.
What then happens in a secure-secure relationship, where both parties behave in this seemingly economic, self interested way, is that they know what they're worth. At this point, there may be those who say that this just seems heartless, results in people being non-committal and leaves room for people to dump their loved ones in the presence of better alternatives. But instead of looking at it so negatively (which also only happens because people who criticize this are probably anxious, neurotic and afraid of loss), the result is that both parties actually know their value because they have made it into each other's lives, and this is strongly reaffirming of each person's self worth. I made it into your life, and you made it into mine, and this is the strongest endorsement of your quality to me and my quality to yours.
Once needs can be put aside because they are thus fulfilled, there is so much else to look forward to and achieve together. When you don't spend half or more of your time worrying about losing someone, you're trading your emotional chains for freedom. That is why egotism works, and is good. If you know what you're worth, there's always a safety catch that stops you from being too suckered into liking somebody. If he or she falls short of your expectations, can't make up their mind or does other silly things, then your pride will tell you that you're just wasting your time and you deserve better than settling down with this.
The desire to trade up always happens whether you're a secure person or not. But by the time people in anxious/ambivalent-avoidant relationships realize they feel too jaded and yet too comfortable where they are, it gets harder to understand the reality of their predicament. So if one person starts to feel shortchanged by his/her situation, the result is often a fling with someone else, in order to trade up (even just for a moment) and to satisfy unfulfilled desires that echo in hearts that have lost their fires.
In the end, it's the synergy that becomes the indicator. At the heart of it all, are you looking forward to meeting your loved one to create and discuss ideas, or are you just looking forward to meeting your loved one because you're afraid he/she might leave you?
Whether self-esteem breeds the ability to believe that one always has options (so that one is never at the losing end), or one's options gives him/her confidence and hence self-esteem, a little bit of self belief and egotism always goes a long way. At the end of it all, always remember what you're worth and don't sell yourself short. What can you offer to the person you're gonna chain up anyway, if you're not completely happy?
In psychology, there are two types of relationships that work - the secure-secure relationship and the anxious/ambivalent-avoidant relationship. For the uninitiated, secure people are those who are trusting, socially comfortable and form typically healthy relationships with people, be they friends, significant others or kin. Anxious/ambivalent and avoidant people are people who have trusting issues. Anxious/ambivalent people manifest it by being neurotic, clingy and possessive because they are afraid to lose those they finally dare to allow into their lives. Avoidant people manifest the difficulty to trust by being anti-social, reclusive and introverted, keeping to themselves most of the time.
Anxious/ambivalent-avoidant relationships often comprise of the female taking on the emotional possessive role and the male taking on the avoidant, silent role, and it works because these are socially accepted gender roles. It also works because both parties are a good fit when they can provide what each other needs. The anxious/ambivalent person thrives on the uncertainty and ambiguity of the avoidant person's reclusiveness, while the avoidant person thrives on the possessiveness and persistence of the anxious/ambivalent partner.
When a relationship sustains itself through needs more than desires, I would doubt its synergy. It is like Maslow's hierarchy of needs - if you're still grappling with the basal necessities of food and water, you will never get to the higher levels of satisfaction.
That's where a healthy dose of self-esteem and egotism comes in. It is unfair to say that everyone should be like secure people, because secure people don't happen overnight, and people are who they are because of their life experiences. But the reality of the situation is that secure people, with their healthy doses of self-esteem, have enough pride in them for them to believe that they deserve a certain level of return when they invest in a relationship.
What then happens in a secure-secure relationship, where both parties behave in this seemingly economic, self interested way, is that they know what they're worth. At this point, there may be those who say that this just seems heartless, results in people being non-committal and leaves room for people to dump their loved ones in the presence of better alternatives. But instead of looking at it so negatively (which also only happens because people who criticize this are probably anxious, neurotic and afraid of loss), the result is that both parties actually know their value because they have made it into each other's lives, and this is strongly reaffirming of each person's self worth. I made it into your life, and you made it into mine, and this is the strongest endorsement of your quality to me and my quality to yours.
Once needs can be put aside because they are thus fulfilled, there is so much else to look forward to and achieve together. When you don't spend half or more of your time worrying about losing someone, you're trading your emotional chains for freedom. That is why egotism works, and is good. If you know what you're worth, there's always a safety catch that stops you from being too suckered into liking somebody. If he or she falls short of your expectations, can't make up their mind or does other silly things, then your pride will tell you that you're just wasting your time and you deserve better than settling down with this.
The desire to trade up always happens whether you're a secure person or not. But by the time people in anxious/ambivalent-avoidant relationships realize they feel too jaded and yet too comfortable where they are, it gets harder to understand the reality of their predicament. So if one person starts to feel shortchanged by his/her situation, the result is often a fling with someone else, in order to trade up (even just for a moment) and to satisfy unfulfilled desires that echo in hearts that have lost their fires.
In the end, it's the synergy that becomes the indicator. At the heart of it all, are you looking forward to meeting your loved one to create and discuss ideas, or are you just looking forward to meeting your loved one because you're afraid he/she might leave you?
Whether self-esteem breeds the ability to believe that one always has options (so that one is never at the losing end), or one's options gives him/her confidence and hence self-esteem, a little bit of self belief and egotism always goes a long way. At the end of it all, always remember what you're worth and don't sell yourself short. What can you offer to the person you're gonna chain up anyway, if you're not completely happy?
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
But Something Makes Me Carry On
It's difficult to understand
Why I always wanna fly
I do it for the drugs
I do it just to feel alive
I do it for the love
That I get from the bottom of a bottle
Why I always wanna fly
I do it for the drugs
I do it just to feel alive
I do it for the love
That I get from the bottom of a bottle
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Man Who Walk Through Airport Door Sideways Is Going Bangkok
The reports are not conclusive yet, but it is estimated that a thousand punctual people were decimated by this morning's train fault.
Two more days and I'm fucking off from and hopefully never going back to Boon Lay.
"Are you happy your internship is ending?"
"I'm damn happy that I won't have to come to Boon Lay anymore. I hate Boon Lay. It is damn smelly. And the phone reception is shit."
"Hahaha. It's like Bangkok right."
"What the hell? Bangkok is infinitely better than Boon Lay."
Two more days and I'm fucking off from and hopefully never going back to Boon Lay.
"Are you happy your internship is ending?"
"I'm damn happy that I won't have to come to Boon Lay anymore. I hate Boon Lay. It is damn smelly. And the phone reception is shit."
"Hahaha. It's like Bangkok right."
"What the hell? Bangkok is infinitely better than Boon Lay."
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
