I've been telling people during US president election that I simply do not trust Mr. Obama. And since trust is a "thinking" rather than fact, so as you guessed I did not convince too many people.
Still, I'd like to document some of the evidence and will come back to this "untrusted" argument 4 years later. To see if I was wrong. (or those who scolded me in not trusting the president they loved were wrong).
NAFTA (well OK, you know I'm Canadian)
During Primary, Mr Obama had a NAFTA-gate. When he talked to blue collar workers in Ohio, he mentioned he'd like to re-open NAFTA. Then later his advisers advised Canadian government that's just a "talk", won't be a "walk".
Ironically, when the Canadian government tried to defend itself (and Mr. Obama) in telling journalists "don't worry, it's just a political pose", it became a "scandal" for the Canadian government (NDP and it's associates accused Canadian Tory government of tarnishing Mr. Obama's image) -- so the one who told the truth was wrong, and the one who "talk the talk but not walk the walk" is correct? (this is yet another perfect example of political correctness.)
Well, next, he spoke to Hispanic crowd and said Hispanic Americans have learnt English, it's time that "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish". Politically it's not wrong(again), but if you agree that United States is a free country that many people came from lots of places and already speak more than one language, you will doubt it's fair that the general American should be required to learn another language. Here in Canada, both English and French are OFFICIAL languages, yet, you seldom find politician forces local resident to learn the other one. It's amazing that he can pitch the politically correct statement to the correct audience (one of his unbeatable ability). However, political correctness is only as correct as politics -- it's not really fair. Yes, it please the Hispanic group, but should a Japanese decent learn to speak Japanese, and so do all other Americans? Or should the Japanese parent make sure their children also speak Spanish? (Oh, sorry, I forgot there are not enough Japanese immigrants in US that can sway the election result...)
And then he spoke about his race, he first repel his mother's "whiteness", then wanted to check if Bill Clinton is a real "black president" by examine the poor old guy's dance and singing. And then when his pastor's nothing less than hatred speech broke out he gave a speech to "all Americans" asking for a peaceful racial relation. I do not think his race should be an issue at all, as the president race is choosing one individual not one race to lead America. It's his campaign, not his opponents played his race card most often, and if he thinks his race does not give him advantage in the race, he's either lying or too dumb to be trustworthy. In a country where his race is most popular in sports, music and Hollywood; where his race occupies the center of "human rights" where his race is also in the center of fighting against "discrimination" means he sails in the wind of maximum espousal minus the obligation to be scrutinized (any criticize is deemed as racial discrimination), I don't see why he thought it's not an advantage.
I'm really sad that Colin Powell did not run and even sadder in hearing Colin supported Mr. Obama -- a very trustworthy figure supported least trustworthy one (in president races). It should have been the reverse (I doubt Mr. Obama has the courage to do what Mr. Powell did though).
Mr Obama is really good at writings and speeches that fume enthusiasm. It's an ability not may people have, Bill Clinton is one, Adolf Hitler is another example. (to egg bone pickers:)Not to mean Barack or Bill are similar to Adolf Hitler in every way. Just like I breath air and Adolf Hitler breath the air too, as a human Adolf Hitler does share many similar quality with all the rest of us and as a successful politician in election (he went in to office by election), he did have some ability as some other successful politicians, either evil or angle.
Mr. Obama is very good at pitching targeted message to different groups and apparently this ability gave him an image of "for everyone". Also his wonderful writings and speeches ignite lots of passion. However, managing a country is not exactly the same, you cannot manage different groups differently (that's called discrimination), and passion can be a dangerous thing (lots of German were passionate for Adolf Hitler, is an example).
I would hope Mr. Obama will not do much damage to the world. Although as Canadian, we love and hate US, it's not to our own benefit to see US collapse because Americans buy our product more than we ourselves do. But hey, after all America is a foreign country, if someone has to collapse, it'd better be them than us.
Good luck our American friends, the key problem of democracy is it ensures people will get what they want (assuming people knows what they need). It has been proven false by so called democracies in mid-east elected many extremists (like Hamas in Palestine). It's likely the stupid Bush's export of democracy is resulting in a backlash (or revenge shall we say) that Americans are suffering from the Democracy themselves again and again (well electing Bush in is already one of such suffering). At least they probably will stop exporting democracy in several years.
Oh, by the way, the real key benefit of democracy is if someone does the job badly, he (and his party) gets punished by being voted out of office and that's exactly what happened on Nov 4th, 2008 - after screwing up the country for 8 years, Bush and Republicans are voted out of office. However, the positive meaning is backlooking - it's the punish of Republican that pose the biggest benefit (in the long run), voting in Demo? It might be better if Hilary was the Democratic nominee.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The REAL reason behind the 2008 Financial crisis (no, it's not disaster captalism...)
It’s not simply “greed”. You and me we are all greedy, we know we need to control it.
Capitalism does not equal to greed, it should be “acknowledge the greed in ourselves and manage it”.
Free market does not equal to regulation-free, it should be a fair play ground protected by regulation like anti-trust laws. Without regulation protection, it’s not free market, its market for big bad guys freely intimidate small good guys and others.
Globalization forced companies of free economy to play with super huge players from controlled economy – a game of controlled economy.
It’s not a failure of capitalism. Actually to the exact opposite, this failure of 2008 is a failure of the betrayal of capitalism.
Thank you for spend your time on yet another crisis reasoning analysis.
Well, I have to do it because I (just as every other analyst) think no one gets it yet.
Let’s be clear, don’t say it’s simply “Greed” caused 2008 financial crisis. You and me we are all greedy, and we all know from day one that those Wall Street fat rats are greedier. This is no news. We knew it so well that nearly every single mature free market country in the world has “anti-trust” laws. But in a globalize world, there are so many loopholes and incentive for governments and enterprises not to control the greed (yes, Wall Street call it lack of risk control, as a nation, it is lack of greed control).
First, Capitalism and Socialism.
While these 2 words have been widely used by extremists on both sides in justifying their “fight against…” they are widely misunderstood by vast majority (sometimes intentionally misled by the “leaders” who wanted to benefit from the misunderstanding).
I’m in no business to challenge any of the super power to redefine these two words, but just for the sake of economic discussion, let’s clarify the usage of them in pure economic arena:
Capitalism means free economic environment, entrepreneurs sort out business issues with minimal intervention from political powers; and collectively, they form the core of a jurisdiction’s economic.
Socialism means controlled economic environment, political power forms the majority of the economy and controls most of the economic activities, and the jurisdiction’s economic power is an associate of its political power.
Which one is better is a long debate that I do not anticipate a conclusion any time soon.
The issue at hand is both sides seem think their “baby” is perfect. No! None of them is perfect; both of them have their strength and weakness.
For efficiency, controlled market is definitely the winner, just think about several people lifting a heavy weight, if all the participants work on one single command, it’s much easier to accomplish the work. On the opposite, if each single individual do things as they like, some lift, some push, some sit on it, some lift early some come late, the work probably won’t be done anytime soon.
In a Controlled market, all participants need to follow strict orders (in addition to rules). So they can concentrate vast resources of their economy in a few players to make them bigger than if they operate in a free economy.
What’s the weakness of socialism? Just check any financial media, how many ideas on how to run the economy you see each week? When lack of ideas (often conflicting) is never a problem, there is only one controller (in most case, the government). So whose idea is to be implemented? Yes, this is the BIGGEST problem of controlled economy – choose which one idea should be practiced and kill all others. Since there is a fundamental weakness of “Selection”, at the end, the idea that triumph is usually the one of a political iron fists – either an “elected by mistake” like Adolf Hitler, or arbitrary like Joseph Stalin.
The truth that most “controlled economies” are run by socialist countries is observed by many. It’s much easier t choose in an arbitrary system than a free market system. Problem is at the end, most of these efficiently controlled economy machines were misused to efficiently crush their country instead of build wealth, they did serve those small groups in power well during the course though.
Where “controlled economy” short is where free economy shines. The free economy allows (actually promotes) enterprisers to carry out their own ideas. So instead of the super power pick one idea, everyone put their ideas into real world practice, and see which one works best.
OK, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. It addresses arbitration issue, it does bring efficiency issue. Since not all the ideas are really good, some efforts are voided in proving “only good on paper” ideas will fail, hence “wasted”.
So in short, free economy gives us freedom and does not suppress ideas so at least some effort will be put into the right direction but some efforts will be wasted in testing out not-so-good ideas; on the other hand controlled economy gives us efficiency, but the struggles in putting the efficiency in to the right (let alone the best) direction.
How about the commonly mentioned “self correction” or “let market sort things out by itself” in free economy? Well, you know what? The “self correction” or the natural selection of economy comes through “let the unfit die”. The best thing of a free economy is everyone can start their venture as they like; the best thing for free economy is those who do not fit the (new) environment fail.
THIS IS WHAT REALLY FAILED IN 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS – BIG FINANCIAL FIRMS IN THE NOTION OF “TOO BIG TO FAIL”, DID NOT FAIL when they did wrong, and did not fit new financial environment. They should have failed much earlier if they were not as big as they were in 2008. A hundred smaller financial firms would have much less power in creating and sustaining the bubble led to the 2008 burst (so would have much less blow to the economy as it did).
Yes, my point is IF there were lots of small financial firms instead of “big nine”, and we let those unfit ones fail during the past years, we would have recovered from the (much shallower) crisis already. The problem is we don’t have enough financial firms to fail. The truth is the “big nine” are controlling our financial systems in such a way that (at least in financial area) it’s no longer free. And they were allowed to become “too big to fail” so at the end, political power has to intervene to support them.
When some people due to their hidden agenda (usually for their political gains) misled people to think “Capitalism” equals to “Greed”, I want to point out, Capitalism is actually “Acknowledge greed and manage it”. The failure of 2008 was because in the decade leading to it, the so called “free world” refused to admit its greed and failed to manage it.
How did that happen? Globalization – or more precisely, the globalization of greed.
First, enterprises are for profits, and that’s expected. This was one of the features of capitalism so that wealth is built and incentive is provided for enterprises to expand economy. Greed needs to be managed, so that a level play ground is provided to all participants and preventing the big players to leverage their power to suppress smaller players.
This is a key to capitalism; because without a level play ground, the economy will never be free – it will become a place for the big players freely intimidate smaller, newer players. There are regulations, acts, laws passed by mature democracies – outlining what can or cannot be done whether it is a one person self employed start-up or hires a quarter of the population of a state.
Big enterprises will always try to avoid the “manage” – the regulations of mature countries. The word they coined it as “globalization”. Yes, as most of the people has complained about globalization is not about cheaper goods, it’s about regulation avoidance (and more, we will go there later).
This is no new gimmick though. Long well known to the general public, some companies (lots of sea shipping companies) move their registration to a no-name island to avoid tax. However, before globalization, it’s not feasible for a domestic company to do so while still enjoy domestic treatment and access to local market.
Globalization allows all the benefit with no obligation. You can operate in one country, but use another countries regulation to perform things that are not allowed in the home country. All good planed for the big companies uh?
Second, once the market is open to globalization, big companies suddenly see competitors that are HUGE. Why? Because in those controlled economy, some of the players are monopoly and even government subsidized to control their domestic market. Let’s make up a hypothetical example: in US there are two dozen big air companies, while in China and India, each has a population quadruples American’s has only two air companies. Think about the size of their air company – even if each Indian or Chinese consumes 1/10 air one American does, each of their air company is about 5 times of an average American air company.
OK, so in the name of “patriot”, American companies going global are tolerated to be “bigger”. Don’t forget, those foreign monster enterprises run in a controlled environment, and they don’t fail (their government either own, or back them). And in the name of globalization, enterprises in free economy have to compete with them, and became too big to fail. These big companies from free economy are now playing a game that is not free, even though you those big companies are registered in US.
So basically the globalization is like playing football and soccer (and baseball, hockey, basketball you name it) in the one field. It does benefit those (who think themselves) are good at mix and match, but all the rules are no longer as written in stone as they used to be – most “multinationals” are not regulated by one (free market) jurisdiction any more.
Yes, my point is the 2008 failure was not due to a failure of capitalism as some people dimmed. It was a failure of capitalism to play its own game. It was dragged into a totally different game – it can only maintain a domestic free market, while allowed and encouraged its enterprises to compete with controlled-economy super powers. In short, globalization forced you to play a different game, the rules protecting fair play are no longer available and you failed, is that a surprise? Now that allowing an unfit US company to fail is less a natural selection process – was it failed due to unfair competition environment, or really due to it’s own weakness?
Do I sound like anti-globalization? No, I’m pro-globalization – the globalization of markets, not greed. To promote globalization, one need to understand, those regulations to protect level play ground do not necessarily exist in places beyond US soil. Here is the play book.
First of all, where goes free market where goes regulation to protect real “freedom”. Yes, totally unregulated market is not a free market as it gives big players unfair advantage. Both the US and EU have anti-trust laws those are some of the regulations in place. Governments of free market countries are technicians who maintain a level play ground. They are NOT players. So “globalization” can extend to these market as long as all parties agree on coordinated measure in protecting fair play principle, and allow natural selection to work.
Yes, globalization can only go to the extent where “fair play, nature selection” regulations (anti-trust and others) can be extended to. And with globalization, “patriot” need to be out of the picture (as far as free market goes). Because the biggest benefit of globalization is a bigger market, more market participants hence more idea to try out. The bigger the market, the less likely it is to be influenced by single player, and better survival chance for good ideas (if regulated coordinately and correctly).
Second, for those countries that cannot provide same level of fair playground for all participants, (i.e. Brazil, Russia, India, China), specific risk management should be put into place to protect free market will continue to be free (from big player intimidation) – only open comparable domestic market in exchange for market entrance to the counterparty’s, and allow only clearly segregated subsidiaries of US company to operate in those countries. These subsidiaries are NOT allowed to operate or influence home country (the US). Their bloom or fail should be clearly separated from free market operations of similar products and services – these subsidiaries can die without affecting it’s parent company and cannot influence it’s parent company’s home operation. Similar rules should be imposed on foreign companies from controlled-economy.
This is to ensure that the advantages or disadvantages of a company resulted from operating in a controlled economy will not be brought back to free market environments. We’ve mentioned the advantages of controlled economy is it’s efficiency – they can concentrate resources of the whole country in certain big company of theirs. This efficiency when allowed to operate and compete in free market, will undermine the single most important feature of capitalism’s “Self-heal” function – they and their competitors will be too big to fail, hence preventing innovation and natural selection.
All in all, the real cause of the 2008 financial crisis cannot be simply blamed on “greed”. That’s a feature we all inherited from our human nature. It cannot simply be blamed on capitalism as the crisis was formed exactly because capitalism was not playing out.
It was because of the greedy and irresponsible push of globalization that pushed American economy into direct contact with control economy where greed is not managed by regulations guaranteeing level playground.
To compete in such an unleveled ground with huge foreign firms (have you ever heard sovereign wealth fund?), “patriotism” then allowed American enterprises (financial firms in the case of 2008 crisis) to avoid normal market natural selection process and causing them to become too big to fail.
Sub-prime mortgage? It’s just the unlucky first little back street blowup happen to be too big for the big financial firms to cover up. Given the way financial firms were operating before the crisis, if it’s not Sub-prime, it would be something else blowup – they’ve been operating as if there is no free market regulation at all for too long.
Capitalism does not equal to greed, it should be “acknowledge the greed in ourselves and manage it”.
Free market does not equal to regulation-free, it should be a fair play ground protected by regulation like anti-trust laws. Without regulation protection, it’s not free market, its market for big bad guys freely intimidate small good guys and others.
Globalization forced companies of free economy to play with super huge players from controlled economy – a game of controlled economy.
It’s not a failure of capitalism. Actually to the exact opposite, this failure of 2008 is a failure of the betrayal of capitalism.
Thank you for spend your time on yet another crisis reasoning analysis.
Well, I have to do it because I (just as every other analyst) think no one gets it yet.
Let’s be clear, don’t say it’s simply “Greed” caused 2008 financial crisis. You and me we are all greedy, and we all know from day one that those Wall Street fat rats are greedier. This is no news. We knew it so well that nearly every single mature free market country in the world has “anti-trust” laws. But in a globalize world, there are so many loopholes and incentive for governments and enterprises not to control the greed (yes, Wall Street call it lack of risk control, as a nation, it is lack of greed control).
First, Capitalism and Socialism.
While these 2 words have been widely used by extremists on both sides in justifying their “fight against…” they are widely misunderstood by vast majority (sometimes intentionally misled by the “leaders” who wanted to benefit from the misunderstanding).
I’m in no business to challenge any of the super power to redefine these two words, but just for the sake of economic discussion, let’s clarify the usage of them in pure economic arena:
Capitalism means free economic environment, entrepreneurs sort out business issues with minimal intervention from political powers; and collectively, they form the core of a jurisdiction’s economic.
Socialism means controlled economic environment, political power forms the majority of the economy and controls most of the economic activities, and the jurisdiction’s economic power is an associate of its political power.
Which one is better is a long debate that I do not anticipate a conclusion any time soon.
The issue at hand is both sides seem think their “baby” is perfect. No! None of them is perfect; both of them have their strength and weakness.
For efficiency, controlled market is definitely the winner, just think about several people lifting a heavy weight, if all the participants work on one single command, it’s much easier to accomplish the work. On the opposite, if each single individual do things as they like, some lift, some push, some sit on it, some lift early some come late, the work probably won’t be done anytime soon.
In a Controlled market, all participants need to follow strict orders (in addition to rules). So they can concentrate vast resources of their economy in a few players to make them bigger than if they operate in a free economy.
What’s the weakness of socialism? Just check any financial media, how many ideas on how to run the economy you see each week? When lack of ideas (often conflicting) is never a problem, there is only one controller (in most case, the government). So whose idea is to be implemented? Yes, this is the BIGGEST problem of controlled economy – choose which one idea should be practiced and kill all others. Since there is a fundamental weakness of “Selection”, at the end, the idea that triumph is usually the one of a political iron fists – either an “elected by mistake” like Adolf Hitler, or arbitrary like Joseph Stalin.
The truth that most “controlled economies” are run by socialist countries is observed by many. It’s much easier t choose in an arbitrary system than a free market system. Problem is at the end, most of these efficiently controlled economy machines were misused to efficiently crush their country instead of build wealth, they did serve those small groups in power well during the course though.
Where “controlled economy” short is where free economy shines. The free economy allows (actually promotes) enterprisers to carry out their own ideas. So instead of the super power pick one idea, everyone put their ideas into real world practice, and see which one works best.
OK, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. It addresses arbitration issue, it does bring efficiency issue. Since not all the ideas are really good, some efforts are voided in proving “only good on paper” ideas will fail, hence “wasted”.
So in short, free economy gives us freedom and does not suppress ideas so at least some effort will be put into the right direction but some efforts will be wasted in testing out not-so-good ideas; on the other hand controlled economy gives us efficiency, but the struggles in putting the efficiency in to the right (let alone the best) direction.
How about the commonly mentioned “self correction” or “let market sort things out by itself” in free economy? Well, you know what? The “self correction” or the natural selection of economy comes through “let the unfit die”. The best thing of a free economy is everyone can start their venture as they like; the best thing for free economy is those who do not fit the (new) environment fail.
THIS IS WHAT REALLY FAILED IN 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS – BIG FINANCIAL FIRMS IN THE NOTION OF “TOO BIG TO FAIL”, DID NOT FAIL when they did wrong, and did not fit new financial environment. They should have failed much earlier if they were not as big as they were in 2008. A hundred smaller financial firms would have much less power in creating and sustaining the bubble led to the 2008 burst (so would have much less blow to the economy as it did).
Yes, my point is IF there were lots of small financial firms instead of “big nine”, and we let those unfit ones fail during the past years, we would have recovered from the (much shallower) crisis already. The problem is we don’t have enough financial firms to fail. The truth is the “big nine” are controlling our financial systems in such a way that (at least in financial area) it’s no longer free. And they were allowed to become “too big to fail” so at the end, political power has to intervene to support them.
When some people due to their hidden agenda (usually for their political gains) misled people to think “Capitalism” equals to “Greed”, I want to point out, Capitalism is actually “Acknowledge greed and manage it”. The failure of 2008 was because in the decade leading to it, the so called “free world” refused to admit its greed and failed to manage it.
How did that happen? Globalization – or more precisely, the globalization of greed.
First, enterprises are for profits, and that’s expected. This was one of the features of capitalism so that wealth is built and incentive is provided for enterprises to expand economy. Greed needs to be managed, so that a level play ground is provided to all participants and preventing the big players to leverage their power to suppress smaller players.
This is a key to capitalism; because without a level play ground, the economy will never be free – it will become a place for the big players freely intimidate smaller, newer players. There are regulations, acts, laws passed by mature democracies – outlining what can or cannot be done whether it is a one person self employed start-up or hires a quarter of the population of a state.
Big enterprises will always try to avoid the “manage” – the regulations of mature countries. The word they coined it as “globalization”. Yes, as most of the people has complained about globalization is not about cheaper goods, it’s about regulation avoidance (and more, we will go there later).
This is no new gimmick though. Long well known to the general public, some companies (lots of sea shipping companies) move their registration to a no-name island to avoid tax. However, before globalization, it’s not feasible for a domestic company to do so while still enjoy domestic treatment and access to local market.
Globalization allows all the benefit with no obligation. You can operate in one country, but use another countries regulation to perform things that are not allowed in the home country. All good planed for the big companies uh?
Second, once the market is open to globalization, big companies suddenly see competitors that are HUGE. Why? Because in those controlled economy, some of the players are monopoly and even government subsidized to control their domestic market. Let’s make up a hypothetical example: in US there are two dozen big air companies, while in China and India, each has a population quadruples American’s has only two air companies. Think about the size of their air company – even if each Indian or Chinese consumes 1/10 air one American does, each of their air company is about 5 times of an average American air company.
OK, so in the name of “patriot”, American companies going global are tolerated to be “bigger”. Don’t forget, those foreign monster enterprises run in a controlled environment, and they don’t fail (their government either own, or back them). And in the name of globalization, enterprises in free economy have to compete with them, and became too big to fail. These big companies from free economy are now playing a game that is not free, even though you those big companies are registered in US.
So basically the globalization is like playing football and soccer (and baseball, hockey, basketball you name it) in the one field. It does benefit those (who think themselves) are good at mix and match, but all the rules are no longer as written in stone as they used to be – most “multinationals” are not regulated by one (free market) jurisdiction any more.
Yes, my point is the 2008 failure was not due to a failure of capitalism as some people dimmed. It was a failure of capitalism to play its own game. It was dragged into a totally different game – it can only maintain a domestic free market, while allowed and encouraged its enterprises to compete with controlled-economy super powers. In short, globalization forced you to play a different game, the rules protecting fair play are no longer available and you failed, is that a surprise? Now that allowing an unfit US company to fail is less a natural selection process – was it failed due to unfair competition environment, or really due to it’s own weakness?
Do I sound like anti-globalization? No, I’m pro-globalization – the globalization of markets, not greed. To promote globalization, one need to understand, those regulations to protect level play ground do not necessarily exist in places beyond US soil. Here is the play book.
First of all, where goes free market where goes regulation to protect real “freedom”. Yes, totally unregulated market is not a free market as it gives big players unfair advantage. Both the US and EU have anti-trust laws those are some of the regulations in place. Governments of free market countries are technicians who maintain a level play ground. They are NOT players. So “globalization” can extend to these market as long as all parties agree on coordinated measure in protecting fair play principle, and allow natural selection to work.
Yes, globalization can only go to the extent where “fair play, nature selection” regulations (anti-trust and others) can be extended to. And with globalization, “patriot” need to be out of the picture (as far as free market goes). Because the biggest benefit of globalization is a bigger market, more market participants hence more idea to try out. The bigger the market, the less likely it is to be influenced by single player, and better survival chance for good ideas (if regulated coordinately and correctly).
Second, for those countries that cannot provide same level of fair playground for all participants, (i.e. Brazil, Russia, India, China), specific risk management should be put into place to protect free market will continue to be free (from big player intimidation) – only open comparable domestic market in exchange for market entrance to the counterparty’s, and allow only clearly segregated subsidiaries of US company to operate in those countries. These subsidiaries are NOT allowed to operate or influence home country (the US). Their bloom or fail should be clearly separated from free market operations of similar products and services – these subsidiaries can die without affecting it’s parent company and cannot influence it’s parent company’s home operation. Similar rules should be imposed on foreign companies from controlled-economy.
This is to ensure that the advantages or disadvantages of a company resulted from operating in a controlled economy will not be brought back to free market environments. We’ve mentioned the advantages of controlled economy is it’s efficiency – they can concentrate resources of the whole country in certain big company of theirs. This efficiency when allowed to operate and compete in free market, will undermine the single most important feature of capitalism’s “Self-heal” function – they and their competitors will be too big to fail, hence preventing innovation and natural selection.
All in all, the real cause of the 2008 financial crisis cannot be simply blamed on “greed”. That’s a feature we all inherited from our human nature. It cannot simply be blamed on capitalism as the crisis was formed exactly because capitalism was not playing out.
It was because of the greedy and irresponsible push of globalization that pushed American economy into direct contact with control economy where greed is not managed by regulations guaranteeing level playground.
To compete in such an unleveled ground with huge foreign firms (have you ever heard sovereign wealth fund?), “patriotism” then allowed American enterprises (financial firms in the case of 2008 crisis) to avoid normal market natural selection process and causing them to become too big to fail.
Sub-prime mortgage? It’s just the unlucky first little back street blowup happen to be too big for the big financial firms to cover up. Given the way financial firms were operating before the crisis, if it’s not Sub-prime, it would be something else blowup – they’ve been operating as if there is no free market regulation at all for too long.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Canada Heading for recession?!
Like it or not, the Canadians are racing the Americans for an election.
Canadians are likely going to poll on Oct 14th, beating America's November schedule for a vote.
As Liberal leader Stephen Dion suggested, the Canadian conservative government wanted an election now because the economy is heading south (following the lead of its southern neighbor). So if the conservative stick on to its preset election date (Oct 2009, they even passed a law for that), they may face a much tougher election environment.
Statistics show that governments rarely got re-elected during economy recessions. While it's not always the incumbents fault, during economy downturn, people wants to change. Not necessarily mean they suddenly knew what they want, just like on a gambling table, even changing chairs would be tried when loosing money.
So, even if it's not a great strategy for the Tories, probably better than wait till next year - the problem is even if they can form another minority government, the oppositions can still trigger an election on the worst month of the Canadian economy, so it's just a waste of tax payer's money.
Don't argue oppositions won't dare the Canadian for a second vote in a year, with 3 oppositions share the blame game, it won't be too hard for them to pull the trigger (again).
What interesting is the the firmness on the governing party's push for an election, it seems that they are very sure the recession is coming, so sure that they'd rather risk being blamed for triggering an election, for defying their own legislation on fixed election day, for the risk that they may become opposition again. . .
So much so the resilience of Canadian economy.
Canadians are likely going to poll on Oct 14th, beating America's November schedule for a vote.
As Liberal leader Stephen Dion suggested, the Canadian conservative government wanted an election now because the economy is heading south (following the lead of its southern neighbor). So if the conservative stick on to its preset election date (Oct 2009, they even passed a law for that), they may face a much tougher election environment.
Statistics show that governments rarely got re-elected during economy recessions. While it's not always the incumbents fault, during economy downturn, people wants to change. Not necessarily mean they suddenly knew what they want, just like on a gambling table, even changing chairs would be tried when loosing money.
So, even if it's not a great strategy for the Tories, probably better than wait till next year - the problem is even if they can form another minority government, the oppositions can still trigger an election on the worst month of the Canadian economy, so it's just a waste of tax payer's money.
Don't argue oppositions won't dare the Canadian for a second vote in a year, with 3 oppositions share the blame game, it won't be too hard for them to pull the trigger (again).
What interesting is the the firmness on the governing party's push for an election, it seems that they are very sure the recession is coming, so sure that they'd rather risk being blamed for triggering an election, for defying their own legislation on fixed election day, for the risk that they may become opposition again. . .
So much so the resilience of Canadian economy.
Monday, September 01, 2008
John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin, Out smart his rivals?
McCain's pick of Palin as his running mate is a very interesting one. While you can see strong opinions from both extremes, criticizing out numbers support.
Not a bad thing for McCain though, this is (probably, if he really picked Palin with the reason I think he did) what he wants.
OK, McCain is running for US presidency, and who is he running against? Mr. Obama? that's a political correct answer, not the real world answer though. In reality . . .
He runs against the American media super power. Yes, in America, there is media freedom, however it doesn't give every person equal weight of express though, those who controls media outlet get heard (or read) much more frequent than the average you and me, and they control the society (you may argue they are unconsciously while doing this).
It's not that media hates McCain (even if they do, it doesn't matter), it's who can generate more reading (or clicking in case of online media). For someone 72 years old, pretty much all about him is known and there is not much "news" to be made. And as an self portrayed underdog (Mr. Obama once proclaimed being black does not make his run for candidacy easier - which is not exactly true - even politically) Mr. Obama is much better a story generator for media and media will like to help him win cause that'll be the biggest news they can report "history been made" and anything President Obama would do can be reported as "the first..." like "the 1st black American president's footprint as been taken . . .", etc.
So recognizing this (supposedly he knows he's boring), what's McCain's can do? Bring Mrs. Palin is enough to win back media? No, not that simple. As the other camp as a "1st African American" on the top spot of the ticket, bring anything to the 2nd spot on his ticket probably will win over enough attention - being woman is not enough to bring media to his side.
What McCain really want is a mirror of Mr. Obama - a working class, non-traditional white-male Washington politician, young, inexperienced, and draw to the parties fundamental base. Mrs. Palin won McCain's selection because she is the Obama of Republican.
While Obama camp (out of surprise) attacked Mrs. Palin's inexperience, guess who's laughing? Mr. Obama? No, Mr. McCain is laughing, "if my 2nd who is same as you is not experienced enough, why do you think 3 years older, male, black makes you experienced enough?"
And apparently consciously or not, Mr. Obama is running a charming campaign, not a policy campaign. And media definitely defined this direction for him - if you talk about policy, who can keep awake reading till the end? Do some charming things please.
And what to you think about "Change" campaign. Forget about "positive" campaign, a "Change campaign" has an implication - if it has been positive why change? So there much be some negative so that change is needed. That's all work well until now.
Unfortunately, media fall into Mr. McCain's trap right away. (see the link) While I've seen more than one article saying "reck-less!" given McCain's age, it is POSIBLE this inexperienced 1st time governor lady will be come president in case McCain died. Well, isn't it also saying it's reck-less to elect a 1st time senator to be president directly? Well they can argue the tiny differences but that drags the Obama supporters into the "boring" discussion of detail, no longer charming. That's all Mr. McCain needs - he does not need to argue to such a degree that all his opponents shut up (no one will ever) all he needs was make the difference harder to argue, and that will strip the halo effect from Mr. Obama, and any attack (not necessarily from Mr. Obama's camp, but from media who still want to help Mr. Obama - so they can generate more readings) will be easily deflected to apply to Mr. Obama too. - I know there are always differences that Obama camp can argue, but this argument is no longer charming, no longer black and white.
Smart move Mr. McCain. Don't know if it's smart enough to save your campaign though.
I guess we will see.
Not a bad thing for McCain though, this is (probably, if he really picked Palin with the reason I think he did) what he wants.
OK, McCain is running for US presidency, and who is he running against? Mr. Obama? that's a political correct answer, not the real world answer though. In reality . . .
He runs against the American media super power. Yes, in America, there is media freedom, however it doesn't give every person equal weight of express though, those who controls media outlet get heard (or read) much more frequent than the average you and me, and they control the society (you may argue they are unconsciously while doing this).
It's not that media hates McCain (even if they do, it doesn't matter), it's who can generate more reading (or clicking in case of online media). For someone 72 years old, pretty much all about him is known and there is not much "news" to be made. And as an self portrayed underdog (Mr. Obama once proclaimed being black does not make his run for candidacy easier - which is not exactly true - even politically) Mr. Obama is much better a story generator for media and media will like to help him win cause that'll be the biggest news they can report "history been made" and anything President Obama would do can be reported as "the first..." like "the 1st black American president's footprint as been taken . . .", etc.
So recognizing this (supposedly he knows he's boring), what's McCain's can do? Bring Mrs. Palin is enough to win back media? No, not that simple. As the other camp as a "1st African American" on the top spot of the ticket, bring anything to the 2nd spot on his ticket probably will win over enough attention - being woman is not enough to bring media to his side.
What McCain really want is a mirror of Mr. Obama - a working class, non-traditional white-male Washington politician, young, inexperienced, and draw to the parties fundamental base. Mrs. Palin won McCain's selection because she is the Obama of Republican.
While Obama camp (out of surprise) attacked Mrs. Palin's inexperience, guess who's laughing? Mr. Obama? No, Mr. McCain is laughing, "if my 2nd who is same as you is not experienced enough, why do you think 3 years older, male, black makes you experienced enough?"
And apparently consciously or not, Mr. Obama is running a charming campaign, not a policy campaign. And media definitely defined this direction for him - if you talk about policy, who can keep awake reading till the end? Do some charming things please.
And what to you think about "Change" campaign. Forget about "positive" campaign, a "Change campaign" has an implication - if it has been positive why change? So there much be some negative so that change is needed. That's all work well until now.
Unfortunately, media fall into Mr. McCain's trap right away. (see the link) While I've seen more than one article saying "reck-less!" given McCain's age, it is POSIBLE this inexperienced 1st time governor lady will be come president in case McCain died. Well, isn't it also saying it's reck-less to elect a 1st time senator to be president directly? Well they can argue the tiny differences but that drags the Obama supporters into the "boring" discussion of detail, no longer charming. That's all Mr. McCain needs - he does not need to argue to such a degree that all his opponents shut up (no one will ever) all he needs was make the difference harder to argue, and that will strip the halo effect from Mr. Obama, and any attack (not necessarily from Mr. Obama's camp, but from media who still want to help Mr. Obama - so they can generate more readings) will be easily deflected to apply to Mr. Obama too. - I know there are always differences that Obama camp can argue, but this argument is no longer charming, no longer black and white.
Smart move Mr. McCain. Don't know if it's smart enough to save your campaign though.
I guess we will see.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Intentionally misleading public for a small groups benefit, or totally ignorant?
A publich letter to the editors of Global & Mail.
RE:Child-care proposal gives least to poorest
I did not want to write to you. Because as most of the "not-so-poor" people, I am too busy at work and have no time spare.
However, reading the comments I realized, if all the "not-so-poor" people are keep to themselves, their voice will never be heard and they will become a group of forgotten people - by media, by the mass and by the government. This is not democracy, this is not equality - this is unfair.
The title of this article is technically not-wrong but is very misleading. Reading through it, it is actually saying "family with no income, do not get as much as family with income". And this issue is so interesting, that I have to talk about it.
The Canadian tax law so far does not recognize child as dependent (unless it is single parent household). But the CCTB is calculated in such a way that it is related to the parents income (note, not the child's but the parents). This effectively is a tax on the Child - this was never fair from the beginning. Any child is a Canadian and should be treated equally. Their parents has already paid income tax on a "higher-rate on higher income" basis, this has effectively bring their household to the even level with any other family.
The reduce Child benefit payment is on top of the parents' tax liability – if both a “low-income” and a “high-income” parents do not have kids, there will be no difference in their “after tax benefits”; however, when they both have kids, there will be a practical different “after-tax-income” from the government. And this different payment is “after tax” which means the “before-tax” income difference has already been “addressed” by higher tax rate for higher income – hence this difference is purely levied upon the child.
This type of “give-to-the-in-need” theory totally ignores the effort the “higher incomes” may put forward to earn the income and although loud in the voice of equality, totally ignores the equality of all Canadian. It serves only a small group of people with their special interest – the government keep tax dollars because THEY DEEM “high income” family do not need child benefit.
Understanding the background of the whole issue, we soon realize that this article actually fiercely attacked a policy that rectifies an anti-equality policy in a country that treasures equality more than anything else. In the name of “helping the poor” it actually attacked one of the fundamental value all Canadian believes in – equality. The new policy is NOT about giving less to the poorer, it is about giving to all kids, no mater what kind of family they are from. The new policy is NOT taking away anything from the poor, it is about giving equally to all. What went wrong was the CCTB – it is a flawed policy that benefits the government itself in the name of “giving to the poor”.
The biggest problem this article delivered is its “hatred against not-so-poor”. It is complaining so harshly for – not for reducing the benefit paid to the poor, but for also giving to the not-so-poor who has already paid their high income tax so become no-where-close-to-rich.
Equality is not about what you want or what you like. It is not about everyone is getting the same amount of money. Equality is the authority need to treat everyone the same way: provide equal opportunities to men and women, poor or rich, old or young, black or white.
Very same flaw shows in another argument this article brought up – the single income families benefit more then double income family. Our tax law is already heavily against single income families. One single 70000 CAD income family pays thousands dollar more than two 35000 CAD income family. Again this article attacked the fact that single income family may be able to keep more after tax dollar in this 1200$ payment as if it is a hellishly sin.
I just wonder where this “equality” vindicator was when single income family was unfairly taxed. When I work 15 hours a day try to make it possible that my wife can stay home with my kids, why is that justified I should pay more tax than a family both parents work 7.5 hours a day?
The shameless use the concept of “equality” to attack a policy trying to rectify un-equality is unbelievable misleading the readers. It is very irresponsible to publish an article like this as is without special description to describe the obvious flaws in the analysis.
Your implicit endorsement to this selfish and seriously flawed article is harmful to Canadian society and to the reputation of your media and Canadian media as a whole. From the comments we can read that this irresponsible article as spared more hatred among Canadian ourselves. While it may to the benefit of some politicians, I saw no reason why someone should be so angry for other people being treated less harsh.
We expect you to be more responsible in future editing and publicly withdraw (or clarify the non-existence of) your endorsement to this article.
RE:Child-care proposal gives least to poorest
I did not want to write to you. Because as most of the "not-so-poor" people, I am too busy at work and have no time spare.
However, reading the comments I realized, if all the "not-so-poor" people are keep to themselves, their voice will never be heard and they will become a group of forgotten people - by media, by the mass and by the government. This is not democracy, this is not equality - this is unfair.
The title of this article is technically not-wrong but is very misleading. Reading through it, it is actually saying "family with no income, do not get as much as family with income". And this issue is so interesting, that I have to talk about it.
The Canadian tax law so far does not recognize child as dependent (unless it is single parent household). But the CCTB is calculated in such a way that it is related to the parents income (note, not the child's but the parents). This effectively is a tax on the Child - this was never fair from the beginning. Any child is a Canadian and should be treated equally. Their parents has already paid income tax on a "higher-rate on higher income" basis, this has effectively bring their household to the even level with any other family.
The reduce Child benefit payment is on top of the parents' tax liability – if both a “low-income” and a “high-income” parents do not have kids, there will be no difference in their “after tax benefits”; however, when they both have kids, there will be a practical different “after-tax-income” from the government. And this different payment is “after tax” which means the “before-tax” income difference has already been “addressed” by higher tax rate for higher income – hence this difference is purely levied upon the child.
This type of “give-to-the-in-need” theory totally ignores the effort the “higher incomes” may put forward to earn the income and although loud in the voice of equality, totally ignores the equality of all Canadian. It serves only a small group of people with their special interest – the government keep tax dollars because THEY DEEM “high income” family do not need child benefit.
Understanding the background of the whole issue, we soon realize that this article actually fiercely attacked a policy that rectifies an anti-equality policy in a country that treasures equality more than anything else. In the name of “helping the poor” it actually attacked one of the fundamental value all Canadian believes in – equality. The new policy is NOT about giving less to the poorer, it is about giving to all kids, no mater what kind of family they are from. The new policy is NOT taking away anything from the poor, it is about giving equally to all. What went wrong was the CCTB – it is a flawed policy that benefits the government itself in the name of “giving to the poor”.
The biggest problem this article delivered is its “hatred against not-so-poor”. It is complaining so harshly for – not for reducing the benefit paid to the poor, but for also giving to the not-so-poor who has already paid their high income tax so become no-where-close-to-rich.
Equality is not about what you want or what you like. It is not about everyone is getting the same amount of money. Equality is the authority need to treat everyone the same way: provide equal opportunities to men and women, poor or rich, old or young, black or white.
Very same flaw shows in another argument this article brought up – the single income families benefit more then double income family. Our tax law is already heavily against single income families. One single 70000 CAD income family pays thousands dollar more than two 35000 CAD income family. Again this article attacked the fact that single income family may be able to keep more after tax dollar in this 1200$ payment as if it is a hellishly sin.
I just wonder where this “equality” vindicator was when single income family was unfairly taxed. When I work 15 hours a day try to make it possible that my wife can stay home with my kids, why is that justified I should pay more tax than a family both parents work 7.5 hours a day?
The shameless use the concept of “equality” to attack a policy trying to rectify un-equality is unbelievable misleading the readers. It is very irresponsible to publish an article like this as is without special description to describe the obvious flaws in the analysis.
Your implicit endorsement to this selfish and seriously flawed article is harmful to Canadian society and to the reputation of your media and Canadian media as a whole. From the comments we can read that this irresponsible article as spared more hatred among Canadian ourselves. While it may to the benefit of some politicians, I saw no reason why someone should be so angry for other people being treated less harsh.
We expect you to be more responsible in future editing and publicly withdraw (or clarify the non-existence of) your endorsement to this article.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Is Martin Liberal minority-savior or the trouble maker?
Despite its claim of itself to be "the only savior for minorities", they are doing more harm than good.
Martin and his lieutenants is actually self-imposed savior believing in nothing but their own superiority. Forcing or cheating other people to accept their ideology or their protection.
We visual minorities do NOT need a savior - we are not in anyway less capable of taking care of our own life, and we are in no way need a savior more than (no offense to any one) a "white male".
The real equality can only be reached when "minority" is no longer a feature of any group.
Yes, "non-exist" is the ultimate state of the concept "minority". Only by then "minority" can no longer be used to differentiate a group from the rest of Canadian.
A "minority's government" is a false advertised campaign slogan, rather than a real governing practice. Here is a super simplified example: there are 3 people, blue, green, and red; blue likes A; green likes B; red likes C; to be a "government for minorities", government chooses "A" since blue is minority. The problem is - green and red are also minority, but their desires are actually suppressed. Yes the government worked for 1/3 of the population, but worked against 2/3.
The truth is we minorities, pay the same rate of tax, live by the same law, and expected to be treated same way. We do not think we are in any way superior than or inferior to other people, hence we do not think we need any more or less rights than the rest of Canadian. And we DO NOT think any other groups should think they are superior and should have more rights.
OK, I am not saying that there is no racist or racial profiling anymore. My point is in a free world, since no one can control any other's mind, government has no way to "solve" this problem except grant some minority groups some superficial privilege. -- This may satisfy some "minority" group's temporary self-esteem, but will simply emphasis to everyone else that "this group is different". And when the government can grant them some privilege, it cannot force everyone treat everyone the same, hence further differentiation will commence.
The court is a good place to fight for rights, if the judges are not appointed by the government directly. Even they are, it is a better place for right claims. The government should only provide rules, and services that really treat EVERYONE EQUALLY.
How Martin worsen the problem?!
As a visual minority, I did experienced racial profiling and in some case, discrimination. It exists. However, I actually noticed in terms of rate, minorities give me more trouble than main stream Canadian.
(Well, this is not as serious as it sounds. Let's say among every 100 3rd and up generation Canadian I met, probably there is one bad potato; but among 100 new Canadian I met, there could be 3 to 5 not-so-good ones. So the majority of both new and born here Canadian are very good. It is just living in Canada, the standard is high. People do expect Canadians are 100% good.)
The government immigration policy actually worsens the problem because it did not attract people from all over the world in a good proportion. Let me explain with an hypo-theoretical example:
Blue country have a similar crime rate compare to Red country. However, Red country immigration policy says if you are a criminal of any other country, you can stay in Red country. Unfortunately, in Blue country, most people are not idiots, and so are the criminals, hence the Blue men in Red country has a much higher criminal rate thank to the Red country immigration policy.
People in Red country will think Blue men are more likely to commit crimes because what they see is consider rate, more Blue men commit crime. But the fact is Blue men over all have a very similar crime rate, it is just most Blue criminals have been attracted to Red country.
There are 6 billion people out there. No one can meet them all. We always form a feeling of a group of people based on our experience with that group. This is human nature and one of the abilities differentiates us from the rest of the animals, there is nothing wrong with it. The problem is when there are 6 billion people out there, we need to make sure we invite good people come to this country, despite their color, sex, religious, and other features.
If we do not attract criminals (from any origin), then the government will not create a false sense of higher criminal rate among some particular minority groups.
Yes, to make it clear, it is not that there is a higher crime rate in one particular minority group. But the government, invited more criminals than the average rate to this country, making people in this country see a higher rate of crime in that minority group.
Inviting more bad Blue people than good Blue people is how the government made things worse for minority groups.
The right thing to do is invite only good people no matter what race they are, what they believe. We do not need any Crime. We do not want to show our "superiority" by accepting criminals from other country. What we want is a harmonized society that welcome good people from any where. And we want to say proudly that any single one Canadian is good, no mater they came from, no mater what color they are, as long as they are Canadian.
Yes, minority is not "a different kind of Canadian". We are Canadian! In no way less or more, just exactly as every other our country man and woman.
Viva La Canada.
Martin and his lieutenants is actually self-imposed savior believing in nothing but their own superiority. Forcing or cheating other people to accept their ideology or their protection.
We visual minorities do NOT need a savior - we are not in anyway less capable of taking care of our own life, and we are in no way need a savior more than (no offense to any one) a "white male".
The real equality can only be reached when "minority" is no longer a feature of any group.
Yes, "non-exist" is the ultimate state of the concept "minority". Only by then "minority" can no longer be used to differentiate a group from the rest of Canadian.
A "minority's government" is a false advertised campaign slogan, rather than a real governing practice. Here is a super simplified example: there are 3 people, blue, green, and red; blue likes A; green likes B; red likes C; to be a "government for minorities", government chooses "A" since blue is minority. The problem is - green and red are also minority, but their desires are actually suppressed. Yes the government worked for 1/3 of the population, but worked against 2/3.
The truth is we minorities, pay the same rate of tax, live by the same law, and expected to be treated same way. We do not think we are in any way superior than or inferior to other people, hence we do not think we need any more or less rights than the rest of Canadian. And we DO NOT think any other groups should think they are superior and should have more rights.
OK, I am not saying that there is no racist or racial profiling anymore. My point is in a free world, since no one can control any other's mind, government has no way to "solve" this problem except grant some minority groups some superficial privilege. -- This may satisfy some "minority" group's temporary self-esteem, but will simply emphasis to everyone else that "this group is different". And when the government can grant them some privilege, it cannot force everyone treat everyone the same, hence further differentiation will commence.
The court is a good place to fight for rights, if the judges are not appointed by the government directly. Even they are, it is a better place for right claims. The government should only provide rules, and services that really treat EVERYONE EQUALLY.
How Martin worsen the problem?!
As a visual minority, I did experienced racial profiling and in some case, discrimination. It exists. However, I actually noticed in terms of rate, minorities give me more trouble than main stream Canadian.
(Well, this is not as serious as it sounds. Let's say among every 100 3rd and up generation Canadian I met, probably there is one bad potato; but among 100 new Canadian I met, there could be 3 to 5 not-so-good ones. So the majority of both new and born here Canadian are very good. It is just living in Canada, the standard is high. People do expect Canadians are 100% good.)
The government immigration policy actually worsens the problem because it did not attract people from all over the world in a good proportion. Let me explain with an hypo-theoretical example:
Blue country have a similar crime rate compare to Red country. However, Red country immigration policy says if you are a criminal of any other country, you can stay in Red country. Unfortunately, in Blue country, most people are not idiots, and so are the criminals, hence the Blue men in Red country has a much higher criminal rate thank to the Red country immigration policy.
People in Red country will think Blue men are more likely to commit crimes because what they see is consider rate, more Blue men commit crime. But the fact is Blue men over all have a very similar crime rate, it is just most Blue criminals have been attracted to Red country.
There are 6 billion people out there. No one can meet them all. We always form a feeling of a group of people based on our experience with that group. This is human nature and one of the abilities differentiates us from the rest of the animals, there is nothing wrong with it. The problem is when there are 6 billion people out there, we need to make sure we invite good people come to this country, despite their color, sex, religious, and other features.
If we do not attract criminals (from any origin), then the government will not create a false sense of higher criminal rate among some particular minority groups.
Yes, to make it clear, it is not that there is a higher crime rate in one particular minority group. But the government, invited more criminals than the average rate to this country, making people in this country see a higher rate of crime in that minority group.
Inviting more bad Blue people than good Blue people is how the government made things worse for minority groups.
The right thing to do is invite only good people no matter what race they are, what they believe. We do not need any Crime. We do not want to show our "superiority" by accepting criminals from other country. What we want is a harmonized society that welcome good people from any where. And we want to say proudly that any single one Canadian is good, no mater they came from, no mater what color they are, as long as they are Canadian.
Yes, minority is not "a different kind of Canadian". We are Canadian! In no way less or more, just exactly as every other our country man and woman.
Viva La Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)