Ever seen a schoolyard bully accused of doing something he shouldn't have done? Remember how those bullies behaved back when you were a kid? What is the immediate reaction of the bully, when confronted by a teacher or parent? He says, "I didn't do it! He did it -- its his fault, he is always bad! People always blame me; its not fair!" When you hear that, 99% of the time, the kid is lying. But its natural; its the gut reaction of a caught child to cry that its not fair -- he doesn't think before he says it, so from his perspective it really isn't fair when he is punished. But adults know that punishing the bully is justice; "fairness" has nothing to do with it.
There is an article on the news today, titled "China rejects claims of cyber attacks on Google." That's all I have read; I haven't read the contents of the article. But I think I know what it will say. It will say that the Chinese government had nothing to do with the hacking of Google/Gmail, and it will accuse the US government of sponsoring hacking against China, and it will suggest that Google is some vague enemy of China for supposedly not cooperating with China's censoring agenda. That last one is iffy - its a gamble if China went that far... but I am betting on it. I only wish I could bet money... Now I will read the article.
(some time passes as I read the article)
Bam! Check, check, check; I was right on all predictions of China's response. Well... they didn't go so far as to insinuate that Google is their enemy -- I guess that was pushing it. Here's the link to the article: "China rejects claims of cyber attacks on Google."
What I am trying to point out, is that China and other rogue states (yes, I know its not political, but in my opinion, China is definitely "rogue") have predictable behaviors and reactions to pressure. I have never taken a child psychology class, but the parallels between China's behavior and that of a child bully, are too perfect to ignore. I have had this thought on many other occasions, when reading about North Korea or Iran or sometimes even Russia (I like Russia, but I won't ever betray the truth or objectivity), and this time I thought I would see if I could accurately predict it -- and I did. China uses this tactic -- if you can call it a tactic; its may be more of a knee-jerk reaction -- and so do all the rogue states China sponsors, such as North Korea and Iran. What does the tactic say about these states? It merely lends support to the case that they are international bullies. You can't trust them; they will lie, cheat, steal, twist littler-kids' arms, then cry and point fingers, just like a child bully on the playground.
Oh, and China: if you don't like what I write on my blog, then just go ahead and hack it. Or use your more conventional tactic of making several comment-posts to make yourself look good. But you should really hack my blog; it would make my day.
And to Google: bravo. I had previously had some reservations about using your services, because of the China issue. I felt that you had abandoned your motto, "Don't be evil." But I can see that you are back on the right path. Just remember, actions speak louder than words... but words can still be pretty darn loud.
Absit invidia... peace
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Thoughts on Korea
So I was wondering when this division of Korea along the 38th parallel first occurred and how, and I found something interesting that I didn't know. The division along the 38th parallel goes back to a contest between China and Japan for control of Korea, in the 1880's to 1890's. Not the Korean War, like I had thought. China had regarded Korea as a "protectorate," or a piece if its empire. The idea of protectorates has always bothered me -- its like gangster "protection" on a national level. Anyways, Sub-Prefect (General-bureaucrat) Yuan Shikai, the guy appointed by China to oversee Korea, had troops stationed in (i think) Seoul, but Japan moved in troops also, to protect "trade." The Japanese were the first to create this division at the 38th parallel by setting up a blockade along the 38th, as part of their maneuvering against China. Also/btw, Yuan Shikai went on to become China's last emperor.
Here's some info from Wikipedia -- it's probably more accurate than my recital. Go down to the "Years in Joseon Dynasty Korea" section.
I've been reading a lot recently about Korea and it's national/military maneuverings... that's an understatement: I went to Korea twice basically because I am totally fascinated with the place. In total I have now lived in South Korea for half a year, although I am now back in Texas. In a way, I think this separation between North and South Korea is a good thing. It is forcing Korea, as a whole, to think much more militarily than ever before (my opinion - obvious fallacy, but I don't care). In the past, Korea has usually been too weak, and so depended on China for "protection." In reality, Korea paid China tribute to protect itself from China -- gangsterism. Now, if South Korea prevails over the North, as it appears to be inevitable now, then the new Korea will be strong like it hasn't been for a thousand years; and it may help to be a solid counter to Chinese hegemony. Any counter to China's influence is good, as history clearly shows that when China is unchallenged, neighboring nations suffer. Korea, I'm rooting for you!
Also, I found it amusing how the South Korean Defense Minister suggested a preemptive military strike against North Korea if they continue to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. North Korea responded in kind, saying basically "if you preemptively strike us, its war!" Ha ha, yeah thats kinda the whole point. Here's the article for this one.
Whoa, I just noticed something weird about that last article: look at the picture at the top of the article. See something weird? At least one, possibly two of the men in the photo appear Caucasian. I guess that's not impossible -- I am just really wondering where they got that picture. More things to research... but that's okay; I like researching.
Here's some info from Wikipedia -- it's probably more accurate than my recital. Go down to the "Years in Joseon Dynasty Korea" section.
I've been reading a lot recently about Korea and it's national/military maneuverings... that's an understatement: I went to Korea twice basically because I am totally fascinated with the place. In total I have now lived in South Korea for half a year, although I am now back in Texas. In a way, I think this separation between North and South Korea is a good thing. It is forcing Korea, as a whole, to think much more militarily than ever before (my opinion - obvious fallacy, but I don't care). In the past, Korea has usually been too weak, and so depended on China for "protection." In reality, Korea paid China tribute to protect itself from China -- gangsterism. Now, if South Korea prevails over the North, as it appears to be inevitable now, then the new Korea will be strong like it hasn't been for a thousand years; and it may help to be a solid counter to Chinese hegemony. Any counter to China's influence is good, as history clearly shows that when China is unchallenged, neighboring nations suffer. Korea, I'm rooting for you!
Also, I found it amusing how the South Korean Defense Minister suggested a preemptive military strike against North Korea if they continue to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. North Korea responded in kind, saying basically "if you preemptively strike us, its war!" Ha ha, yeah thats kinda the whole point. Here's the article for this one.
Whoa, I just noticed something weird about that last article: look at the picture at the top of the article. See something weird? At least one, possibly two of the men in the photo appear Caucasian. I guess that's not impossible -- I am just really wondering where they got that picture. More things to research... but that's okay; I like researching.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Loaves and Fishes
They always say "fishes" -- that has always annoyed me. "Fish" is the plural of "fish" - you don't say "fishes" - its grammatically incorrect, and annoying. However, I used "fishes" in the title because that's what everybody knows the story as.
If you don't know the story, then it is a story from the Bible, in which Jesus feeds all of his several thousand followers with merely a few loaves of bread and fish.
The story always troubled me when I heard it, but now I finally understand it's meaning. My last blog, Obama's levy, caused me to suddenly think of it with new understanding.
After reading the story, I always thought "how can you divide so little food among so many people and satisfy their hunger? Impossible." Well, when you find something that's impossible.... check your premises.
It's an economic parable. I know, it's not what we would normally call a "parable" ; rather, it would be considered a "miracle." But the miracle itself is the parable. In a church, the pastor would probably say something about the "bounty of the Lord" after reading this story. Well, the "bounty" (or, having lots to share among many) is referring to profits, in a way that we in modern times should understand.
Consider that there is a man who needs something, and a company which sells that something. The man has some money, and he uses it to buy what he needs. After spending his money, does he have less wealth? No, value has been exchanged for value, and so he still has the exact same amount of wealth as before. But does the company who sold the thing have as much wealth as before? Obviously, the company has more wealth now. The company had used basic materials to make a product of higher value than the value of the materials put into it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The company used what it had to create more wealth, and from that it was able to satisfy the needs of the man who bought it. The company also became wealthier from the transaction.
Tying this back into the miracle/parable, where does the "bounty of the Lord" come from? It comes from us. We produce the bounty, and as a result of our production we can satisfy our needs as well as others' needs, and we all become wealthier in the process. But, the key is production. God wants us all to produce -- to create -- and make the world better in the process. He wants us to seek profit. The only true sin is to be nonproductive... in fact, think of all the other sins -- why are they sins? -- Because they make us unprofitable.
This brings me back to Nietzsche -- man, he's a good philosopher!
"Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ... Fellow creators, Zarathustra seeks, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrants: what are herds and shepherds and corpses to him?(Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra)"
To boil it down, it is the industrialist who is most like God... God is an industrialist.
This seems so obvious now... I am not a very religious type ; more philosophical than religious, really. Upon having this revelation, I had to write about it.
If you don't know the story, then it is a story from the Bible, in which Jesus feeds all of his several thousand followers with merely a few loaves of bread and fish.
The story always troubled me when I heard it, but now I finally understand it's meaning. My last blog, Obama's levy, caused me to suddenly think of it with new understanding.
After reading the story, I always thought "how can you divide so little food among so many people and satisfy their hunger? Impossible." Well, when you find something that's impossible.... check your premises.
It's an economic parable. I know, it's not what we would normally call a "parable" ; rather, it would be considered a "miracle." But the miracle itself is the parable. In a church, the pastor would probably say something about the "bounty of the Lord" after reading this story. Well, the "bounty" (or, having lots to share among many) is referring to profits, in a way that we in modern times should understand.
Consider that there is a man who needs something, and a company which sells that something. The man has some money, and he uses it to buy what he needs. After spending his money, does he have less wealth? No, value has been exchanged for value, and so he still has the exact same amount of wealth as before. But does the company who sold the thing have as much wealth as before? Obviously, the company has more wealth now. The company had used basic materials to make a product of higher value than the value of the materials put into it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The company used what it had to create more wealth, and from that it was able to satisfy the needs of the man who bought it. The company also became wealthier from the transaction.
Tying this back into the miracle/parable, where does the "bounty of the Lord" come from? It comes from us. We produce the bounty, and as a result of our production we can satisfy our needs as well as others' needs, and we all become wealthier in the process. But, the key is production. God wants us all to produce -- to create -- and make the world better in the process. He wants us to seek profit. The only true sin is to be nonproductive... in fact, think of all the other sins -- why are they sins? -- Because they make us unprofitable.
This brings me back to Nietzsche -- man, he's a good philosopher!
"Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ... Fellow creators, Zarathustra seeks, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrants: what are herds and shepherds and corpses to him?(Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra)"
To boil it down, it is the industrialist who is most like God... God is an industrialist.
This seems so obvious now... I am not a very religious type ; more philosophical than religious, really. Upon having this revelation, I had to write about it.
Obama TARP Repayment Plan
Obama just announced a plan to "levy" a penalty on "Wall Street" to the tune of $117 billion. This, he said, is the amount still outstanding from the $700 billion spent on the "bailout." The "levy" would only affect companies with more than $50 billion in assets, and would be paid over the next 10 years.
Oh, its time to start poking some holes... Ever read Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged? If so, you know what I mean when I say that this raises a dozen red flags. Big red flags.
First off, I'd like to know some more about what he means by "levy." Is it as plainly evil as it sounds? Its not a tax... so I am betting normal codes/laws applying to taxes don't apply here. The government just says "gimme money or else" and there's nothing these companies can do about it. By calling it a "levy," Obama gets to write a totally new rule-book... now American companies must play Obama's game. Or maybe there's something they can do about it? If the companies purposely make their balance sheets look bad, then maybe they escape punishment. Welcome to the race to the bottom! In Obama's game, we will reward the dishonest companies and punish the best and good.
Notice that Obama acknowledges that most of the recipients of TARP money have payed back the loans (way ahead of schedule), but doesn't say anything about these firms being exempt from the levy. Even if they are exempt from the levy, that would only actually make things worse! It would mean that the companies that have so far been unable to repay the loans will have to pay more, which will damage those companies' value, which will be reflected in stock prices, which will make it more difficult for such companies to raise capital, which will handicap Wall Street for the long-term. Is this a good thing?
Now, the companies we are talking about are mostly banks. Its "financial institutions," which means a company which deals with stocks, bonds, commodities, and derivatives. There are two things to be concerned about here; First, it is these companies which provide the financing for new business ventures in America. You want a loan for your small business? You want that loan to be cheap, not cost a ton in interest fees? You will most likely raise the money you need by going to a bank. But if banks have a more difficult time raising their own capital, they will make it more difficult for you to get your loan. We all know this, or should -- it has been the main symptom of the problem which has plagued our country ever since the beginning of this recession. The other problem is the cost of the "levy" being passed on to the consumer -- higher fees for every little thing having to do with your bank account. Me, personally, I'm not too fond of those fees.
Now, I anticipate the next argument I will hear from people who will like this "levy." They will say that Obama already pushed through some law limiting bank and credit card fees and interest rates. I admit that I don't know the specifics of this law, or even if it even passed. But I can think about the abstracts enough to say that in the long run, this might not be good. Products and services go through a "life cycle," from being new and novel to higher competition in the industry to economies of scale to outsourcing to finally maturity. In the maturity stage of a product/service, profit margins become slimmer, the leading firms in the industry start buying out the smaller firms, and finally you end up with something on the very opposite end of the economic spectrum from perfect competition: a competitive environment ranging from a monopoly to an oligopoly -- which means very high market entry barriers, precluding the possibility of more competition, and they will be much more capable of making monopolistic profits. Its really easy to draw a graph to explain it, but I don't think I will bother with putting that graph up on the blog. What it all means is, by putting an industry in a bind, you are really hurting the consumer -- you and me.
Look at Obama's choice of words: he criticized the banks for "massive profits and obscene bonuses." When did making a profit become a crime? Wasn't the whole purpose of the the TARP loans to help our companies make a profit again? As for the bonuses, what else are they going to do with their profits? Give the money away to charity? Don't be ridiculous. They made that profit; they deserve to have the money they worked so hard for. Imagine if you started a business of your own -- make it a corporation and you are the primary shareholder, as you are the one running the firm -- you are an expert in your field, and you work really hard to make it a successful company; Finally, after all your hard work, you have a nice profit, and you think that you will be able improve your life and your family's life; but then comes some person who doesn't like your profits, and at the point of a gun, he self-righteously demands you not take your profit; in fact, it should be given to the people, because you owe your success to everybody else. Is that right? This issue is the same, just the companies and profits involved are bigger -- but that doesn't change the underlying principles. I can explain it further, if more than morality is required. The laws of supply and demand apply not only to the price of goods sold, but to wages paid to employees, among many other things. Graphically, supply can be drawn as an upward sloping curve, while demand is a downward sloping curve, with your price or wages-paid variable on the y-axis, and quantity on the x-axis. Where the lines supply and demand intersect, is the equilibrium -- it says that (under basic circumstances) the price and quantity at the equilibrium are optimal for generating a profit, which also means balancing the needs of society with the needs of the firm. Now what if some comes and demands your profits, as in the previous scenario? That is the same as a tax, and a tax creates a dead-weight loss shared by both the producer and the consumer (depending on the elasticity of demand for your product). It pushes the price up and makes your system less efficient. Do you like paying higher prices? After reading all this, do you still think that Obama is right in saying "profit" as if it were a dirty word?
Oh yeah, great idea Obama; punish companies for making a profit! How dare they make a profit!? They should cease all profit-making endeavors at once!
Get real... I, for one, am happy they are making a profit again! I don't think its wise to do this "levy." The TARP money would have been repaid anyways - it was always a loan, not a gift - there's no point in further punishing the companies.
For more info, read this article.
Oh, its time to start poking some holes... Ever read Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged? If so, you know what I mean when I say that this raises a dozen red flags. Big red flags.
First off, I'd like to know some more about what he means by "levy." Is it as plainly evil as it sounds? Its not a tax... so I am betting normal codes/laws applying to taxes don't apply here. The government just says "gimme money or else" and there's nothing these companies can do about it. By calling it a "levy," Obama gets to write a totally new rule-book... now American companies must play Obama's game. Or maybe there's something they can do about it? If the companies purposely make their balance sheets look bad, then maybe they escape punishment. Welcome to the race to the bottom! In Obama's game, we will reward the dishonest companies and punish the best and good.
Notice that Obama acknowledges that most of the recipients of TARP money have payed back the loans (way ahead of schedule), but doesn't say anything about these firms being exempt from the levy. Even if they are exempt from the levy, that would only actually make things worse! It would mean that the companies that have so far been unable to repay the loans will have to pay more, which will damage those companies' value, which will be reflected in stock prices, which will make it more difficult for such companies to raise capital, which will handicap Wall Street for the long-term. Is this a good thing?
Now, the companies we are talking about are mostly banks. Its "financial institutions," which means a company which deals with stocks, bonds, commodities, and derivatives. There are two things to be concerned about here; First, it is these companies which provide the financing for new business ventures in America. You want a loan for your small business? You want that loan to be cheap, not cost a ton in interest fees? You will most likely raise the money you need by going to a bank. But if banks have a more difficult time raising their own capital, they will make it more difficult for you to get your loan. We all know this, or should -- it has been the main symptom of the problem which has plagued our country ever since the beginning of this recession. The other problem is the cost of the "levy" being passed on to the consumer -- higher fees for every little thing having to do with your bank account. Me, personally, I'm not too fond of those fees.
Now, I anticipate the next argument I will hear from people who will like this "levy." They will say that Obama already pushed through some law limiting bank and credit card fees and interest rates. I admit that I don't know the specifics of this law, or even if it even passed. But I can think about the abstracts enough to say that in the long run, this might not be good. Products and services go through a "life cycle," from being new and novel to higher competition in the industry to economies of scale to outsourcing to finally maturity. In the maturity stage of a product/service, profit margins become slimmer, the leading firms in the industry start buying out the smaller firms, and finally you end up with something on the very opposite end of the economic spectrum from perfect competition: a competitive environment ranging from a monopoly to an oligopoly -- which means very high market entry barriers, precluding the possibility of more competition, and they will be much more capable of making monopolistic profits. Its really easy to draw a graph to explain it, but I don't think I will bother with putting that graph up on the blog. What it all means is, by putting an industry in a bind, you are really hurting the consumer -- you and me.
Look at Obama's choice of words: he criticized the banks for "massive profits and obscene bonuses." When did making a profit become a crime? Wasn't the whole purpose of the the TARP loans to help our companies make a profit again? As for the bonuses, what else are they going to do with their profits? Give the money away to charity? Don't be ridiculous. They made that profit; they deserve to have the money they worked so hard for. Imagine if you started a business of your own -- make it a corporation and you are the primary shareholder, as you are the one running the firm -- you are an expert in your field, and you work really hard to make it a successful company; Finally, after all your hard work, you have a nice profit, and you think that you will be able improve your life and your family's life; but then comes some person who doesn't like your profits, and at the point of a gun, he self-righteously demands you not take your profit; in fact, it should be given to the people, because you owe your success to everybody else. Is that right? This issue is the same, just the companies and profits involved are bigger -- but that doesn't change the underlying principles. I can explain it further, if more than morality is required. The laws of supply and demand apply not only to the price of goods sold, but to wages paid to employees, among many other things. Graphically, supply can be drawn as an upward sloping curve, while demand is a downward sloping curve, with your price or wages-paid variable on the y-axis, and quantity on the x-axis. Where the lines supply and demand intersect, is the equilibrium -- it says that (under basic circumstances) the price and quantity at the equilibrium are optimal for generating a profit, which also means balancing the needs of society with the needs of the firm. Now what if some comes and demands your profits, as in the previous scenario? That is the same as a tax, and a tax creates a dead-weight loss shared by both the producer and the consumer (depending on the elasticity of demand for your product). It pushes the price up and makes your system less efficient. Do you like paying higher prices? After reading all this, do you still think that Obama is right in saying "profit" as if it were a dirty word?
Oh yeah, great idea Obama; punish companies for making a profit! How dare they make a profit!? They should cease all profit-making endeavors at once!
Get real... I, for one, am happy they are making a profit again! I don't think its wise to do this "levy." The TARP money would have been repaid anyways - it was always a loan, not a gift - there's no point in further punishing the companies.
For more info, read this article.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Thoughts on Gitmo
That previous post got me thinking about politics, and the thing that really bothers me these days: that Guantanamo prison. Obama promised he would close it. He hasn't yet. There should have been no delay!
Now, its not a matter of "they are bad-guys, out to get us, we need to do something about them." By all means, defend our country against those who would harm us! But don't violate human rights in the process -- punishing a person for mere suspicion without a proper trial defeats all of our rhetoric about human rights and freedom. Those people detained in Gitmo have (mostly) not received a trial in a court of law, and have been detained there for years -- in other words, we are assuming they are guilty and not even giving them a chance to be proven innocent. One of the wonderful things about our country is that here we go by "innocent until proven guilty."
As I understand it, the people detained at Gitmo are there because there is evidence to believe that they may intend to do harm to American people -- if they really are the bad-guys, then we should definitely take effective and legal measures to thwart their intentions. However, if there is evidence against them, then let it be reviewed in court, so that detaining them is justified. If the court reveals info that should not be available to the public for reasons of security, then fine, let the info be released at a later date. But its just plain wrong to hold them with no evidence against them for years -- I just did a quick research of the legality of it, and it appears to be perfectly legal in this case -- but that doesn't mean its right. I have a head-ache... I know this wasn't the most eloquent blog ever, but I can't write anymore for now. But ya know... God I love this country.... how lucky we are to live here... this is the only country I know of that tries to do the right thing simply because its right... but something I remember from my Political Science class is the "slippery slope" -- lets not slip into the wrong -- lets go back to being the leaders of human rights etc. and lets go back fast!
Now, its not a matter of "they are bad-guys, out to get us, we need to do something about them." By all means, defend our country against those who would harm us! But don't violate human rights in the process -- punishing a person for mere suspicion without a proper trial defeats all of our rhetoric about human rights and freedom. Those people detained in Gitmo have (mostly) not received a trial in a court of law, and have been detained there for years -- in other words, we are assuming they are guilty and not even giving them a chance to be proven innocent. One of the wonderful things about our country is that here we go by "innocent until proven guilty."
As I understand it, the people detained at Gitmo are there because there is evidence to believe that they may intend to do harm to American people -- if they really are the bad-guys, then we should definitely take effective and legal measures to thwart their intentions. However, if there is evidence against them, then let it be reviewed in court, so that detaining them is justified. If the court reveals info that should not be available to the public for reasons of security, then fine, let the info be released at a later date. But its just plain wrong to hold them with no evidence against them for years -- I just did a quick research of the legality of it, and it appears to be perfectly legal in this case -- but that doesn't mean its right. I have a head-ache... I know this wasn't the most eloquent blog ever, but I can't write anymore for now. But ya know... God I love this country.... how lucky we are to live here... this is the only country I know of that tries to do the right thing simply because its right... but something I remember from my Political Science class is the "slippery slope" -- lets not slip into the wrong -- lets go back to being the leaders of human rights etc. and lets go back fast!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Obama Bad!!!!
Okay, so my reaction to all of Obama's plans so far have been mild... I know, shame shame.
But when I read this, I choked. I can't believe it. What a MORON!!!
Part of fighting AIDS is to isolate it geographically. If its everywhere, then there's no safety anywhere!
Anyways, for me, I highly doubt I will ever get it - 'cuz I'm really not the promiscuous type - but I don't want my friends and family and possible future kids to get it either.
OMG this stuff is so obvious! Why is that guy such a moron?
But when I read this, I choked. I can't believe it. What a MORON!!!
Part of fighting AIDS is to isolate it geographically. If its everywhere, then there's no safety anywhere!
Anyways, for me, I highly doubt I will ever get it - 'cuz I'm really not the promiscuous type - but I don't want my friends and family and possible future kids to get it either.
OMG this stuff is so obvious! Why is that guy such a moron?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)