New Job!
I recently landed a job as a day trader in Vancouver. This week, we've been doing training. There are times that I get really excited about the job and there are other times that I get anxious and nervous. I know my hand-eye coordination is a bit slow. I'm hoping that I can make up for this with strategy and smart trading. I don't think I'll have any trouble sinking into the habit of loss minimisation and profit-taking. I get the concepts and I believe that psychology is not going to get in my way.
So, I was only unemployed for a month. That's pretty good. I turned down two other jobs. One was a sales position with an insurance company. The other was a temp call centre position with a software company. I had already landed the trader job when this came up.
One thing that worries me is the hours of this trading job. I realise that the utter inadequacy of Translink is going to bite me in the ass. The earliest bus from where I live is at 5:40 AM, which is too late for me since it takes 40 minutes on the bus to get to the office (at least) and I need to be there by 6 AM. I figure I need to walk 45 minutes from where I live to the stop where the busses leave earlier. I'm not looking forward to these daily walks at 4 AM. At this point, I can't afford a car and I'm not moving until my prepaid rent runs out in August.
I was working on an application to McKinsey, but then I got this job. I'm wondering if I should make a concerted effort to finish my application. I'm really interested in getting into analytical work, but I doubt I could get such a position without an MBA and/or CFA designation. Well, I suppose those are things I can aim for as I try to extract profits from the hostile stock market.
R
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Job Hunting Blues
As of last week, I have completed my Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Business Administration. Admittedly, I should have been looking for jobs back in February or March, but I was preoccupied with a bunch of things, namely my failed applications to grad school and my research project. So now I'm in a bit of a lurch as now I am unemployed with only a temporary place to live. I don't consider moving back in with my parents to be a viable option even though I'm sure they would welcome me.
One thing I would like to note is how much asymmetric information there is in the labour market. I think Spence got it right. It's all about signals. When I apply for a job, they have no way of knowing my academic background or whether my resume is an honest account of my experience and eduction, or a complete lie. So here I am with two degrees and relatively slim job prospects. Actually, the real problem is that I'm not good at this whole job hunt thing. The best thing for me would probably be to put my resume up on my blog and hope that employers find it. Of course, that would never work. So now I need to work on my labour market signal. I'm going to complete the Canadian Securities Course. That is as soon as I can crack open the textbooks. I'm anticipating hat 70-80% of the material I will already know, which makes it harder for me make the effort to study. Plus, I just finished university and I'm rather sick of compulsory reading. That's no excuse though.
So, this week or next, I'm going to talk about some of my credentials and hope that a potential employer out there reads my blog and contacts me.
As of last week, I have completed my Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Business Administration. Admittedly, I should have been looking for jobs back in February or March, but I was preoccupied with a bunch of things, namely my failed applications to grad school and my research project. So now I'm in a bit of a lurch as now I am unemployed with only a temporary place to live. I don't consider moving back in with my parents to be a viable option even though I'm sure they would welcome me.
One thing I would like to note is how much asymmetric information there is in the labour market. I think Spence got it right. It's all about signals. When I apply for a job, they have no way of knowing my academic background or whether my resume is an honest account of my experience and eduction, or a complete lie. So here I am with two degrees and relatively slim job prospects. Actually, the real problem is that I'm not good at this whole job hunt thing. The best thing for me would probably be to put my resume up on my blog and hope that employers find it. Of course, that would never work. So now I need to work on my labour market signal. I'm going to complete the Canadian Securities Course. That is as soon as I can crack open the textbooks. I'm anticipating hat 70-80% of the material I will already know, which makes it harder for me make the effort to study. Plus, I just finished university and I'm rather sick of compulsory reading. That's no excuse though.
So, this week or next, I'm going to talk about some of my credentials and hope that a potential employer out there reads my blog and contacts me.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Jack Layton and Mr. Lahey
This year I have really gotten into the show Trailer Park Boys. Oddly enough, this has coincided with the beginning of the a new Canadian election cycle. One thing struck me the other day. Jack Layton, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, bears an uncanny resemblance to Jim Lahey, the supervisor of Sunnyvale Trailer Park. You be the judge.
Here are a couple of pictures of Jack Layton:
And here are a couple of pictures of Jim Lahey:
So there you have it. Would you elect a Lahey look-alike for prime minister? I know I wouldn't. Actually, my main beefs with the NDP is that they cling to economic ideals that have been discredited, they are out to restrict consumer choices, they would probably pick a destructive fight with the US (not that don't deserve it sometimes) and their idea of improving healthcare is to ignore the existing problems and throw money at it. They rail against private healthcare when it is already partly a reality in many provinces.
Frankly, I don't see what's so wrong with private hospitals and clinics. The health insurance system should remain universal though; because we don't want a situation like they have in the US where the poor and sick can't get coverage.
This year I have really gotten into the show Trailer Park Boys. Oddly enough, this has coincided with the beginning of the a new Canadian election cycle. One thing struck me the other day. Jack Layton, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, bears an uncanny resemblance to Jim Lahey, the supervisor of Sunnyvale Trailer Park. You be the judge.
Here are a couple of pictures of Jack Layton:
And here are a couple of pictures of Jim Lahey:
So there you have it. Would you elect a Lahey look-alike for prime minister? I know I wouldn't. Actually, my main beefs with the NDP is that they cling to economic ideals that have been discredited, they are out to restrict consumer choices, they would probably pick a destructive fight with the US (not that don't deserve it sometimes) and their idea of improving healthcare is to ignore the existing problems and throw money at it. They rail against private healthcare when it is already partly a reality in many provinces.Frankly, I don't see what's so wrong with private hospitals and clinics. The health insurance system should remain universal though; because we don't want a situation like they have in the US where the poor and sick can't get coverage.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Canadian Politics: A world of topsey turvey
Today the Conservative party unveiled their plan for tax reform in Canada (if elected of course): a 2% cut in the GST, a value-added tax levied on goods and services. I don't know whether this is a great strategy for the conservatives, but it is an interesting proposal. What is most interesting is that it could be an attempt to beat the NDP in terms of progressiveness. What is also surprising is that the NDP has said that they oppose cutting the GST and would rather cut income taxes.
Do the NDP have any economists working for them at all? In general, value added sales taxes like the GST are very regressive. Since the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on consumables instead of saving, they spend a larger proportion of their income in sales taxes. The rich by comparison save more and pay more sales tax in future (assuming that they spend it in Canada). So really, the proposal to cut the GST is actually quite progressive. By comparison, tinkering with marginal income tax rates is easy for politicians (and hard on the Canada Revenue Agency) but it does not actually change the progressiveness of the system. While the rich pay high marginal tax rates, they can also avoid part of the bill by taking advantage of numerous loopholes; for example, by donating large sums to poltical parties. So, attempts to make the rich pay more taxes usually fail to do so. This all suggests that we should probably actually be moving to a flat tax system and eliminate all the loopholes and tax credits. The progressiveness of the system (which is practically non-existant) would be preserved and Canadians would all benefit from simple income tax returns and save money by spending less on bureaucracy and audits.
R
Today the Conservative party unveiled their plan for tax reform in Canada (if elected of course): a 2% cut in the GST, a value-added tax levied on goods and services. I don't know whether this is a great strategy for the conservatives, but it is an interesting proposal. What is most interesting is that it could be an attempt to beat the NDP in terms of progressiveness. What is also surprising is that the NDP has said that they oppose cutting the GST and would rather cut income taxes.
Do the NDP have any economists working for them at all? In general, value added sales taxes like the GST are very regressive. Since the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on consumables instead of saving, they spend a larger proportion of their income in sales taxes. The rich by comparison save more and pay more sales tax in future (assuming that they spend it in Canada). So really, the proposal to cut the GST is actually quite progressive. By comparison, tinkering with marginal income tax rates is easy for politicians (and hard on the Canada Revenue Agency) but it does not actually change the progressiveness of the system. While the rich pay high marginal tax rates, they can also avoid part of the bill by taking advantage of numerous loopholes; for example, by donating large sums to poltical parties. So, attempts to make the rich pay more taxes usually fail to do so. This all suggests that we should probably actually be moving to a flat tax system and eliminate all the loopholes and tax credits. The progressiveness of the system (which is practically non-existant) would be preserved and Canadians would all benefit from simple income tax returns and save money by spending less on bureaucracy and audits.
R
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Grow Up Canada!
So with energy prices super high, many Canadians are going to be feeling the pinch of high heating bills this winter. What are provincial governments (and possibly the federal government) doing though? They are going to dish out millions of dollars in subsidies to help shield hapless Canadians from reality. Here's reality: high energy prices are here to stay. What will happen next year? And the year after that? Are subsidies going to be permanent? I'm not saying that the government should do nothing. I don't think that people who now cannot pay for their energy should be forced to freeze to death. Fortunately, so far, the subsidies that have been adopted have been reserved for people with low incomes. Some people are hurting more than others though because the cost of living is higher in many cities. Irregardless, conservation should not be forced on the wealthy only. Everybody benefits people take steps to increase energy efficiency. The poor may well be the most inefficient users of energy given that they may have cheaper, less efficient appliances and housing. If there's a role for the government in all this, it is in promoting more efficient energy usage. Some are already doing this.
There is an even better, longer term solution though: Deregulate energy markets. In some provinces, consumers can sign fixed rate contracts for electricity and natural gas. Smart consumers wary of the risk of balooning energy prices fixed theirs earlier. By fixing their tariffs, consumers can protect themselves from volatile spot prices for up to 5 years (depending on who is providing the contract). Provinces that have not deregulated their markets usually don't have fixed rate contract available.
The moral of the story is this: consumers woudln't need the government to intervene if the government would only permit them to protect themselves. High energy prices naturally encourage consumers to reduce their consumption anyways. Deregulation would also encourage more private involvement and investment in the energy industry. So, it's time to grow up Canada. High energy prices are here to stay. The old ways of dealing with them (subsidies) just aren't going to work.
R
So with energy prices super high, many Canadians are going to be feeling the pinch of high heating bills this winter. What are provincial governments (and possibly the federal government) doing though? They are going to dish out millions of dollars in subsidies to help shield hapless Canadians from reality. Here's reality: high energy prices are here to stay. What will happen next year? And the year after that? Are subsidies going to be permanent? I'm not saying that the government should do nothing. I don't think that people who now cannot pay for their energy should be forced to freeze to death. Fortunately, so far, the subsidies that have been adopted have been reserved for people with low incomes. Some people are hurting more than others though because the cost of living is higher in many cities. Irregardless, conservation should not be forced on the wealthy only. Everybody benefits people take steps to increase energy efficiency. The poor may well be the most inefficient users of energy given that they may have cheaper, less efficient appliances and housing. If there's a role for the government in all this, it is in promoting more efficient energy usage. Some are already doing this.
There is an even better, longer term solution though: Deregulate energy markets. In some provinces, consumers can sign fixed rate contracts for electricity and natural gas. Smart consumers wary of the risk of balooning energy prices fixed theirs earlier. By fixing their tariffs, consumers can protect themselves from volatile spot prices for up to 5 years (depending on who is providing the contract). Provinces that have not deregulated their markets usually don't have fixed rate contract available.
The moral of the story is this: consumers woudln't need the government to intervene if the government would only permit them to protect themselves. High energy prices naturally encourage consumers to reduce their consumption anyways. Deregulation would also encourage more private involvement and investment in the energy industry. So, it's time to grow up Canada. High energy prices are here to stay. The old ways of dealing with them (subsidies) just aren't going to work.
R
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Exams - no comment
It's exam period right now. But I don't want to talk about that.
Death in the News
After seeing the news in the past four months for Indonesia and Bagladesh, I must say human tragedy, unlike (or like) lightning has the horrible tendency of striking in the same place. Both these countries would be in the running for the title "The Land of Tears." Though really, Indonesia would win hands down because of December's tsunami and the subsequent aftershocks. Bangladesh though, despite the comparably small death toll, would get an honourable mention for the horrible frequency of man-made disasters. It seems like every month that country has some kind of building collapse, sinking ferry or deadly fire.
Okay, that was just crass on my part. Now for something completely different:
The Case for the Caliph: Why Islam needs their equivalent of the Pope
Given the current state of sectarian relations, and the rising nationalism of middle-eastern nations, why, you may ask, should Islam need the return of the Caliphate? This is rather puzzling given that one of the goals of those nefarious international terrorist networks is the Caliphate's restoration. Frankly, Islam needs a the Caliph to discipline the religion. If one man had the spiritual authority to castigate the terrorist acts perpetrated in the name of Allah, the world would be a safer place. Of course, another possibility is that such a man would declare jihad against the west (though he would be absolutely nuts to do so).
Historically, the Caliphate spiritual power has been intertwined with the political power of the dominant middle-eastern empire. The present day situation does not seem condusive to such an arrangement since there is no dominant empire in the middle east these days. I think a purely spiritual leader could lead the faithful though. Islam, well, Sunni Islam as I understand it anyway, is not terribly condusive to this arrangement though. Since there is no real clergy in the religion, compared to the Catholic Church at least, it would be very difficult to determine who should lead. Arab political leaders would probably bicker over the choice. Also, what would happen if there were pretender Caliphs vying for control?
This is all hypthetical though. The point is that no one person in the region or in the religion, other than maybe Osama Bin Laden himself, has the far-reaching fame influence to fill the Caliph's vacant boots. Technically, the Caliph's powers were conferred on the Turkish parliament after the passing of the last Caliph in the 1920's. Irregardless, it's all wishful thinking, that a spiritual leader could emerge and bring peace and order to a chaotic Islamic world.
It's exam period right now. But I don't want to talk about that.
Death in the News
After seeing the news in the past four months for Indonesia and Bagladesh, I must say human tragedy, unlike (or like) lightning has the horrible tendency of striking in the same place. Both these countries would be in the running for the title "The Land of Tears." Though really, Indonesia would win hands down because of December's tsunami and the subsequent aftershocks. Bangladesh though, despite the comparably small death toll, would get an honourable mention for the horrible frequency of man-made disasters. It seems like every month that country has some kind of building collapse, sinking ferry or deadly fire.
Okay, that was just crass on my part. Now for something completely different:
The Case for the Caliph: Why Islam needs their equivalent of the Pope
Given the current state of sectarian relations, and the rising nationalism of middle-eastern nations, why, you may ask, should Islam need the return of the Caliphate? This is rather puzzling given that one of the goals of those nefarious international terrorist networks is the Caliphate's restoration. Frankly, Islam needs a the Caliph to discipline the religion. If one man had the spiritual authority to castigate the terrorist acts perpetrated in the name of Allah, the world would be a safer place. Of course, another possibility is that such a man would declare jihad against the west (though he would be absolutely nuts to do so).
Historically, the Caliphate spiritual power has been intertwined with the political power of the dominant middle-eastern empire. The present day situation does not seem condusive to such an arrangement since there is no dominant empire in the middle east these days. I think a purely spiritual leader could lead the faithful though. Islam, well, Sunni Islam as I understand it anyway, is not terribly condusive to this arrangement though. Since there is no real clergy in the religion, compared to the Catholic Church at least, it would be very difficult to determine who should lead. Arab political leaders would probably bicker over the choice. Also, what would happen if there were pretender Caliphs vying for control?
This is all hypthetical though. The point is that no one person in the region or in the religion, other than maybe Osama Bin Laden himself, has the far-reaching fame influence to fill the Caliph's vacant boots. Technically, the Caliph's powers were conferred on the Turkish parliament after the passing of the last Caliph in the 1920's. Irregardless, it's all wishful thinking, that a spiritual leader could emerge and bring peace and order to a chaotic Islamic world.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Pre-Birthday Blues?
So, I'm turning 23 soon. This leads me to one thought... damn, I'm getting old! On an un-age-related note, all sorts of disasters have been happening to me lately. Today, I found out that the sink is leaking and overflowing onto the floor. Last week, I failed to even get an interview for a job because the other candidates were more qualified. Also last week, I was arranging to send two teams to a debating tournament in Calgary and then found out that the people from the university across town who offered to let our debaters travel with them on the bus, aren't going by bus at all, thus leaving me in a lurch.
So what did I do? Well, for starters I got drunk on Thursday night. Then on Saturday I did absoltely nothing of value. Well, that's not totally true. I did figure out why my computer was crashing whenever I played a game. Apparently, the computer is overheating. I don't know how that causes crashes, or why it only happened when I was playing games. So I figured out a novel solution: shove my three hole punch underneath to let more air flow in and cool it off more. It hasn't crashed since.
On a related note, I hate Windows XP SP2. I decided to uninstall the update recently because it made my system far too slow. Besides, I'm more skilled than the average computer-using fool and am unlikely to get caught offguard by viruses, spyware, etc. In any case, my computer needs servicing to deal with the overheating.
Okay, I'm off track. Back to my birthday... So invited lots of people. I invited them to simply chill with me at the bar across the street. I prefer conversation to dancing like a fool (though that changes with enough alcohol). I've had a few of my good friends get back to me right away. So, I'm looking forward to it. Well, I would be much more eager if the girls (each of which I fancy) I invited weren't too busy to come. Well, I guess it could be worse. At least they e-mailed me back.
Fox News Comes to Canada
I thought I wasn't going to give commentary on the news anymore, but I can't help myself. Fox News is being offered as a subscription channel on digital cable in Canada. Normally, I wouldn't comment on something as banal as this. In this case though, Fox News has been drawing some fire lately from media critics regarding it's apparent (and actual) bias. Whether you think it is biased depends on your point of view. I'm very much inclined to believe that it is (from my narrow exposure to it). They claim to report the news as they see it and to not be biased (a charge, by saying so, they level at the competition). This wouldn't normally be alarming (just business as usual) except that Fox News has captured a large market share in America. From what I've seen, many of their commentators have made big names for themselves by telling off people of other political views. I've also seen anecdotal evidence that some commentators are not beyond using lies (or self-delusions) if it serves their political interest.
Is there such thing as unbiased media? I don't think so. The issue is where each individual places the centre of the their political spectrum. Really, left and right are not a good model for explaining one's politics, but they are used widely. Personally, and as a Canadian, I would put CTV News probably in the middle. CBC would be a bit left of centre, but quite close. Network American News and CNN would probably be in the centre or a bit to the right. That would put Fox News much further on the right. On the left I could put various "independent, unbiased" sources as the campus newspaper, the Indymedia Centre, and websites like rabble.ca. On the far right (possibly further than Fox News) would be right wing online rags like worldnetdaily.com. The Economist, which I read, is difficult to place because it advodates social and economic liberalism. Some people think it is really right wing. At least The Economist doesn't try to hide its bias.
So, if we equate "unbiasedness" with one's political centre, if you think Fox News is "unbiased," what is a right wing source? Likewise, if you think zmag or IMC are "unbiased" give me an example of a left wing news source. What is reality? Is there one true interpretation of the news? Personally, I think that sources on far left and right have blinders on. They cannot understand anyone else's viewpoint and attack it as fascist/corporate/communist drivvel. Absorbing the same sources over and over again reaffirms the same old beliefs. I don't know who's reading this, but I challenge you to get your news from various sources if you can. Don't just get it from the same place all the time. Question what you believe from time to time. This is a apolitical request (if you can believe that).
So, I'm turning 23 soon. This leads me to one thought... damn, I'm getting old! On an un-age-related note, all sorts of disasters have been happening to me lately. Today, I found out that the sink is leaking and overflowing onto the floor. Last week, I failed to even get an interview for a job because the other candidates were more qualified. Also last week, I was arranging to send two teams to a debating tournament in Calgary and then found out that the people from the university across town who offered to let our debaters travel with them on the bus, aren't going by bus at all, thus leaving me in a lurch.
So what did I do? Well, for starters I got drunk on Thursday night. Then on Saturday I did absoltely nothing of value. Well, that's not totally true. I did figure out why my computer was crashing whenever I played a game. Apparently, the computer is overheating. I don't know how that causes crashes, or why it only happened when I was playing games. So I figured out a novel solution: shove my three hole punch underneath to let more air flow in and cool it off more. It hasn't crashed since.
On a related note, I hate Windows XP SP2. I decided to uninstall the update recently because it made my system far too slow. Besides, I'm more skilled than the average computer-using fool and am unlikely to get caught offguard by viruses, spyware, etc. In any case, my computer needs servicing to deal with the overheating.
Okay, I'm off track. Back to my birthday... So invited lots of people. I invited them to simply chill with me at the bar across the street. I prefer conversation to dancing like a fool (though that changes with enough alcohol). I've had a few of my good friends get back to me right away. So, I'm looking forward to it. Well, I would be much more eager if the girls (each of which I fancy) I invited weren't too busy to come. Well, I guess it could be worse. At least they e-mailed me back.
Fox News Comes to Canada
I thought I wasn't going to give commentary on the news anymore, but I can't help myself. Fox News is being offered as a subscription channel on digital cable in Canada. Normally, I wouldn't comment on something as banal as this. In this case though, Fox News has been drawing some fire lately from media critics regarding it's apparent (and actual) bias. Whether you think it is biased depends on your point of view. I'm very much inclined to believe that it is (from my narrow exposure to it). They claim to report the news as they see it and to not be biased (a charge, by saying so, they level at the competition). This wouldn't normally be alarming (just business as usual) except that Fox News has captured a large market share in America. From what I've seen, many of their commentators have made big names for themselves by telling off people of other political views. I've also seen anecdotal evidence that some commentators are not beyond using lies (or self-delusions) if it serves their political interest.
Is there such thing as unbiased media? I don't think so. The issue is where each individual places the centre of the their political spectrum. Really, left and right are not a good model for explaining one's politics, but they are used widely. Personally, and as a Canadian, I would put CTV News probably in the middle. CBC would be a bit left of centre, but quite close. Network American News and CNN would probably be in the centre or a bit to the right. That would put Fox News much further on the right. On the left I could put various "independent, unbiased" sources as the campus newspaper, the Indymedia Centre, and websites like rabble.ca. On the far right (possibly further than Fox News) would be right wing online rags like worldnetdaily.com. The Economist, which I read, is difficult to place because it advodates social and economic liberalism. Some people think it is really right wing. At least The Economist doesn't try to hide its bias.
So, if we equate "unbiasedness" with one's political centre, if you think Fox News is "unbiased," what is a right wing source? Likewise, if you think zmag or IMC are "unbiased" give me an example of a left wing news source. What is reality? Is there one true interpretation of the news? Personally, I think that sources on far left and right have blinders on. They cannot understand anyone else's viewpoint and attack it as fascist/corporate/communist drivvel. Absorbing the same sources over and over again reaffirms the same old beliefs. I don't know who's reading this, but I challenge you to get your news from various sources if you can. Don't just get it from the same place all the time. Question what you believe from time to time. This is a apolitical request (if you can believe that).
Friday, December 24, 2004
Christmas with the Family... sorta
As much as I love my family, I have come to the conclusion that I can't spend much time with them without going nuts. It's a good thing they are visiting me here, and staying with some other family members. As a result, I can spend time in my flat instead of spending it all with them. Then again, I don't really have anything to do right now. Classes don't start for another two weeks, and I'm already getting bored.
On the plus side, it is nice to see my sister again. We get along pretty well now. She's going to university on the other side of the country though.
So, how did this semester turn out? Well, I think I've been living up to the adjective, beleaguered. Oh yes, I managed to pass all my classes. I've never doubted that. However, I didn't live up to my potential. I earned about a B average, which is decent, but I know I can do better. What will it take me to reach the top again? Well, hope springs eternal. There's a new semester in the spring. I really need to discipline myself and do a better job of balancing my time.
Online dating
Being alone and rather bored during the holidays, I decided to put up a profile on an online dating service. Geez, have I hit a new low? This isn't really the way I want to meet people. It just happens to be simple and cheaper than wasting money at the pub. I guess I have nothing to lose though except my pride, which has already been taken down a few notches this past semester.
So, what do I expect? Well, I've got pretty low expectations for online dating. I'm more interested in people I actually know. How does online schmoozing compare to real life schmoozing? In real life, groups of friends can exclude others socially. I think the internet, if contact is established, can be more one on one. On the downside, I can see internet schmoozing being even more vapid and shallow as people make judgements based on mugshots. I guess it's a tradeoff.
Merry Christmas!
R
As much as I love my family, I have come to the conclusion that I can't spend much time with them without going nuts. It's a good thing they are visiting me here, and staying with some other family members. As a result, I can spend time in my flat instead of spending it all with them. Then again, I don't really have anything to do right now. Classes don't start for another two weeks, and I'm already getting bored.
On the plus side, it is nice to see my sister again. We get along pretty well now. She's going to university on the other side of the country though.
So, how did this semester turn out? Well, I think I've been living up to the adjective, beleaguered. Oh yes, I managed to pass all my classes. I've never doubted that. However, I didn't live up to my potential. I earned about a B average, which is decent, but I know I can do better. What will it take me to reach the top again? Well, hope springs eternal. There's a new semester in the spring. I really need to discipline myself and do a better job of balancing my time.
Online dating
Being alone and rather bored during the holidays, I decided to put up a profile on an online dating service. Geez, have I hit a new low? This isn't really the way I want to meet people. It just happens to be simple and cheaper than wasting money at the pub. I guess I have nothing to lose though except my pride, which has already been taken down a few notches this past semester.
So, what do I expect? Well, I've got pretty low expectations for online dating. I'm more interested in people I actually know. How does online schmoozing compare to real life schmoozing? In real life, groups of friends can exclude others socially. I think the internet, if contact is established, can be more one on one. On the downside, I can see internet schmoozing being even more vapid and shallow as people make judgements based on mugshots. I guess it's a tradeoff.
Merry Christmas!
R
Monday, November 08, 2004
In the Dumps
So, I got back another midterm this week. I passed it, but just barely, and only because the prof marked it our of 90 instead of 100. This was in this actuarial mathematics class, and I can just see my grade tanking as I write this. I'm not stupid, or as much of a slacker as I can seem to be. Why can't I do well like I did back in first year? Where did I go wrong?
So, that aside, let me move to something almost as pressing:
Course Selection
So, given that I haven't been able to apply for any co-op jobs, I seem to be resovled to taking classes next semester. Unfortunately, many of them seem to conflict. Plus, I seem to be at a fork in the road in my university career. Do I take the fork that leads to a double major in business and economics, or do I stay the narrower course? I can't help but think of some business-related wisdom though. Conglomerates facing lower profitability may be best advised to focus on core competencies rather than buying more profitable subsudiaries. Does that apply to me and the way I take classes? If I focused on my core curriculum, could I do better?
The decision will have an impact on my future. If I want to pursue an MA in future, I need to choose economics. That may be too out of my core area though, which is finance. If I want to earn a CFA someday, I should ignore the economics and take more accounting classes. I'm not really relishing this choice. I don't really know what I want to do, so right now it's my intent to pursue a broad an education as possible, so as to keep my options open. Unfortunately, that means that I'm going to be stuck doing my undergrad for a while yet.
So, I got back another midterm this week. I passed it, but just barely, and only because the prof marked it our of 90 instead of 100. This was in this actuarial mathematics class, and I can just see my grade tanking as I write this. I'm not stupid, or as much of a slacker as I can seem to be. Why can't I do well like I did back in first year? Where did I go wrong?
So, that aside, let me move to something almost as pressing:
Course Selection
So, given that I haven't been able to apply for any co-op jobs, I seem to be resovled to taking classes next semester. Unfortunately, many of them seem to conflict. Plus, I seem to be at a fork in the road in my university career. Do I take the fork that leads to a double major in business and economics, or do I stay the narrower course? I can't help but think of some business-related wisdom though. Conglomerates facing lower profitability may be best advised to focus on core competencies rather than buying more profitable subsudiaries. Does that apply to me and the way I take classes? If I focused on my core curriculum, could I do better?
The decision will have an impact on my future. If I want to pursue an MA in future, I need to choose economics. That may be too out of my core area though, which is finance. If I want to earn a CFA someday, I should ignore the economics and take more accounting classes. I'm not really relishing this choice. I don't really know what I want to do, so right now it's my intent to pursue a broad an education as possible, so as to keep my options open. Unfortunately, that means that I'm going to be stuck doing my undergrad for a while yet.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Optimal Vegging
So, I did a fair bit of vegging this weekend, occasionally interrupted by productivity. I actually finished reading one of my economics textbooks, albeit the shortest one. Is there an optimal amount of vegging in one's life? Well, it depends on preferences. How much does one value leisure compared to other pursuits. I don't have a job, so I can't use it for comparison, but I could compare it with academics. Let's day that one can earn better grades by spending more time studying (probably true). Let us also say that studying yields diminishing returns such that the more one studies, the lower the marginal improvement in grades. Let's also say that there are diminishing returns in leisure as well. The more one slacks off, the less marginal benefit they get from vegging.
... You know what, trying to justify wasting time through economics is silly. In any case, it all boils down to preferences, and I seem to exhibit a strong preference for the immediate gratification that vegging brings compared to the uncertain future benefits that studying would bring. Yeah, I do value good grades, but the return on studying is quite uncertain. Studying entails a lot of risk on my part since the benefits are very much unclear. This is because I have worked hard in past, only to do badly in classes, and other other times, worked very little and down quite well. Actually, the latter is what I experienced mainly in high school.
Actually, this leads into something that I learned in another economics class dealing with economic development. There are five reasons why a society (or maybe an individual will choose not to invest/study):
So, it seems that I waste a lot of time because there are uncertain returns on studying. I would need to spend a lot of time studying to increase my grades a bit, and the benefit is uncertain. Moreover, I'm pretty risk averse, so I go for the certain returns of vegging rather than the uncertain returns of studying. Furthermore, where my CGPA is right now, there isn't a lot of benefit from studying more. I've fallen too far to ever qualify for the Open Scholarship again. Plus, I've already got so many credits under my belt that my previous classes grades weigh very heavily in the calculation of CGPA.
So there you have it. My level of vegging is probably in some sort of competitive equilibrium. Of course, complications could arise. Two potentially unbalancing unlikely scenarios are me finding a job (that would require actually making the effort to apply) and me getting a girlfriend.
R
So, I did a fair bit of vegging this weekend, occasionally interrupted by productivity. I actually finished reading one of my economics textbooks, albeit the shortest one. Is there an optimal amount of vegging in one's life? Well, it depends on preferences. How much does one value leisure compared to other pursuits. I don't have a job, so I can't use it for comparison, but I could compare it with academics. Let's day that one can earn better grades by spending more time studying (probably true). Let us also say that studying yields diminishing returns such that the more one studies, the lower the marginal improvement in grades. Let's also say that there are diminishing returns in leisure as well. The more one slacks off, the less marginal benefit they get from vegging.
... You know what, trying to justify wasting time through economics is silly. In any case, it all boils down to preferences, and I seem to exhibit a strong preference for the immediate gratification that vegging brings compared to the uncertain future benefits that studying would bring. Yeah, I do value good grades, but the return on studying is quite uncertain. Studying entails a lot of risk on my part since the benefits are very much unclear. This is because I have worked hard in past, only to do badly in classes, and other other times, worked very little and down quite well. Actually, the latter is what I experienced mainly in high school.
Actually, this leads into something that I learned in another economics class dealing with economic development. There are five reasons why a society (or maybe an individual will choose not to invest/study):
- No surplus - i.e. no extra time to study because all time is required to be spent on other things.
- Not worth it/no point in investing - i.e. no benefit from higher grades.
- Risk - uncertain gains from investing, high standard deviation from mean outcome.
- Property Rights, or lack thereof
- Financial intermediation, or lack thereof
So, it seems that I waste a lot of time because there are uncertain returns on studying. I would need to spend a lot of time studying to increase my grades a bit, and the benefit is uncertain. Moreover, I'm pretty risk averse, so I go for the certain returns of vegging rather than the uncertain returns of studying. Furthermore, where my CGPA is right now, there isn't a lot of benefit from studying more. I've fallen too far to ever qualify for the Open Scholarship again. Plus, I've already got so many credits under my belt that my previous classes grades weigh very heavily in the calculation of CGPA.
So there you have it. My level of vegging is probably in some sort of competitive equilibrium. Of course, complications could arise. Two potentially unbalancing unlikely scenarios are me finding a job (that would require actually making the effort to apply) and me getting a girlfriend.
R
Saturday, October 16, 2004
The blue bird of unhappiness
Yeah, I know it's a Simpsons' reference. I thought it would capture my mood though. Admittedly, I'm not terribly upset right now, but that's because I had three double vodka and cokes, 4 beers and a cider this evening. I actually feel quite pleasant right now. I think I have a problem though. Sometimes (usually involving large groups of people) in social situations, I get really uptight, which drives me to consume copious amounts of alcohol (with the hopes of loosening up). Fortunately, I don't drink when I'm alone (a rather fruitless endeavour if you as me).
This evening, I went to the orientation leader social, which was a boat cruise. Afterwards I went with a few people to a club. What did I get out of it all? Well, I did learn that the girl I fancied is dating someone. I really only have myself to blame since I didn't ask her out when I had the chance. I guess I can cling to the idea that she's not too tied up with him yet, but I might as well admit my own failure and move on. Other than that, the boat cruise was a bit of a waste of my time. Oh yes, it was good to see my orienation mates, but I didn't really enjoy my time. I was really pensive, inward-looking and taciturn all night. There was Karaoke, and I put myself down to sing "Piano Man" by Billy Joel, but there wasn't enough time. Furthermore, despite consuming two double vodka and cokes, a beer and a cider prior to my arrival, I failed to get drunk at all. Actually, the social reminded me of my high school "formal" in that it was absolutlely meaningless. Endings have little meaning or significance to me apparently.
So, afterwards, I went to a club and made up for my lack of drunkeness at the social by spending piles of cash on cover and drinks. I guess I had a good time. I don't have anything to show for it, but by now I have worn down my hopes and expectations to practically nothing. Moreover, why should I see girls at clubs as anything more than eyecandy? (Thus really unsuitable for me in the long term) Still, it would have been nice to snog some random girl. (Those of you not familiar with the term snog should note that I didn't say shag.) The last time I snogged a girl I didn't know was when I was in Aberdeen. (Ahh! Memories of Scotland!)
So, about the only respectable thing about me right now is my apparent tolerance for alcohol, which may in fact be an object of pity.
Why do I drink?
That is an important question. I think I usually drink to reduce my anxiety in uptight social situations. Sometimes though I think I drink for dipsomanical reasons. I certainly drink sometimes to reduce or dodge the psychological pain of certain situations. Certainly rejection or in the case of tonight, disappointment, drives me to to this. Does it work? Well, despite this pensive post, I'm still upbeat. So, I guess it does help me dodge psychological challenges I really should face head-on.
R
Yeah, I know it's a Simpsons' reference. I thought it would capture my mood though. Admittedly, I'm not terribly upset right now, but that's because I had three double vodka and cokes, 4 beers and a cider this evening. I actually feel quite pleasant right now. I think I have a problem though. Sometimes (usually involving large groups of people) in social situations, I get really uptight, which drives me to consume copious amounts of alcohol (with the hopes of loosening up). Fortunately, I don't drink when I'm alone (a rather fruitless endeavour if you as me).
This evening, I went to the orientation leader social, which was a boat cruise. Afterwards I went with a few people to a club. What did I get out of it all? Well, I did learn that the girl I fancied is dating someone. I really only have myself to blame since I didn't ask her out when I had the chance. I guess I can cling to the idea that she's not too tied up with him yet, but I might as well admit my own failure and move on. Other than that, the boat cruise was a bit of a waste of my time. Oh yes, it was good to see my orienation mates, but I didn't really enjoy my time. I was really pensive, inward-looking and taciturn all night. There was Karaoke, and I put myself down to sing "Piano Man" by Billy Joel, but there wasn't enough time. Furthermore, despite consuming two double vodka and cokes, a beer and a cider prior to my arrival, I failed to get drunk at all. Actually, the social reminded me of my high school "formal" in that it was absolutlely meaningless. Endings have little meaning or significance to me apparently.
So, afterwards, I went to a club and made up for my lack of drunkeness at the social by spending piles of cash on cover and drinks. I guess I had a good time. I don't have anything to show for it, but by now I have worn down my hopes and expectations to practically nothing. Moreover, why should I see girls at clubs as anything more than eyecandy? (Thus really unsuitable for me in the long term) Still, it would have been nice to snog some random girl. (Those of you not familiar with the term snog should note that I didn't say shag.) The last time I snogged a girl I didn't know was when I was in Aberdeen. (Ahh! Memories of Scotland!)
So, about the only respectable thing about me right now is my apparent tolerance for alcohol, which may in fact be an object of pity.
Why do I drink?
That is an important question. I think I usually drink to reduce my anxiety in uptight social situations. Sometimes though I think I drink for dipsomanical reasons. I certainly drink sometimes to reduce or dodge the psychological pain of certain situations. Certainly rejection or in the case of tonight, disappointment, drives me to to this. Does it work? Well, despite this pensive post, I'm still upbeat. So, I guess it does help me dodge psychological challenges I really should face head-on.
R
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Iraq and Justification
Sorry to come back to politics, but I think this needs to be addressed. I admit I was wrong. According to what I've heard about the last report on the Ba'athist weapons programs, there were no weapons. There were some kind of weapons programs, but they were nowhere near to being a threat as long as the sanctions regime remained in place. If the sanctions were removed, Saddam Hussein wished to reacquire WMD, but even then they were to a be deterrent against Iran. So, why the deception? To keep outsiders guessing is my guess. The possible existence of a WMD arsenal gave Iraq leverage on its own.
So where does justification come in? Well, clearly the WMD argument was not justified. Nevertheless, what's done is done, and really the argument about whether it was justified or not, legal or not, is moot. What would knowing whether it was legal or justified actually change on the ground? Nothing. In any case, one must consider whether the sanctions regime could have continued indefinately. I doubt it. Iraq was close to getting them removed thanks to its influence with France, Germany and Russia, all of whom stood to gain valuable oil concessions if the sanctions ended. So, with 20/20 hindsight, I believe I can say that the war was unjustified and there could have been a peaceful solution to the WMD issue. Unfortunately the obstinacy of the American administration and that of the Ba'athist government made this impossible.
This brings me back to my initial justification for the war (that is clearly wrong given the current chaos on the ground) , which was that it made is possible to bring down the sanctions without giving in to Saddam Hussein. Clearly the sanctions, while successful at preventing the return of Iraq's WMD programs, were too harmful for Iraqi citizens. Furthermore, the war could be justified (somewhat) along the lines that Iraq was continually breaking the terms of the treaty they signed at the end of the first war. Lastly, the war allowed the removal of a nasty dictator (though arguably the present chaos is not an improvement). In my opinion, this was a good thing.
So, think what you may. I can admit I was wrong about WMD, but I still think the war didn't have a wholly bad outcome. There was justification on some level. In any case, it's all moot because whether it was justified or not is totally irrelevant to present circumstances.
R
Sorry to come back to politics, but I think this needs to be addressed. I admit I was wrong. According to what I've heard about the last report on the Ba'athist weapons programs, there were no weapons. There were some kind of weapons programs, but they were nowhere near to being a threat as long as the sanctions regime remained in place. If the sanctions were removed, Saddam Hussein wished to reacquire WMD, but even then they were to a be deterrent against Iran. So, why the deception? To keep outsiders guessing is my guess. The possible existence of a WMD arsenal gave Iraq leverage on its own.
So where does justification come in? Well, clearly the WMD argument was not justified. Nevertheless, what's done is done, and really the argument about whether it was justified or not, legal or not, is moot. What would knowing whether it was legal or justified actually change on the ground? Nothing. In any case, one must consider whether the sanctions regime could have continued indefinately. I doubt it. Iraq was close to getting them removed thanks to its influence with France, Germany and Russia, all of whom stood to gain valuable oil concessions if the sanctions ended. So, with 20/20 hindsight, I believe I can say that the war was unjustified and there could have been a peaceful solution to the WMD issue. Unfortunately the obstinacy of the American administration and that of the Ba'athist government made this impossible.
This brings me back to my initial justification for the war (that is clearly wrong given the current chaos on the ground) , which was that it made is possible to bring down the sanctions without giving in to Saddam Hussein. Clearly the sanctions, while successful at preventing the return of Iraq's WMD programs, were too harmful for Iraqi citizens. Furthermore, the war could be justified (somewhat) along the lines that Iraq was continually breaking the terms of the treaty they signed at the end of the first war. Lastly, the war allowed the removal of a nasty dictator (though arguably the present chaos is not an improvement). In my opinion, this was a good thing.
So, think what you may. I can admit I was wrong about WMD, but I still think the war didn't have a wholly bad outcome. There was justification on some level. In any case, it's all moot because whether it was justified or not is totally irrelevant to present circumstances.
R
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
So, will I make a decent manager some day?
Well, if my performance as president of the debating society is any example, the answer is maybe. In past, when no one was willing to help organise it, I did everything. As a result, not a lot got done because I was either too busy, insufficiently skilled or unmotivated. So, this semester is different. I've got a bunch of eager go-getters who volunteered to help. (Mwa ha ha, they know not to what they have committed themselves!) So, I've done an okay job of divesting myself of onerous responsibility by delegating certain tasks. I'm not sure just how clear it is to the executive members. I know if I were in their position, I would want it clearly spelled out what my responsibilities were. I have left the responsibilities deliberately vague in case I need to saddle some of them with extra work. Still, I must resist the urge to micromanage and hope that people know what to do.
So what am I doing? Well, I gave myself mainly the responsibility of liaising with group outside the debating society and the university. This is something I know I can do well. The responsibilities I least fancied in past were preparing advertisements and promoting the club at Clubs Days. (It's really bad if you're the only one organising your table.) I also didn't like being responsible for building a website (I can't do html, though I could probaly learn.) or having to go beg for funding from others like a pariah. So, I delegated all these tasks. I think on some level, I'm really concerned about looking like I'm doing a lot for the club and fulfilling my duties. Appearance counts more than substance. Fortunately, I can't make it appear like I'm being a good president without actually doing some work.
So, getting back to the main question... will I make a good manager? Well, I still lack some important qualities such as: time management skills, networking skills (though I do better if I have a pint in my hand) and sometimes initiave. I can be way too cautious. I guess experience has taught me that caution usually serves me better. Nevertheless, I miss far too many opportunities, and I guess I regret it. I still don't have good time management habits. I never write things down and go by my memory instead. As a result, certain small things invariably end up incomplete. I guess the aforementioned list suggests things I can work on. I haven't set out a strategy for doing these things though... and that reminds me that I would like to review my goals, something I keep putting off.
Cheers!
R
Well, if my performance as president of the debating society is any example, the answer is maybe. In past, when no one was willing to help organise it, I did everything. As a result, not a lot got done because I was either too busy, insufficiently skilled or unmotivated. So, this semester is different. I've got a bunch of eager go-getters who volunteered to help. (Mwa ha ha, they know not to what they have committed themselves!) So, I've done an okay job of divesting myself of onerous responsibility by delegating certain tasks. I'm not sure just how clear it is to the executive members. I know if I were in their position, I would want it clearly spelled out what my responsibilities were. I have left the responsibilities deliberately vague in case I need to saddle some of them with extra work. Still, I must resist the urge to micromanage and hope that people know what to do.
So what am I doing? Well, I gave myself mainly the responsibility of liaising with group outside the debating society and the university. This is something I know I can do well. The responsibilities I least fancied in past were preparing advertisements and promoting the club at Clubs Days. (It's really bad if you're the only one organising your table.) I also didn't like being responsible for building a website (I can't do html, though I could probaly learn.) or having to go beg for funding from others like a pariah. So, I delegated all these tasks. I think on some level, I'm really concerned about looking like I'm doing a lot for the club and fulfilling my duties. Appearance counts more than substance. Fortunately, I can't make it appear like I'm being a good president without actually doing some work.
So, getting back to the main question... will I make a good manager? Well, I still lack some important qualities such as: time management skills, networking skills (though I do better if I have a pint in my hand) and sometimes initiave. I can be way too cautious. I guess experience has taught me that caution usually serves me better. Nevertheless, I miss far too many opportunities, and I guess I regret it. I still don't have good time management habits. I never write things down and go by my memory instead. As a result, certain small things invariably end up incomplete. I guess the aforementioned list suggests things I can work on. I haven't set out a strategy for doing these things though... and that reminds me that I would like to review my goals, something I keep putting off.
Cheers!
R
Friday, September 24, 2004
This Week's List of Things that Suck:
Online job applications
Writing memos in groups of 5+
People with no initiative
Girls who don't get back to you
Girls who are ambiguously not single
Paranoia over expanding waistlines
Bureaucracy
Student loans (or lack thereof)
Rising interest rates
Stress
People who are way too perky (as if they are on amphetimines)
Being too busy to buy groceries
Yeah, they're all pretty much self explanatory. I'm not going into the details, let me just say that I don't fancy getting hoodwinked into doing almost all the work in a group.
Online job applications
Writing memos in groups of 5+
People with no initiative
Girls who don't get back to you
Girls who are ambiguously not single
Paranoia over expanding waistlines
Bureaucracy
Student loans (or lack thereof)
Rising interest rates
Stress
People who are way too perky (as if they are on amphetimines)
Being too busy to buy groceries
Yeah, they're all pretty much self explanatory. I'm not going into the details, let me just say that I don't fancy getting hoodwinked into doing almost all the work in a group.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Okay, so here's what's up. I've given up for now on comments on politics. I never updated this blog all that often anyways. I'm not sure if this will become more of a live journal or just an archive of random thoughts. Time will tell.
So, what's new? Well, I'm back from the UK and about to dive head first into a new semester of uni. Recently, I've been thinking about changing my programme slightly. Given the amount of economics I've been doing lately, I thought it would make sense to change my business major into a joint major of business administration and economics. Apparently though I need to go back and take a 1st year chemistry, physics or biology class to qualify. Well, that's puts a damper on those plans for now. I can't fit some dumb 1st year science class into my schedule. Besides, that would mean I would have to take a Friday class, and I'm quite happy right now keeping Fridays nice and vacant.
Cheers!
R
So, what's new? Well, I'm back from the UK and about to dive head first into a new semester of uni. Recently, I've been thinking about changing my programme slightly. Given the amount of economics I've been doing lately, I thought it would make sense to change my business major into a joint major of business administration and economics. Apparently though I need to go back and take a 1st year chemistry, physics or biology class to qualify. Well, that's puts a damper on those plans for now. I can't fit some dumb 1st year science class into my schedule. Besides, that would mean I would have to take a Friday class, and I'm quite happy right now keeping Fridays nice and vacant.
Cheers!
R
Monday, August 18, 2003
Why the blackout in the northeast is a call for more deregulation, not less
Many people have been quick to blame deregulation of electricity markets for the blackout disaster in the northeast. When I talk about deregulation, I'm really talking about the combination of the loosening of government controls over the industry, and the privatisation of power utilities and grids. Let me just make this disclaimer though. No matter what happens, there is no way to guarantee that another blackout along the lines of what happened last week will not occur again. We cannot predict with absolute certainty that the lights will never go out again.
Many of the media's talking heads and national politicians have blamed a lack of investment in the electricity grid for allowing the blackouts to become so widespread. In some cases, a publicly owned utility operates and owns the electrical grid, and the sources. In others, the powerplants are privately owned, but the grid may be owned by the state, or another private company. In all cases, the same problem occurs. Power generation, and power distribution are cases of natural monopoly. Because of high start-up costs, there are few or no new entrants to the industry. The response to this monopoly position is to regulate the utilities. This makes sense because monopolies free to choose their own price and production will tend to produce less than what the market needs. Unfortunately, the urge is to have average cost pricing which reduces the company's profits to zero, which in turn gives no incentive for the company to reinvest in it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having publicly-owned utilities. The main problem is that the government must stump up the cash to pay for needed upgrades and expansion of the system, which tends to result in higher taxes. Many state, provincial and national governments have become incredibly tightfisted with their budgets, and as a result privatisation has become the only option. At least private investors make their investments willingly. Though, without government subsidies, consumers may appear to face higher prices.
In short, the problem with regards to the blackouts has been that the power grid has not received the necessary infrastructure upgrades, most likely because governments have not been able to afford to upgrade the system, or private utilities have been denied the incentive to make the necessary upgrades because over-regulation has significantly reduced their profits.
More deregulation would entail more privately-owned utilies and a privatised distribution grid, each with the freedom to make profit-maximising investment decisions (and thus the necessary upgrades). More deregulation would also entail less disruption of the energy market with subsidies, and perhaps lower taxes (or at least more money for social programs).
No one wants to pay higher energy prices, but perhaps higher prices are just the kick in the pants that this world needs to be more realistic about energy consumption. People should not pay some lump sum for electricity access. Consumers must be billed by consumption. The costs could be scaled to discourage profligate usage.
Ugh, like all other topics, I hope to get back to this.
Many people have been quick to blame deregulation of electricity markets for the blackout disaster in the northeast. When I talk about deregulation, I'm really talking about the combination of the loosening of government controls over the industry, and the privatisation of power utilities and grids. Let me just make this disclaimer though. No matter what happens, there is no way to guarantee that another blackout along the lines of what happened last week will not occur again. We cannot predict with absolute certainty that the lights will never go out again.
Many of the media's talking heads and national politicians have blamed a lack of investment in the electricity grid for allowing the blackouts to become so widespread. In some cases, a publicly owned utility operates and owns the electrical grid, and the sources. In others, the powerplants are privately owned, but the grid may be owned by the state, or another private company. In all cases, the same problem occurs. Power generation, and power distribution are cases of natural monopoly. Because of high start-up costs, there are few or no new entrants to the industry. The response to this monopoly position is to regulate the utilities. This makes sense because monopolies free to choose their own price and production will tend to produce less than what the market needs. Unfortunately, the urge is to have average cost pricing which reduces the company's profits to zero, which in turn gives no incentive for the company to reinvest in it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having publicly-owned utilities. The main problem is that the government must stump up the cash to pay for needed upgrades and expansion of the system, which tends to result in higher taxes. Many state, provincial and national governments have become incredibly tightfisted with their budgets, and as a result privatisation has become the only option. At least private investors make their investments willingly. Though, without government subsidies, consumers may appear to face higher prices.
In short, the problem with regards to the blackouts has been that the power grid has not received the necessary infrastructure upgrades, most likely because governments have not been able to afford to upgrade the system, or private utilities have been denied the incentive to make the necessary upgrades because over-regulation has significantly reduced their profits.
More deregulation would entail more privately-owned utilies and a privatised distribution grid, each with the freedom to make profit-maximising investment decisions (and thus the necessary upgrades). More deregulation would also entail less disruption of the energy market with subsidies, and perhaps lower taxes (or at least more money for social programs).
No one wants to pay higher energy prices, but perhaps higher prices are just the kick in the pants that this world needs to be more realistic about energy consumption. People should not pay some lump sum for electricity access. Consumers must be billed by consumption. The costs could be scaled to discourage profligate usage.
Ugh, like all other topics, I hope to get back to this.
Monday, July 28, 2003
Should America Intervene in Liberia?
For many people, this seems like a no-brainer. Not faced with the real costs of a troop demployment, it's easy enough to be an armchair general and assume that American should intervene because it's the right thing to do. Amazingly, the argument that it's the right thing to do is probably the strongest one in favour of a deployment in Liberia. I believe that there is reason to be much more cautious about a deployment, but I would still back it.
Why should America intervene? Some people claim that America should intervene because of cultural ties, and because Liberia was founded by freed American slaves. This argument is pretty week in my opinion. Do former colonial powers have obligations to their former dependencies? Most former colonies tend to spurn intervention by their former colonial masters. There is no international law that says so. The existence of such a law would legitimate much more intervention on the part of former colonial powers, and it's probably good that such a law does not exist. America did not cause Liberia's current woes. Charles Taylor brought this upon his country by spurring civil wars in neighbouring countries. Once a colony gains independence, the obligations of the colonial master are practically nullified. The only obligation may be a moral one, which leads to the next argument in favour.
The most vital argument in favour of intervention is that morally, it makes sense. Liberia has been suffering from civil war for years, and it is among the poorest countries in the world. Liberia's long suffering people need intervention to prevent massive bloodshed. The costs versus the benefits would be quite favourable given the number of people who's lives could be saved by a small, but well-equiped intervention force, coupled with humanitarian assistance. An American intervention would likely be successful, especially since unlike many other places, the locals actually WANT them there. A disciplined, and well equiped intervention force could probably beat back the drugged up thugs of both the government and rebel armies.
Why shouldn't America intervene? In the short term, the main argument against intervention is that the situation is way to chaotic to act in a peacekeeping capacity. Also, what would be America's role? Would they be propping up the government? Really, America wants to see Charles Taylor go, so intervening could run counter the long-run interest of Liberians, who would be better off without him. The situation on the ground is very fluid, and ceasefire has been a joke. There is the potential for America's intervention force to get a bloody nose if they meet organised resistance from either the government or the rebels. America does not want to invade. Their role (as they hope) would be to bring security and calm by helping to enforce a ceasefire, and facilitating negociations. For all practical purposes, there will be no intervention without a voluntary ceasefire from both sides. The chance of a lasting ceasefire is fairly low at present, which decreases the likelyhood of American intervention.
Another argument against intervention is that America's interests are not at stake, and they don't need more military expenditure at this point. Paying for military intervention is like pissing on your tax money, and then burning it. Those costs are basically a black hole. Defence planners are already talking about over-extension. For America there would not seem to be any tangible gain from intervention. Liberia has little strategic value, and no strategic resources to keep secure (such as oil). The only gains from intervention would be diplomatic. America could demonstrate some compassion by intervening where their interests are not at stake. This could give them a bit more clout internationally, since America's influence has been changing with their new commitment to unilateralism.
So, should America intervene? My gut says they they should and beat back both sides to ensure humanitarian aid. On the other hand, they could be playing into the hands of Charles Taylor, who could conveniently stay in power, or manipulate things form behind the scenes. Really, Mr. Talyor should be indicted for crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court. What would happen in Liberia if America did intervene? What if they could force Mr. Taylor out? Would they play the kingmaker in Liberia as well? The other thing is that, despite the moral ramifications, it make more practical sense to wait for some calm on the ground. This looks unlikely. Maybe the rebels can take the capital and oust Charles Taylor. What will happen then? God knows!
For many people, this seems like a no-brainer. Not faced with the real costs of a troop demployment, it's easy enough to be an armchair general and assume that American should intervene because it's the right thing to do. Amazingly, the argument that it's the right thing to do is probably the strongest one in favour of a deployment in Liberia. I believe that there is reason to be much more cautious about a deployment, but I would still back it.
Why should America intervene? Some people claim that America should intervene because of cultural ties, and because Liberia was founded by freed American slaves. This argument is pretty week in my opinion. Do former colonial powers have obligations to their former dependencies? Most former colonies tend to spurn intervention by their former colonial masters. There is no international law that says so. The existence of such a law would legitimate much more intervention on the part of former colonial powers, and it's probably good that such a law does not exist. America did not cause Liberia's current woes. Charles Taylor brought this upon his country by spurring civil wars in neighbouring countries. Once a colony gains independence, the obligations of the colonial master are practically nullified. The only obligation may be a moral one, which leads to the next argument in favour.
The most vital argument in favour of intervention is that morally, it makes sense. Liberia has been suffering from civil war for years, and it is among the poorest countries in the world. Liberia's long suffering people need intervention to prevent massive bloodshed. The costs versus the benefits would be quite favourable given the number of people who's lives could be saved by a small, but well-equiped intervention force, coupled with humanitarian assistance. An American intervention would likely be successful, especially since unlike many other places, the locals actually WANT them there. A disciplined, and well equiped intervention force could probably beat back the drugged up thugs of both the government and rebel armies.
Why shouldn't America intervene? In the short term, the main argument against intervention is that the situation is way to chaotic to act in a peacekeeping capacity. Also, what would be America's role? Would they be propping up the government? Really, America wants to see Charles Taylor go, so intervening could run counter the long-run interest of Liberians, who would be better off without him. The situation on the ground is very fluid, and ceasefire has been a joke. There is the potential for America's intervention force to get a bloody nose if they meet organised resistance from either the government or the rebels. America does not want to invade. Their role (as they hope) would be to bring security and calm by helping to enforce a ceasefire, and facilitating negociations. For all practical purposes, there will be no intervention without a voluntary ceasefire from both sides. The chance of a lasting ceasefire is fairly low at present, which decreases the likelyhood of American intervention.
Another argument against intervention is that America's interests are not at stake, and they don't need more military expenditure at this point. Paying for military intervention is like pissing on your tax money, and then burning it. Those costs are basically a black hole. Defence planners are already talking about over-extension. For America there would not seem to be any tangible gain from intervention. Liberia has little strategic value, and no strategic resources to keep secure (such as oil). The only gains from intervention would be diplomatic. America could demonstrate some compassion by intervening where their interests are not at stake. This could give them a bit more clout internationally, since America's influence has been changing with their new commitment to unilateralism.
So, should America intervene? My gut says they they should and beat back both sides to ensure humanitarian aid. On the other hand, they could be playing into the hands of Charles Taylor, who could conveniently stay in power, or manipulate things form behind the scenes. Really, Mr. Talyor should be indicted for crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court. What would happen in Liberia if America did intervene? What if they could force Mr. Taylor out? Would they play the kingmaker in Liberia as well? The other thing is that, despite the moral ramifications, it make more practical sense to wait for some calm on the ground. This looks unlikely. Maybe the rebels can take the capital and oust Charles Taylor. What will happen then? God knows!
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Does the US State Department need reform?
This entry is meant to be a reflection of the article entitled "Rogue State Department" by Newt Gingrich in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy. Reading the article will help make sense of what's in this entry.
Mr. Gingrich starts the article with an attempt to blame the ill will faced by America on the international level on the US State Department. I do not believe this is true though. As an outsider, I encounter the opinions of non-Americans all the time. Granted, much of the criticism heaped on America is unjustified, and downright ignorant. Most commonly, I hear people say that they have nothing against America or its people per se, they are only peeved at the policies of the American government. Take for example, the relationship between Canada and the United States. In the past few years, Canada/US relations have been strained by a number of rows over trade and foreign policy. American farm subsidies, steel tariffs, the softwood lumber trade dispute, the ban on the import of Canadian beef have all earned the ire of Canadians in one way or another. Let's be honest, is there ANYTHING that the US State Department could possibly do to make these measures palatable to Canadians? The example of Canada/US relations is a microcosm for America's relationship with the rest of the world. Non-Americans view the rhetoric out of the Washington through the lens of their own interest. The role of the US State Department seems to be to foster and improve relations with other countries. To fulfill this role, the diplomats in the department need to be non-ideological. Dogmatic ideology tends to impede pleasant relations between countries. "Process, Politeness and Accomodation" are part and parcel to fulfilling the State Department's role.
For a great caricature of the State Department's role, watch the Simpson's episode Bart vs. Australia, in which Bart's prank call leads him to be forced, by the State Department, to apologise to Australia for his disrespectful actions. A comparison could be made between the administration and the Simpsons. When Bart is to be booted, Homer is shocked by the use of corporal punishment, while the State Department representative urges him to respect "Australia's cultural tradition". This really goes to the heart of Mr. Gingrich's criticism of the State Department, which in his opinion seems to value accommodation over principle. Of course, the problem on the Simpsons' side (and perhaps the side of the American administration) is ignorance and insensitivity, while the problem on the State Department's side is the willingness to sacrifice values.
In my opinion, the main source of anger against America is the administrations's insensitivity towards the interests of other countries. I don't blame the administration for doing what is in America's best interest; after all, that is why it is there. If the administration wishes to foster better relations with other countries though, it must take the interests of those countries (or at least the governments of those countries) into account. On the most part though, these relations do not matter, and there is no way to make the ill sentiments of outsiders impact the administration. Only the sentiments of Americans matter because they vote, and outsiders do not. Furthermore, marginal votes are worth more than non-marginal votes. With America divided 50/50 in the last presidential election, the votes of swing voters such as farmers, steelworkers and timberworkers become much more valuable. This is why the administration, and politicians in general, must pander to these groups. Do the French elect the US President? Of course not. That is why their opinion does not matter to the administration.
Of course, the real issue in Mr. Gingrich's article is that the State Department is out of synch with the rest of the administration, and that some serious inertia has set in. Mr. Gingrich is probably right in that other countries receive mixed messages from the US State Department's diplomats and from the mouth of the administration. He is also probably right in saying that there is some serious inertia in the department. Like most government bureaucracies, the bureaucrats themselves work to protect their own turf and interests. Change is usually not welcome. This in and of itself is a good argument for reforming the State Department, and for Mr. Gingrich's plan of cycling its bureaucrats through other parts of the administration to give them perspective.
In this post Cold-War era, the greatest check against American ideologicalness - the Soviet Union, no longer exists. During the Cold War, America was forced to cooperate with its allies in Europe , and its proxies elsewhere, to achieve a common defence against Communism. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, America could tolerate associating with unsavoury governments, and propping up tin-pot dictatorships. Without the spectre of a second superpower though, America's estwhile allies are much less useful. Is it any wonder that the ideologues are out in force in this administration? In some ways, the State Department is still stuck in Cold War mode. Mr. Gingrich makes a useful observation that with news available 24 hours a day, the nature of departmental communication needs to change to reflect the new environment. The ease and speed of information acquisition undoubtably introduces new challenges to the dissemination of policy statements by the administration and the State Department.
Would bringing the State Department more under the boot of the administration really help? Well, it would probably reduce the policy confusion between what it says, and what the administration says. On the other hand, it would be expected that the "new and improved" US State Department would mirror the ideological bent of the rest of the administration, much to the frustration of outsiders. Also, reforming the State Department would do nothing to eliminate the hypocracy of certain American policies that draw the ire of non-Americans.
In short, the State Department may need some significant reform, but not for the all the reasons that Mr. Gingrich states. He points to America's negative image abroad and blames it on State Department bungling. America's negative image is more a reflection of how far the differences between America and its allies are emphasised by critics, and how outsiders do not see common interest with the policies of the administration. The administration itself could use a hard dose of respect for the interests of other countries. Domestic interests too often (at least in the opinion of non-Americans) trump long-term foreign policy interests, which can result in policy confusion. Of course, what happens when one's foreign partners or enemies are ideological, such as Germany during the Iraq war controversy, or left-wing NGOs? Will any amount of reform in the State Department make a difference?
Perhaps, I can address this issue in more depth in future.
This entry is meant to be a reflection of the article entitled "Rogue State Department" by Newt Gingrich in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy. Reading the article will help make sense of what's in this entry.
Mr. Gingrich starts the article with an attempt to blame the ill will faced by America on the international level on the US State Department. I do not believe this is true though. As an outsider, I encounter the opinions of non-Americans all the time. Granted, much of the criticism heaped on America is unjustified, and downright ignorant. Most commonly, I hear people say that they have nothing against America or its people per se, they are only peeved at the policies of the American government. Take for example, the relationship between Canada and the United States. In the past few years, Canada/US relations have been strained by a number of rows over trade and foreign policy. American farm subsidies, steel tariffs, the softwood lumber trade dispute, the ban on the import of Canadian beef have all earned the ire of Canadians in one way or another. Let's be honest, is there ANYTHING that the US State Department could possibly do to make these measures palatable to Canadians? The example of Canada/US relations is a microcosm for America's relationship with the rest of the world. Non-Americans view the rhetoric out of the Washington through the lens of their own interest. The role of the US State Department seems to be to foster and improve relations with other countries. To fulfill this role, the diplomats in the department need to be non-ideological. Dogmatic ideology tends to impede pleasant relations between countries. "Process, Politeness and Accomodation" are part and parcel to fulfilling the State Department's role.
For a great caricature of the State Department's role, watch the Simpson's episode Bart vs. Australia, in which Bart's prank call leads him to be forced, by the State Department, to apologise to Australia for his disrespectful actions. A comparison could be made between the administration and the Simpsons. When Bart is to be booted, Homer is shocked by the use of corporal punishment, while the State Department representative urges him to respect "Australia's cultural tradition". This really goes to the heart of Mr. Gingrich's criticism of the State Department, which in his opinion seems to value accommodation over principle. Of course, the problem on the Simpsons' side (and perhaps the side of the American administration) is ignorance and insensitivity, while the problem on the State Department's side is the willingness to sacrifice values.
In my opinion, the main source of anger against America is the administrations's insensitivity towards the interests of other countries. I don't blame the administration for doing what is in America's best interest; after all, that is why it is there. If the administration wishes to foster better relations with other countries though, it must take the interests of those countries (or at least the governments of those countries) into account. On the most part though, these relations do not matter, and there is no way to make the ill sentiments of outsiders impact the administration. Only the sentiments of Americans matter because they vote, and outsiders do not. Furthermore, marginal votes are worth more than non-marginal votes. With America divided 50/50 in the last presidential election, the votes of swing voters such as farmers, steelworkers and timberworkers become much more valuable. This is why the administration, and politicians in general, must pander to these groups. Do the French elect the US President? Of course not. That is why their opinion does not matter to the administration.
Of course, the real issue in Mr. Gingrich's article is that the State Department is out of synch with the rest of the administration, and that some serious inertia has set in. Mr. Gingrich is probably right in that other countries receive mixed messages from the US State Department's diplomats and from the mouth of the administration. He is also probably right in saying that there is some serious inertia in the department. Like most government bureaucracies, the bureaucrats themselves work to protect their own turf and interests. Change is usually not welcome. This in and of itself is a good argument for reforming the State Department, and for Mr. Gingrich's plan of cycling its bureaucrats through other parts of the administration to give them perspective.
In this post Cold-War era, the greatest check against American ideologicalness - the Soviet Union, no longer exists. During the Cold War, America was forced to cooperate with its allies in Europe , and its proxies elsewhere, to achieve a common defence against Communism. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, America could tolerate associating with unsavoury governments, and propping up tin-pot dictatorships. Without the spectre of a second superpower though, America's estwhile allies are much less useful. Is it any wonder that the ideologues are out in force in this administration? In some ways, the State Department is still stuck in Cold War mode. Mr. Gingrich makes a useful observation that with news available 24 hours a day, the nature of departmental communication needs to change to reflect the new environment. The ease and speed of information acquisition undoubtably introduces new challenges to the dissemination of policy statements by the administration and the State Department.
Would bringing the State Department more under the boot of the administration really help? Well, it would probably reduce the policy confusion between what it says, and what the administration says. On the other hand, it would be expected that the "new and improved" US State Department would mirror the ideological bent of the rest of the administration, much to the frustration of outsiders. Also, reforming the State Department would do nothing to eliminate the hypocracy of certain American policies that draw the ire of non-Americans.
In short, the State Department may need some significant reform, but not for the all the reasons that Mr. Gingrich states. He points to America's negative image abroad and blames it on State Department bungling. America's negative image is more a reflection of how far the differences between America and its allies are emphasised by critics, and how outsiders do not see common interest with the policies of the administration. The administration itself could use a hard dose of respect for the interests of other countries. Domestic interests too often (at least in the opinion of non-Americans) trump long-term foreign policy interests, which can result in policy confusion. Of course, what happens when one's foreign partners or enemies are ideological, such as Germany during the Iraq war controversy, or left-wing NGOs? Will any amount of reform in the State Department make a difference?
Perhaps, I can address this issue in more depth in future.
Friday, June 20, 2003
Iraq's Post War Settlement (or Lack Thereof)
Why can't America deliver on its promises in Iraq? Why was the war less than a month long, and two months later things have barely improved? Firstly let me say that my view has been skewed by the biased coverage delivered by just about every news agency. America's failure makes interesting news, so naturally, there's plenty of coverage. Of course, they can't be all wrong. Unfortunately, positive outcomes are rarely newsworthy.
Much as I hate to defend the Americans, sometimes it can be fun to play the devil's advocate. I'm hoping that this will outline some of the reasons why Iraq is still lawless, and some reasons why perhaps America should be given some slack (for now).
1) America's plan for the end game was not fully developed before the war
The old adage says, never count your chickens before they hatch. There was some talk of the post-war settlement from the administration prior to the war, but much of it came off as pre-war bluster. Perhaps some of it was. Some were urging the administration to make such plans before the war, while others were shocked by the arrogance of such talk since they believed that there would be a long war. WWII may provide some useful perspective on how to plan the end game, but let us recall that the allies had plenty of time in which to hash out their plans. None of the powers had post-war plans prior to the outbreak of war. In that sense, it's not so unusual that America's post-war plans have been so haphazard.
2) Bureaucratic Overlap and Competing Jurisdictions
Who is really in charge? America's civilian administrators or the military? Technically the administrators are in charge, but there must undoubtably be friction between the soldiers and the administrators. What about the body in charge of the reconstruction? How do they fit into the grand scheme of things? Perhaps Iraq should have been placed under the direct rule of a military proconsul. At least then one would know who's in charge.
3) Lack of money
America has committed considerable sums of money for the reconstruction of Iraq, though the provisional administration always seems to be short of cash. They need money to pay civil servants, and to administer public services. The problem is mostly that money is not finding its way to the right places at the right times. Going back to problem 2, it's not like the civilian adminstration in Iraq can appropriate military helicopters or transports for their use, at least not very easily. Without a functional banking system in Iraq, the problem is only exacerbated.
4) Failure to use local resources
In the rush to administer Iraq after the war, America has probably ignored a number of opportunities for confidence-building measures. This problem has a cultural dimension to it. American administrators are trying to do things in an American fashion. They are not thinking like Arabs, Iraqis, or Muslims. Why doesn't America cooperate more with Shia clerics? (Perhaps out of fear they they may seize political power) Right now, the clerics are providing the most visible source of order, albeit sometimes intolerant order. Aparently America would rather see chaos in Iraq rather than cleric-imposed order. Furthermore, America has failed to use residual institutions from Saddam's regime since they fired all the Ba'athist bureaucrats and dissolved the Iraqi military. While there is justification for this because of suspicion of disloyaly and collusion with the Saddam's remaining resistance. In any case, America could have made much better use of local institutions and resources.
5) Intrigue by foreign powers
Iran is probably the most guilty in this case. This is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but it is believed that Iran's Ayatollahs control certain factions within the Shia population in Iraq, and have been using their influence to stymie America's efforts.
6) Remnants of the Old Regime
Saddam Hussein and his cronies had a lot of time to come up with a contingency plan for if and when they would be ousted. Undoubtably this is why Saddam has not been found. Part of such a contingency plan probably included plans to stymie the post-war settlement, and to set the scene for the return of the old regime.
7) Short Attention-Span
With the war over, Americans can go back to focusing on other things and let the administrators deal with things. Without the attention of the media, or at least diminished attention, the process of the post war-settlement can get away with moving slowly. The Bush administration itself is largly ignoring developments in Iraq except for the odd sound-bite indicating the capture of some member of Saddam's regime. The administration has moved Iraq to a lower priority since the war ended.
8) Unrealistic Expectations
This applies not to the administration in Iraq or in the White House (though I'm certain that the argument could be made). I'm talking about us, the armchair administrators. We're free to criticize all we want without knowing a thing about what's happening on the ground in Iraq. Two months after the war ended, many expected Iraq to be far along the road to recovery. The only reason that Iraq's situation seems bad is because we expect the situation to get better immediately. I would contend that our belief in a fast reconstruction is not based on empirical experience, or any logic at all. We have no reason to believe that Iraq's situation can be dramatically improved in two months. It's easy to have such expectations because we are, on the most part, ignorant of the actual situation, and we have no sense of the difficulty of establishing a new government in a country that presently lacks one, and no party is strong enough to impose itself (especially since the Americans do not want impose because that would seem like imperialism). There are some bases for comparison such as Japan after WWII. However, that reconstration took a considerable amount of time, much more than 2 months.
So, let us all be a bit more patient and try to make our expectations more realistic. I would also ask, could any other country do any better? Before rushing to criticise America, please consider whether anyone else could do any better. Could you if you were in charge? Everyone likes to think yes, but the answer is probably no. Many a country has a good repuation with regards to development, and development projects, but few have every had the obligation to create a new regime. So please, cut back on the vociferous criticism if you can't prove that you could do any better.
Why can't America deliver on its promises in Iraq? Why was the war less than a month long, and two months later things have barely improved? Firstly let me say that my view has been skewed by the biased coverage delivered by just about every news agency. America's failure makes interesting news, so naturally, there's plenty of coverage. Of course, they can't be all wrong. Unfortunately, positive outcomes are rarely newsworthy.
Much as I hate to defend the Americans, sometimes it can be fun to play the devil's advocate. I'm hoping that this will outline some of the reasons why Iraq is still lawless, and some reasons why perhaps America should be given some slack (for now).
1) America's plan for the end game was not fully developed before the war
The old adage says, never count your chickens before they hatch. There was some talk of the post-war settlement from the administration prior to the war, but much of it came off as pre-war bluster. Perhaps some of it was. Some were urging the administration to make such plans before the war, while others were shocked by the arrogance of such talk since they believed that there would be a long war. WWII may provide some useful perspective on how to plan the end game, but let us recall that the allies had plenty of time in which to hash out their plans. None of the powers had post-war plans prior to the outbreak of war. In that sense, it's not so unusual that America's post-war plans have been so haphazard.
2) Bureaucratic Overlap and Competing Jurisdictions
Who is really in charge? America's civilian administrators or the military? Technically the administrators are in charge, but there must undoubtably be friction between the soldiers and the administrators. What about the body in charge of the reconstruction? How do they fit into the grand scheme of things? Perhaps Iraq should have been placed under the direct rule of a military proconsul. At least then one would know who's in charge.
3) Lack of money
America has committed considerable sums of money for the reconstruction of Iraq, though the provisional administration always seems to be short of cash. They need money to pay civil servants, and to administer public services. The problem is mostly that money is not finding its way to the right places at the right times. Going back to problem 2, it's not like the civilian adminstration in Iraq can appropriate military helicopters or transports for their use, at least not very easily. Without a functional banking system in Iraq, the problem is only exacerbated.
4) Failure to use local resources
In the rush to administer Iraq after the war, America has probably ignored a number of opportunities for confidence-building measures. This problem has a cultural dimension to it. American administrators are trying to do things in an American fashion. They are not thinking like Arabs, Iraqis, or Muslims. Why doesn't America cooperate more with Shia clerics? (Perhaps out of fear they they may seize political power) Right now, the clerics are providing the most visible source of order, albeit sometimes intolerant order. Aparently America would rather see chaos in Iraq rather than cleric-imposed order. Furthermore, America has failed to use residual institutions from Saddam's regime since they fired all the Ba'athist bureaucrats and dissolved the Iraqi military. While there is justification for this because of suspicion of disloyaly and collusion with the Saddam's remaining resistance. In any case, America could have made much better use of local institutions and resources.
5) Intrigue by foreign powers
Iran is probably the most guilty in this case. This is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but it is believed that Iran's Ayatollahs control certain factions within the Shia population in Iraq, and have been using their influence to stymie America's efforts.
6) Remnants of the Old Regime
Saddam Hussein and his cronies had a lot of time to come up with a contingency plan for if and when they would be ousted. Undoubtably this is why Saddam has not been found. Part of such a contingency plan probably included plans to stymie the post-war settlement, and to set the scene for the return of the old regime.
7) Short Attention-Span
With the war over, Americans can go back to focusing on other things and let the administrators deal with things. Without the attention of the media, or at least diminished attention, the process of the post war-settlement can get away with moving slowly. The Bush administration itself is largly ignoring developments in Iraq except for the odd sound-bite indicating the capture of some member of Saddam's regime. The administration has moved Iraq to a lower priority since the war ended.
8) Unrealistic Expectations
This applies not to the administration in Iraq or in the White House (though I'm certain that the argument could be made). I'm talking about us, the armchair administrators. We're free to criticize all we want without knowing a thing about what's happening on the ground in Iraq. Two months after the war ended, many expected Iraq to be far along the road to recovery. The only reason that Iraq's situation seems bad is because we expect the situation to get better immediately. I would contend that our belief in a fast reconstruction is not based on empirical experience, or any logic at all. We have no reason to believe that Iraq's situation can be dramatically improved in two months. It's easy to have such expectations because we are, on the most part, ignorant of the actual situation, and we have no sense of the difficulty of establishing a new government in a country that presently lacks one, and no party is strong enough to impose itself (especially since the Americans do not want impose because that would seem like imperialism). There are some bases for comparison such as Japan after WWII. However, that reconstration took a considerable amount of time, much more than 2 months.
So, let us all be a bit more patient and try to make our expectations more realistic. I would also ask, could any other country do any better? Before rushing to criticise America, please consider whether anyone else could do any better. Could you if you were in charge? Everyone likes to think yes, but the answer is probably no. Many a country has a good repuation with regards to development, and development projects, but few have every had the obligation to create a new regime. So please, cut back on the vociferous criticism if you can't prove that you could do any better.
Thursday, May 29, 2003
The Maturity of the Environmental Movement
Before I start, I must first of all claim that I have no real first hand knowledge of the environmental movement. This blog entry is merely an expression of my observations and experiences. I have no credentials to back any of my statements beyond the fact that I have lived in this contemporary North American culture since the early 1980s. That in mind, please remember that this is all an expression of opinion.
Why do I prefix my blog entry with a badly formed disclaimer? It is my observation that discussions about environmental protection and policy arouse strong emotions. Readers may get the wrong impression of me as if I am some sort of authority on the subject, which I am not.
First of all, I would like to say that I grew up with environmentalism. We all did, at least those in my generation. We were socialised in school to care about issues like "the rainforest", ozone depletion, recycling, and other major environmental causes. In a sense, we are all environmentalists now, at least by the standards of where the movement was when I was a child. Now, I doubt that I can claim to be an environmentalist, and that does bother me. To be branded as not an environmentalist implies that I do not care about the environment, and that I must be a stooge of the coporate mainstream. It doesn't help that I'm studying business administration. For the record though, I do care about the environment and environmental issues, but I'm no hardcore firebrand corporate basher.
Why am I bringing up this issue? Well, tonight I watched en episode of South Park (don't laugh, I'm serious) that caricatured the environmental movement in several humourous, and perhaps unjustified ways. You can read the script of the episode here (don't forget to say no to the nasty software download). In celebration of Earth Day, the Earth Day Brainwashing Organisation is hosting the Earth Day Brainwashing Festival in South Park. The organisers were forcing the grade 4 class to help set up the venue for the festival. Later to scare Kyle, Cartman, Stan and Kenny into following on what they had promised to do, the organisers started hacking off Kenny's limbs with a cleaver. In my opinion, this was going a bit far. In any case, the environmental movement is caricatured in the episode as brainwashing people, exploiting children to achieve their ends, and valuing the environment over human life. On the surface, there is no justification for this, though I believe this demonstrates something about environmentalism. The movement has matured. People are now more willing to criticise the movement, though most such critics remain at the fringes, or are part of right-wing political parties. Even then, many people on the right wing have accepted the core idea that the environment in which we live cannot be taken for granted. Does the environmental brainwash? Well no more so than any other lobbying group that runs publicity in the media. Does the environmental movement emxploit children? Well, exploiting children as manual labour is going a bit far, but much of the publicity (some might call propaganda) about environmentalism is tailored for children. The fact is that many of us grew up being socialised to think a certain way on environmental issues. Does the environmental movement value the environment over human life? That's debatable, though in my opinion, some environmentalists value the environment over human welfare (from an ecnonomics perspective).
I don't know the history of the environmental movement. In my opinion though, it has achieved a certain level of maturity. I believe that the environmental movement, as we know it today was born in the 1960s. Since then it has moved from a fringe movement to mainstream. Despite claims by its adherents to the contrary, environmentalism is mainstream, and it has matured. In some ways, environmentalism is like a religion, though much less centralised. The aim of environmentalism is the salvation of the earth, and its inhabitants. The Christianity is the salvation of humanity. Environmentalism can be dogmatic, though no central authority dictates what the environmental doctrine is. Environmental dogma is developed by the researchers that study environmental science. Religious dogma has tended to be developed by researchers that study theology. Environmentalists use guilt to change people's behaviour and achieve the aims of the environmental movement. Some may accuse the Catholic church of the same thing. Proponents of environmentalism have demonstrated the will to punish members of the movement that do not follow the dogma (such as Bjorn Lomborg, writer of The Sceptical Environmentalist). Do I even need to mention excommunication?
While the comparison between environmentalism and religion is amusing, it doesn't really demonstrate the maturity of the environmental movement. Let me try to set out some anecdotal evidence. The focus of environmentalism when I was in grade school seemed to be preservation. We needed to save the pandas, the whales, the white rhino, the elephants, and all the other highly visible animal species. There was also a focus on conservation of resources such as water, minerals, forests, and energy. This led to another focus: pollution reduction. Today, the focus is no just on individual species, but the entire biomass and its diversity. The focus on conservation and pollution reduction still holds, but new foci have been added such as the push to reduce carbon emissions, and sustainable development. This doesn't really demonstrate maturity, but it does show that the scope of the movement has increased from species-specific action to a more wholistic view of the entire biomass. Is the movement suffering from inertia though? If that were true, then the movement would definately be mature. Inertia (roughly speaking) is a state of an organisation in which decisions tend to follow those made historically with little deviation, and is demonstrated by an inability to innovate. This is difficult to prove. I'm afraid that I do not know enough about the environmental movement to make this case. I would like to point out a divergence in the movement though. A core group of environmentalists continues as always with the same anti-business, anti-industrial, historical view. Others are exploring the possibilities of working with business to achieve what environmental protection they can. In some ways this is similar to the split between communists and social democrats. The social democrats couldn't wait for some messianic revolution, and took to promulgating their policies through the ballot-box. This new wing of the environmental movement involves not just scientists and activists, but also economists and policy experts. I think of these people more as resource and environment managers. They seek to find out what policies by governments and businesses can ensure proper management of the environment.
I believe another issue with regards to the maturity of the movement is that now has a number of victories under its belt. Unfortunately, these tend to be overlooked as the focus is placed on unresolved environmental issues. Furthermore, old views tend to continue to be expressed long after the issue has passed. For example, the Montreal Accord of 1987 has signed by 43 countries, and its aim was to eliminate the use of Ozone-depleting CFCs. 16 years later, we see that this was pretty much a success. Despite lingering misinformation to the contrary, CFCs have largely disappeared as an issue. CFCs are no longer suppsed to be used in aerosol containers, air conditioners or refridgeration units. The whole in the ozone layer, to the best of my knowledge is slowly getting smaller. On a much smaller scale, environmentalists successfuly pushed for polution reduction in North America's great lakes. I don't know the actual state of affairs, but as far as I know, the conditions in the great lakes have been imrpoving. I think that PCB, dioxin and heavy metal concentration levels have been dropping. The issue of acid rain has diminished as it has been (as far as I know) proven to be less harmful than it was feared. The acidification of northern Ontario's lakes has been combatted.
So what is the future of the environmental movement? This is all just speculation, but since I believe that the movement has matured, I expect some amount of inertia. The activists will continue their present tactics for better of for worse. Perhaps some discreditation will come their way (if that has not already happened. In any case, I expect that environmenal issues, some of them at least, will become more open for debate, and less black ane white as many are placed now. I'm glad that there has been debate about the Kyoto Protocol. While agitation will continue, energy production will slowly become more efficient. Industrial processes will be tweaked, and perhaps redesigned to reduce waste. Ultimately, technology and increased efficiency will ensure salvation from climate change, not reducing production (and human welfare by extension). In the rush to achieve a hydrogen society (a pipe dream perhaps), it is important to not ignore incremental changes with regards to internal combustion. Increasing fuel efficiency is an important step. Dreamers may think that fuel cells can be adopted overnight, but that is not true. The right incentives must be available to coax people into the right decision. Also, expect big oil, to remain big oil. Hydrogen will probably be more easily and cheaply acquired from hydrocarbons than solar-powered electrolysis. That said, expect dirty energy to linger. Coal will continue to be important as new technology makes it cleaner. As fewer people use coal, the price will fall, which will keep it competitive. I guess I can sum it all up by saying, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Whew! There are many unresolved issues. Like everything else I say, I hope to revisit this.
Comments? E-mail me at icy_caina@nospamhere.yahoo.ca (remove nospamhere if you want to reach me).
Before I start, I must first of all claim that I have no real first hand knowledge of the environmental movement. This blog entry is merely an expression of my observations and experiences. I have no credentials to back any of my statements beyond the fact that I have lived in this contemporary North American culture since the early 1980s. That in mind, please remember that this is all an expression of opinion.
Why do I prefix my blog entry with a badly formed disclaimer? It is my observation that discussions about environmental protection and policy arouse strong emotions. Readers may get the wrong impression of me as if I am some sort of authority on the subject, which I am not.
First of all, I would like to say that I grew up with environmentalism. We all did, at least those in my generation. We were socialised in school to care about issues like "the rainforest", ozone depletion, recycling, and other major environmental causes. In a sense, we are all environmentalists now, at least by the standards of where the movement was when I was a child. Now, I doubt that I can claim to be an environmentalist, and that does bother me. To be branded as not an environmentalist implies that I do not care about the environment, and that I must be a stooge of the coporate mainstream. It doesn't help that I'm studying business administration. For the record though, I do care about the environment and environmental issues, but I'm no hardcore firebrand corporate basher.
Why am I bringing up this issue? Well, tonight I watched en episode of South Park (don't laugh, I'm serious) that caricatured the environmental movement in several humourous, and perhaps unjustified ways. You can read the script of the episode here (don't forget to say no to the nasty software download). In celebration of Earth Day, the Earth Day Brainwashing Organisation is hosting the Earth Day Brainwashing Festival in South Park. The organisers were forcing the grade 4 class to help set up the venue for the festival. Later to scare Kyle, Cartman, Stan and Kenny into following on what they had promised to do, the organisers started hacking off Kenny's limbs with a cleaver. In my opinion, this was going a bit far. In any case, the environmental movement is caricatured in the episode as brainwashing people, exploiting children to achieve their ends, and valuing the environment over human life. On the surface, there is no justification for this, though I believe this demonstrates something about environmentalism. The movement has matured. People are now more willing to criticise the movement, though most such critics remain at the fringes, or are part of right-wing political parties. Even then, many people on the right wing have accepted the core idea that the environment in which we live cannot be taken for granted. Does the environmental brainwash? Well no more so than any other lobbying group that runs publicity in the media. Does the environmental movement emxploit children? Well, exploiting children as manual labour is going a bit far, but much of the publicity (some might call propaganda) about environmentalism is tailored for children. The fact is that many of us grew up being socialised to think a certain way on environmental issues. Does the environmental movement value the environment over human life? That's debatable, though in my opinion, some environmentalists value the environment over human welfare (from an ecnonomics perspective).
I don't know the history of the environmental movement. In my opinion though, it has achieved a certain level of maturity. I believe that the environmental movement, as we know it today was born in the 1960s. Since then it has moved from a fringe movement to mainstream. Despite claims by its adherents to the contrary, environmentalism is mainstream, and it has matured. In some ways, environmentalism is like a religion, though much less centralised. The aim of environmentalism is the salvation of the earth, and its inhabitants. The Christianity is the salvation of humanity. Environmentalism can be dogmatic, though no central authority dictates what the environmental doctrine is. Environmental dogma is developed by the researchers that study environmental science. Religious dogma has tended to be developed by researchers that study theology. Environmentalists use guilt to change people's behaviour and achieve the aims of the environmental movement. Some may accuse the Catholic church of the same thing. Proponents of environmentalism have demonstrated the will to punish members of the movement that do not follow the dogma (such as Bjorn Lomborg, writer of The Sceptical Environmentalist). Do I even need to mention excommunication?
While the comparison between environmentalism and religion is amusing, it doesn't really demonstrate the maturity of the environmental movement. Let me try to set out some anecdotal evidence. The focus of environmentalism when I was in grade school seemed to be preservation. We needed to save the pandas, the whales, the white rhino, the elephants, and all the other highly visible animal species. There was also a focus on conservation of resources such as water, minerals, forests, and energy. This led to another focus: pollution reduction. Today, the focus is no just on individual species, but the entire biomass and its diversity. The focus on conservation and pollution reduction still holds, but new foci have been added such as the push to reduce carbon emissions, and sustainable development. This doesn't really demonstrate maturity, but it does show that the scope of the movement has increased from species-specific action to a more wholistic view of the entire biomass. Is the movement suffering from inertia though? If that were true, then the movement would definately be mature. Inertia (roughly speaking) is a state of an organisation in which decisions tend to follow those made historically with little deviation, and is demonstrated by an inability to innovate. This is difficult to prove. I'm afraid that I do not know enough about the environmental movement to make this case. I would like to point out a divergence in the movement though. A core group of environmentalists continues as always with the same anti-business, anti-industrial, historical view. Others are exploring the possibilities of working with business to achieve what environmental protection they can. In some ways this is similar to the split between communists and social democrats. The social democrats couldn't wait for some messianic revolution, and took to promulgating their policies through the ballot-box. This new wing of the environmental movement involves not just scientists and activists, but also economists and policy experts. I think of these people more as resource and environment managers. They seek to find out what policies by governments and businesses can ensure proper management of the environment.
I believe another issue with regards to the maturity of the movement is that now has a number of victories under its belt. Unfortunately, these tend to be overlooked as the focus is placed on unresolved environmental issues. Furthermore, old views tend to continue to be expressed long after the issue has passed. For example, the Montreal Accord of 1987 has signed by 43 countries, and its aim was to eliminate the use of Ozone-depleting CFCs. 16 years later, we see that this was pretty much a success. Despite lingering misinformation to the contrary, CFCs have largely disappeared as an issue. CFCs are no longer suppsed to be used in aerosol containers, air conditioners or refridgeration units. The whole in the ozone layer, to the best of my knowledge is slowly getting smaller. On a much smaller scale, environmentalists successfuly pushed for polution reduction in North America's great lakes. I don't know the actual state of affairs, but as far as I know, the conditions in the great lakes have been imrpoving. I think that PCB, dioxin and heavy metal concentration levels have been dropping. The issue of acid rain has diminished as it has been (as far as I know) proven to be less harmful than it was feared. The acidification of northern Ontario's lakes has been combatted.
So what is the future of the environmental movement? This is all just speculation, but since I believe that the movement has matured, I expect some amount of inertia. The activists will continue their present tactics for better of for worse. Perhaps some discreditation will come their way (if that has not already happened. In any case, I expect that environmenal issues, some of them at least, will become more open for debate, and less black ane white as many are placed now. I'm glad that there has been debate about the Kyoto Protocol. While agitation will continue, energy production will slowly become more efficient. Industrial processes will be tweaked, and perhaps redesigned to reduce waste. Ultimately, technology and increased efficiency will ensure salvation from climate change, not reducing production (and human welfare by extension). In the rush to achieve a hydrogen society (a pipe dream perhaps), it is important to not ignore incremental changes with regards to internal combustion. Increasing fuel efficiency is an important step. Dreamers may think that fuel cells can be adopted overnight, but that is not true. The right incentives must be available to coax people into the right decision. Also, expect big oil, to remain big oil. Hydrogen will probably be more easily and cheaply acquired from hydrocarbons than solar-powered electrolysis. That said, expect dirty energy to linger. Coal will continue to be important as new technology makes it cleaner. As fewer people use coal, the price will fall, which will keep it competitive. I guess I can sum it all up by saying, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Whew! There are many unresolved issues. Like everything else I say, I hope to revisit this.
Comments? E-mail me at icy_caina@nospamhere.yahoo.ca (remove nospamhere if you want to reach me).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)