Global Warming - Are We Sure of The Cause In The First Place?

So, here I am, reading a very interesting article on Sat, in the Singapore Straits Times, about global warming and all its jazz, and the other possible contributions to it.

All this hype, and then, there appears, a trickle of statistics to show that perhaps, it IS jazz. Not 100% of course...I think, there is just not enough reliable data at this point to prove anything. But, enough has been proven to show that "when carbon emission was xxxxxxxxxxx, global temperatures did NOT increase"

But does this mean we don't do anything about global warming? I think knowledge itself can change things, not the fact itself (really, only God knows if it's true!). And I truly believe, he will reveal it in his own time. And I have faith in this.


I think if it's revealed in advance, it's meant to be intervened. Erm, otherwise, it wouldn't be revealed in advance in the first place! So even if it comes true, never mind lah, at least, the world dies trying to change things, and not just sitting there, waiting for catastrophy to happen!

Morality - Doing Good

What is the definition of Morality? Secular and/or religious view. No writings, just some questions to see your own reaction as you read on:

- If you are a social worker in India and helping the poor but you are an aethist, does it mean you will go to hell?
- If you earn a high salary to feed your family, but your job is a scientist to push out drugs to the consumer market, without having fully tested them, are you moral?
- If you are a private banker, and you are helping to grow the portfolio of wealthy customers, knowing a huge chunk of it is dirty money, are you moral? Did you know a guy blew the whistle on this and got promptly fired?
- Can you be a monogamous swinger? Is it moral?
- If a guy cheats in a marriage, but is a good father and husband (brings home bacon, treats them very well), is he moral?
- If you are a drug runner to get money to buy milk for your baby, are you moral?
- If you are involved in prostitution (giving or receiving end), are you moral?
- Do you think a lesbian couple with a happy good kid are moral people?
- If your mother is an alcoholic, do you think she is moral? Can you still love her?

- If you kill a person in self-defence, protecting your baby, are you moral?

- If you steal office stationery, are you moral?

- If you cheat in a test, are you moral?

- If your foetus is tested to be abnormal and you choose to abort it, are you moral?

- Euthanasia - right or wrong?

- Cloning - right or wrong?

Moral Standards

As you read the above list, I hope it starts you thinking about how you view the world and yourself. The above is just a small list. Too many times, people just argue and argue when it's really about grey areas that doesn't have a standardized definition anyway.  Individual moral standards does not always equate to societal moral standards. And even societal moral standards are not consistent.  It's grey and varies from different scenario to different scenario.  

Looking at Morality with Different Eyes

And it gets more complicated.  How does one view morality?  Through a secular view?  Through religion?  Through philosophies?  Through the legal system?  A convicted thief, stealing milk powder for his baby is penalized by the legal system.  But his intent was good.  Morally, how do u dictate whether what he's done is right or wrong?  

Morality can also be expressed through the eyes of philosophies.  For example, Charles Darwin's concept of evolution and natural selection, if looked at, in a purely scientific point of view, can justify what would be considered wrong by most people's standards.   People don't do evil, they are just what they are. The fittest survive.  Hitler is not evil, he's just a guy with a glib tongue, who has a personality disorder, born in the right time to ensure his "destiny" was carried out. He was the fittest.  Another example would be peodophiles and serial killers.  Are they mentally ill?  Or is what they are doing wrong?  If they are condemned as wrong, they will remain as such.  But if the cause of their behaviour is mental illness, then their treatment would be different.  It would be to medicate them with drugs, lock them up, etc. Condemning them would only make them worse.

To summarize, morality can be viewed through many eyes, whether it's religion, philosophies, legal, etc.  And standards vary.

Personally

So what do you choose what's best for you?  Personally, at this point in time, I have taken a side, albeit skeptically on an intellectual basis. I do believe though, you have to choose a point of view.  This is to ensure some consistency and order in an individual and society. 

I've made a conscious choice to see life through rose-tinted glasses (romantic view); and act accordingly through this view. To believe in the innate goodness of people, which forms the basis of humanity.  I think there is a reason for all human beings doing unacceptable things (unacceptable as defined by the majority of society's realm of acceptable behaviour).  They mostly become bad due to circumstances (most of the time, not loved enough), reasons (7 sins of greed, lust, pride, wrath, gluttony, sloth, envy), and are sick (mental illness that create serial killers). I don't think anyone really deliberately chooses to be bad.

To simplify, one can look at the sunset and admire its beauty. Or, one can view the sun as a bright star that happened to be near enough to earth to be viewed.  I choose to see the sun in its beauty.

Financial Crisis 2008 - Blame Game, Washington VS Wall Street

Here's my take on blame game:

Washington VERSUS Wall Street

50/50

It's a tie!

WASHINGTON

Washington is designated to be a policing body. I think abolishing the Fed is not good, becos they are needed to make sure the economy is healthy. Sure, they didn't do a good job, but I think it's not becos of the Fed itself generally speaking, but specific problems, e.g. greed, inefficiencies, wrong person for the jobs, and personally, a biggie for me, ideologies. 

Erm, I'm talking about?Alan Greenspan's "laissere fare" school of thought...very much U.S. style capitalism. Sorry, not sure if I spelt it correctly, haha. His school of thought created the bubbles. Free and self-regulating markets - cheap money leading to easy access to financing and inadvertedly, soaring housing prices. Of which bundled up happily into financial products floating around the financial markets.

Back to the point - maybe more of a voting system needs to be in place to have checks and balances even on ideologies!?

Washington's fault - ideologies, power of lobbyists over Washington, other problems....I suspect, many people not doing their job properly, etc.

Wall Street

Greed is wat drives Wall Street. Tat's wat it is. I think greed is ok, as long as it's not abused. And greed WILL be abused unless there a serious and strict regulations. I mean, wat do u expect Richard Fuld to say? Of coz, he's gonna pimp up the compensation structure and maximise his gains (bonus), no? I mean, to them, isn't that what working like a dog is all about? 

But for the record, I do agree too, that bonuses should be severely taxed (AIG) if these very people are not performing like they are supposed to. The general public needs to be appeased. Although it's quite a shame becos I don't think it's all their fault. It's really the macro factors, the state of the markets. They are just unlucky....their predesuccessors were alot luckier!

Wall Street's fault - created by the creation of derivatives known as the sub-prime loans, and greed, etc.

Love/Hate Relationship Between Wall Street and Washington (this conflict needs to be addressed)

It's all about power. Power defined as money and decision making powers. Both of which, the cards are held by the govt (decision making powers) and the big-ass corporations/private sector (money). In my view, the power balance is 50/50. I would even say, it's a love-hate relationship. Both sides need each other although, there's a serious conflict of interest. Conflict of interest mean - no checks and balances on how much govt officials and lobbyists can influence each other. For e.g. can a lobby group give US$1bn to a govt campaign? Is it legal? I believe there are some changes on this area with the Obama adminstration. This is crucial to Ron Paul's "changing the culture of Washington"

I think lobbyists will always have power and greed, simply becos they can. Forget about changing this part of human nature, regulations need to be changed. Not more regulations, NEW regulations, to limit the power and greed.

Pauline's Solutions To Financial Crisis 2007 - 2013

Ok, so I read and read.  After all that reading, I agree with Warren Buffet's view.  Claire Tang is my marker for when the economy will fully recover.  5 years from 2008 = 2013.  Not shy eh, but this is my estimate.

All in all, these are my proposed solutions, after all that interesting reading:

1) Stimulus package 

U.S. stimulus package is needed.  However much.  Print money if u have to.  As much as possible. Don't be shy k....go on! When the shit hits the fan, throw theoretical economics out the window can?  A drowning man clutches at straws.  First up, is cashflow.  You ain't got cash, you're dead.  It's as simple as that.  Who you go to?  Big Daddy aka The Government.  I mean, seriously, do you have another better choice?

And fortunately/unfortunately, some companies ARE really too big to fail.  No matter how much you throw bricks at the shameless CEOs trying to make a run with their ridiculously fat bonuses, I'm sorry, but AIG is just not allowed to fail.  I would be rather pissed if it did!  But my big daddy wouldn't allow that, that I'm sure! (Singapore government.  Suddenly, I'm thankful for the kiasi and kiasu mentality)!

Anyway, to me, it's just common sense.  And everyone seems to forget that money and economics is man-made.  Which means, it can be changed along the way.  Like what Bernake JUST said on TV, economics is not economics if it cannot applied to real-life.  Dunno what else he said, but he made alot of sense.  Something about more regulations on banking sector, etc. Another day, he also said something along the lines of AIG.  My analogy - AIG was quite naughty - behaving like a slutty hedge fund, when it should be a conservative fund....I mean, we are talking about insurance here!

2) The "N" word - nationalization

Anyway, before I digress further, stimulus package brings me to the next point.  To me, Big Daddy was quite kind.  He did more than just give money.  He saved the banks from collapse.  I mean, not like he had a choice anyway.  Please note that these so-called giants would have been dead by now ok, if not for Big Daddy, the cashflow saviour.  These so-called financial Titanics...are well, sinkable, apparently.  And it includes Merrill, which I just heard on TV, that the 11th board meeting is under investigation now - something along the lines of biggies heading off with last minute bonuses, just before the crash/buyout from Bank of America? They knew??  Oooooooohh.....what sluts!  

Anyway, I read an interesting article in the Straits Times yesterday.  About the government nationalizing banks.  Temporary buffer (govt guarantees on a zombie bank) VS a real nationalization.  I agree with the author that a real nationalization is necessary.  Simply, to flush out dirty policies - aka ridiculously fat bonuses, etc.

The article mentioned that nationalized banks generally do not perform well after nationalization.  Fair enough.  But Sweden had a similar scenario and what they did, was to nationalize one of their banks.  And when the storm is ridden out, sell the bank back to the market.  I think it's a brillant idea.  And there will be vultures and funds waiting, no doubt.  Especially if these companies/banks are good businesses at the core.  

3) Creation of bids/asks

Bernake today mentioned too, that "marked-to-market" valuation would have to be re-evaluated.  And I did mention it in my other post alot earlier.  To recap a little, how the hell can u mark to market A to B, when B 's valuation doesn't even properly capture the real valuation? Wait a minute, what IS real valuation?  I think this is the real question.  I think it's perception and an accumulation of events that happened to give that thing a price.  Note, it's NOT fact.

The govt can help to liquidify (is there such as word) the markets.  Lubricate it with bids and asks on MBS (mortgage backed securities).  Instead of "mark-to-market" it to zero, create a value.  Underwrite some of these assets if necessary.  

I mean, at some point, Americans do need to stay in a house, no?  So, shouldn't that give some value back to the MBS?  I mean, mark-to-marking it to zero (basically, writing it off), is really the worse thing you can do.

Ok, so far, these are my proposed solutions.  Will write more when I come across anymore worthwhile points to take note of....

Funny Quotes

"I am puzzled by reports of a recession.  Shopping malls and food outlets are always crowded" Straits Times, 10 Mar 2009. 

My reply to this: This writer apparently underestimated Singaporean's love for shopping and eating!!  haha!

Happiness

Happiness is ..................

A friend told me this once, and it left a deep impression. He had a house, cars, club membership, married, in the UK, but he wasn't happy. That told a story about the importance of material goods. How about good looks? Doesn't fly too. Because if good looks = happiness, all the good-looking people will be happy people. Not true. Sienna Miller and Angelina Jolie would then have sadness-free lives.

In Thailand, I saw small children sitting by the dirty roadside, selling things. Are they as sad/happy as stressed out poor children in Sing, going for tuition after tuition? Sometimes, u wonder. So anyway, there are poor people, that are sad. Poor people that are happy. Rich people who are sad, rich people who are happy.

Also, I think nobody actually owns anything actually. I don't belong to my family or friends. My money doesn't belong to me. They are only stops along the way. So enjoy it while you can, because some of it are nice stops. What you can have are experiences and memories. And the love you receive and give. But when old with dementia, even this, you lose!

So, what I really want, is Happiness.  But what is Happiness?  Happiness comes in the nasi lemak with TAT chilli.  The feeling I have with my family and friends.  Happiness comes from that song, that people care and that you care.  Selectively.  But it's there.  Happiness is contentment and gratitude.  For the life I want, and for the life that's been given to me so far.

Quotes Quotes Quotes

I've forgotten how to cry. I've learnt how to weep. Then comes peace, when you realize transcience.

What comes after nonchalance?


I've met my soulmates. They just didn't come in the forms I expected.


It's all part of the growing up process. Then, you die.


You never really belong to anyone per se. Not to your family, not to your friends, not to your spouse. You are your own person. They are stops along the way. Some nice, some not.


Life to a wandering hippie like me, is a long ride in a vintage Volkswagen van. People on board happily singing and playing guitar. Some stay for a long while, some get off at some point. At some point, the journey must end. It's the journey that counts.


Life is a huge misconception. There are times I swear, the poor construction worker is happier than the rich stressed-out workaholic millionaire. Then, there is that CEO who seems to have life figured out, versus the ever-grumbling road-side sweeper. Happiness. Attitude. Perception.


Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see, Que Sarah Sarah (thank you, Bedok Busker, Jan 09)

When you are silent enough, the notes start dancing like fairies