Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Turning Point & Disequilibrium

I suppose with global warming, everything is getting a bit heated up and emotions run high.

Or, is it simply boredom!

Change is in everybody's mind, and we all imagine that change will be for the better.

Some are so bored that change, any change, is better than the status quo.

When the status quo has existed for so long, it may take a sizeable amount of force to overcome the inertia. When that critical mass of change does occur, we will all be so surprised that it actually can happen that we may be numbed into not knowing what to expect.

In the face of uncertainty, we would all tend to over-provide and suddenly find ourselves over-burden by what we really do not need.

We will have to spend sometime to get ourselves out from under the load.

With change, we go from happy or unhappy equilibrium into disequilibrium and hopefully not further discontent.

We will have to exert a certain amount of force to stop the change. It is unlikely to be a one-step move and stop. Change could just roll on, like the waves.

The world today does look quite dramatic, when all the possible happenings in the world are concentrated into a small screen in a small window of waking time.

See what type of change we are going to get - the outer clothes or the inner wear.


walla said...

What's changed is that the Rex cinema has closed down. For a long time now. But there's still something we can squeeze out of that unfortunate closure by way of an insight into how to look at change.

And here it goes: it was of course a murder spoof. Those days they had intermission. The night was cold and clammy and when the doors opened, viewers trooped out for that ten minute break. They were eagerly asking each other who killed Z. Was it X or Y, they probed and weighed.

X was earlier seen going up the stairs when he saw Z talking to Y. The moment Y saw X, the eyes opened wide and the face was overcome by something akin to a shock.

As Dame Christie later intimated, it wasn't because Y saw X that was the crux of the case.

It was because at the time Y saw X, Z was innocently saying something to Y by the side which caused Y to realize something that Z had done to Y without knowing it would cause Y to take revenge on Z.

In short, it wasn't about what was seen. It was about what was being heard from Z at the precise moment of seeing X which had caused the shock of realization.

Change is multi-sensory.

So things like (yes,no) analogs are not necessarily meant for specific persons. As with sound not sight, they could well have been meant for all those happy to not even contemplate a mite about the need for change. To closed eyes and ears, add closed mind. No different from the Z's of the world.

walla said...

If we don't ask, how do we know the real situation?

If we don't know the real situation, how do we know things won't get worse while we doze through the same comfort zone that had lulled us from asking for the real situation before that had allowed things to get worse?

The real question then is whether things have gotten worse. What do you (no, not you) think?


walla said...

While making the chart logarithmic may just save the comfort zone, the obvious next question to ask is how long can it last when the financing charges are already large enough to pay the latest annual budgets of entire ministries.

People talk about the need for good governance. Meaning transparency, accountability and justice. We can humbly add responsibility.

One cannot achieve a high-income economy just by increasing salaries without increasing productivity equated to competitiveness.

For the non-revenue generating public sector already out of proportion to the revenue-generating private sector, it can only mean additional expenditure years down the line as more and more people retire.

So who will be paying for the new loads? It cannot be the private sector because we have not lifted the sector apart from providing jobs to construction workers from overseas.

The multinationals provide only sweat shop jobs and pay something like net seven percent tax after accounting for tax-free buffers, transfer pricings and other perks; furthermore, their capital investments have shrunk as they relocate elsewhere where sanity commands real premium.

So we construct more and more buildings to house service providers who will be generating higher revenues to pay for higher social expenditures in the future. Who be these service providers when eighty percent of our workforce can barely read a technical manual on their own?

So we mine for more oil and gas. How many more years can the present reserves last?

So we place our last hopes on foreign investors to bring in their oil money and start service enterprises here. But they're here to make money out of us and if our service people are don't have the export-earning skills while our domestic market for such skills is virtually non-existent, how are they to make which is to ask why should they be here except to earn interest income out of our loan syndication from them less prescribed sums parked in offshore accounts?

In short we stand at a precipice and those who say there's a bridge across must be having some super-sight or they know something which they are not saying.

So that the next question is why are they not saying if they are so eager to defend the status quo and to exhibit so much faith and confidence in what has been done although some will admit as actually undone?

walla said...

Which comes to this thing called status quo.

Shall we all agree that the status quo here and now is different from the status quo in 2008?

What is that technical term again? Yes, event calculus. The disequilibrium that has been advanced as a plausible effect of the present political tension is caused by event calculi.

The event calculus in 2008 broke the single assumption made by the incumbent federal government then, now caretaker government which still takes advantage of national assets and giving out large-sized contracts to small-time companies at the same time.

The assumption then was that voters could be played like tic-tac-toe on x-axis race and y-axis religion.

However, the event calculus turned things around. That's a change. Call it a paradigm shift.

The voters broke the tic-tac-toe and voted across the two axes, causing dire consternation to the incumbent strategists who never in their chauvinistic mindset could envisage such a natural mainspring of goodwill and concern across the boundaries of race and religion galvanized by the common will to send a warning message to the incumbent now caretaker government.

Which as we reach the end of this final line still insist on not receiving.

Which is the only explanation you (no, not you again) can accept why RM11 Billion has to be spent to fish for voters.

If it has received, understood and complied with the 2008 reverberating message from the voters, why the need to spend double-quick and with sheer irresponsibility to the future generations that amount of money it doesn't anyway have, considering its lack of financial prudence on record?

By the way, isn't that a good question, you reckon?

walla said...

We have become a free-dinner nation. But if there's no such thing as even a free lunch, how many more free dinners can one have in a country which is falling behind where it matters compared to many others which have already shot ahead and will soon be crow-barring more market share, buyer networks and global talents for themselves?

We say we are actually not in any middle income trap. How about changing that to middle income vice-grip?

Those shops that modernized their decor a bit but served worse food however at higher prices have a bad business plan divorced from the reality of the real market. They are going to fold when their cash flows collapse.

Then what else can they do to make enough to pay the higher taxes that an over-bloated government will be calling upon them to make if it gets half a chance of being returned?

It is no longer worth any while to try and impress on anyone that we have magnificently reached the national state of sheer insanity.

The only thing which pulls one back is the sound of galloping horses from the biggest cavalry ahead that is building up strength to try and rescue the few standing wagons already smouldering to ashes.

If we don't care for them and for their future generations and for this land, who and what do we care for?

We are where we are today because too many people didn't and hadn't cared enough.

The bigger change is not change itself. It is the mass build-up of the critical mass of caring for country and society, institutions and principles. It is caring for people and ideals.

If wrong, one can always change again.

Change is easy because it's just 'X marks the spot'. Just remember to bring the damn battery-operated hairdryer this time so as not to smudge the voting slip caused by indelible ink which may somehow refuse to dry.

And this nation wants to be high-income and developed in seven years time?

Bad luck or boredom didn't kill Z. It was premeditation. Spinning and denying are premeditated activities too.

The change may not be outer clothes or inner wear. For all we know, it may finally be skin.

walla said...

Maybe the answer is found in one of these:


(or so one thought...)

walla said...

I am not very bright so i remain puzzled by this question; maybe someone can help suggest a reasonable explanation..

the question is this:

why would a government spend over three million of taxpayers money to buy helmets for motorcyclists when by law they must already have a helmet of their own to ride a motorcycle?

with people like me, how can there be any hope left for this joint?

As was said by someone,

'a government which thinks money grows on trees must be monkeys.'


Anonymous said...

why would a government spend over three million of taxpayers money to buy helmets for motorcyclists when by law they must already have a helmet of their own to ride a motorcycle?
This brings to mind the question of 65 new mosques in a state under BN/Umno when existing ones are not even fill to full capacity.

The bottom line is , someone is making a bundle from all these so called "beneficial" decisions.

james chua said...

They are not monkeys. They dont think Money grows on trees either. They are just thieves, and thieves dont care whether money grows on trees, if they can steal, they will.

Great blog for an elder to re-educate ourselves and tops for reading with a glass of red and some cheese even though its a mess the next morning! Thanks.