Stockbrokers and fund managers, no matter how they style themselves, are short-term investors based on long-term views. Investors with short-term views are called speculators.
I do not understand why the Prime Minister of Malaysia has to go to Hong Kong to talk to stockbrokers and fund managers about the New Economic Model for Malaysia. It is none of their business.
The rightful audience for the NEM are the local people, the citizens of Malaysia, who must be convinced that the NEM is the best thing that can happen to Malaysia and Malaysians such that the NEM will create the greatest confidence and pride that the people of Malaysia can have in their own country - so much so that they will sink in all that they have - the wealth their parents left them (if any), the wealth they have made in Malaysia, the wealth they have made abroad, their current savings, and their current efforts - and build on what we have new structures and systems that will improve social and economic life in Malaysia.
The last thing you want to do with the NEM is to convince short-term investors and speculators in Hong Kong that Malaysia is the place for you to take a quick punt - of at most nine months - by ordering that government agencies cut down on their holdings of listed companies so that these foreigners can do that punt.
I think the Prime Minister is being ill-advised in this case to pander to these opportunist investors. What we want in Malaysia are proper investors who will sink in their capital into machinery and work to produce output to serve the world.
In this world of excessive liquidity, liquidity is not the problem for the economy. It is the lack of good ideas for real investment in Malaysia that is hampering Malaysia from getting out of the middle-income trap into a high-income economy. It is the unwillingness to do the hard work of building a business that is the problem.
If you then mix in politics along racial ground, then you really are caught in a mental trap that is dragging down the economic strength and resolution.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Unemployability Or Social Change
I have been distracted by this idea of the "unemployability" of a whole new generation of children around the world, even in the developed world.
If the problem of "unemployability" is limited to a small society like Malaysia, then there is a need for the education system to change. But if the problem is spread across several societies, then it would seem that there is a need for change or that there will have to a change (by policy or otherwise) in the way society will function and look like in the years to come.
I am reminded that the IT revolution of today was and still is helmed by a few hippies of the sixties who seemed to have dropped out of the system and went on their own path. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates. The focus is not on their not having completed their education, but they saw different things.
"Unemployablity" can be elaborated in several ways. The first impression is that these young people who have passed through the educational system are "useless" - being "unfit for job vacancies that are currently available." Precisely. If only these young people would come up with ideas based on things they know how to do or wish to do.
Young IT savvy people who spent their formative years interacting with an illuminated piece of glass are typically shy and ungregarious. They are totally unfit for the incessant talking and cajoling required of the modern sales people who are now called business development executives or whatnots. There is stress in present industries because of overproduction and overconsumption of hackneyed products - which define the jobs that are typically available to young people who may feel they would rather be involved in other lines of "business."
The world is today caught in probably one of the most significant structural changes where the focus of the global economic power is slowly but surely shifting to the east - and not without must protest from the west. We should therefore expect societies around the world to change and transform and take on an entirely different shape. What that shape wil be will depend on the currently "unemployable" young people - who being unemployed will have to then employ themselves by doing whatever they can do.
I think the young people do not need new things. Their parents have already cluttered the whole house. Their parents have already bought more houses than any one family however extended will need. Their parents have enough big cars to drive around empty. I think the young people will do simple things which they really want to do and live a fulfilling life. At this, the GDP that measures quantities produced will have to fall sharply. The young people could save the world from being dug out wholesale to make things which the world do not want. The young people could eat simply and healthly - and they do not need to have a glib tongue to earn money and pile up on the material stuff.
Am I right or will I be right? I do not know. It doesn't matter. What matters is the way to get out of the box that we find ourselves in, without doing violence to the box.
If the problem of "unemployability" is limited to a small society like Malaysia, then there is a need for the education system to change. But if the problem is spread across several societies, then it would seem that there is a need for change or that there will have to a change (by policy or otherwise) in the way society will function and look like in the years to come.
I am reminded that the IT revolution of today was and still is helmed by a few hippies of the sixties who seemed to have dropped out of the system and went on their own path. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates. The focus is not on their not having completed their education, but they saw different things.
"Unemployablity" can be elaborated in several ways. The first impression is that these young people who have passed through the educational system are "useless" - being "unfit for job vacancies that are currently available." Precisely. If only these young people would come up with ideas based on things they know how to do or wish to do.
Young IT savvy people who spent their formative years interacting with an illuminated piece of glass are typically shy and ungregarious. They are totally unfit for the incessant talking and cajoling required of the modern sales people who are now called business development executives or whatnots. There is stress in present industries because of overproduction and overconsumption of hackneyed products - which define the jobs that are typically available to young people who may feel they would rather be involved in other lines of "business."
The world is today caught in probably one of the most significant structural changes where the focus of the global economic power is slowly but surely shifting to the east - and not without must protest from the west. We should therefore expect societies around the world to change and transform and take on an entirely different shape. What that shape wil be will depend on the currently "unemployable" young people - who being unemployed will have to then employ themselves by doing whatever they can do.
I think the young people do not need new things. Their parents have already cluttered the whole house. Their parents have already bought more houses than any one family however extended will need. Their parents have enough big cars to drive around empty. I think the young people will do simple things which they really want to do and live a fulfilling life. At this, the GDP that measures quantities produced will have to fall sharply. The young people could save the world from being dug out wholesale to make things which the world do not want. The young people could eat simply and healthly - and they do not need to have a glib tongue to earn money and pile up on the material stuff.
Am I right or will I be right? I do not know. It doesn't matter. What matters is the way to get out of the box that we find ourselves in, without doing violence to the box.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Schools Are Churning Out The Unemployable
This is a familiar subject for many of us in Malaysia, and imagine how delighted I was when I came across this article in a foreign newspaper - of all places, the UK Times.
The thought that sprung to my mind was that - aha, now, this does not look like a typical Malaysian problem. Could it then be a problem of the times - and in particular, recession times?
When times are good, employers do not mind hiring anybody so long as that body will turn up for work - to answer phone calls, letters or emails.
When times are bad, employers argue about quality and price. As do everybody else.
I think that the only difference that we have among ourselves or between us is the scope for us to suffer errors and be allowed to live another day. At the end of the day, when times get tough, the only way out is to work hard and not die.
***
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7034975.ece
Schools are churning out the unemployable
Harriet Sergeant
The latest unemployment figures are a shocker. Eight million adults are “economically inactive”. That means one in five people of working age does not have a job. A new and expanding group, poignantly described as “discouraged” workers, have even given up looking.
They are right to be discouraged but wrong that there is no work. A report out on Friday points out that a fifth of firms and a quarter of employers in the state sector are still hiring — despite the recession. Except they are taking on migrant workers — not our home-grown “discouraged” variety.
The managing director of a medium-sized IT company explained why. High-flyers — Oxford and Cambridge graduates — are still as good as any in the world. His problems come when he tries to recruit middle management. Last year he interviewed 52 graduates — all educated in state schools. On paper they looked “brilliant students”. Each had three As at A-level and a 2:1 degree. He shook his head. “There’s a big difference between people passing exams and being ready for work.”
This was obvious even before the interview began. Of the 52 applicants, half arrived late. Only three of the 52 walked up to the managing director, looked him in the eye, shook his hand and said, “Good morning.” The rest “just ambled in”. When he asked them to solve a problem, only 12 had come equipped with a notebook and pencil.
The three who had greeted him proved the strongest candidates and he hired them. Within a year they were out because of their “lackadaisical” attitude. They did not turn up on time; for the first six months a manager had to check all their emails for spelling and grammar; they did not know how to learn. It was the first time they had ever been asked to learn on their own. Their ability to “engage in business” was “incredibly” disappointing and “at 5.30 on the dot they left the office”.
This year the managing director has joined the 20% of companies recruiting overseas. “We are an English company but we have no English staff. It’s just too much trouble,” he said.
It is the same story with employers at every level in the UK. Sir Terry Leahy, the chief executive of Tesco, put it bluntly. Too many children have been leaving school after 11 or 13 years of compulsory education “without the basic skills to get on in life and hold down a job”. He said 5m adults were functionally illiterate and 17m could not add up properly. “On-the-job training” cannot act as a “bandage or sticking plaster” for “the failure of our education system”.
A CBI survey revealed that literacy and numeracy were not the only problems. More than 50% of employers complained that young people were inarticulate, unable to communicate concisely, interpret written instructions or perform simple mental calculations.
This goes a long way to explain why, of the 1.7m jobs created since 1997, 81% have gone to foreign workers. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) agrees with Leahy. UK citizens are on the dole because of “issues around basic employability skills, incentives and motivation”. It is a pity it has not passed that insight on to the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
The DWP has made it clear: work is where the inflated claims for our state education finally hit the buffers. At every stage we have a system in which the expediency of politicians and the ideology of the educational establishment take precedence over the interests of pupils.
We have children who can barely read and write scoring high marks in their Sats because it makes the school, and therefore politicians, look good. We have exam boards competing to offer the lowest pass mark because it allows heads to fulfil their GCSE targets. We have pupils pushed into easy subjects at A-level — which excludes them from applying to a top university — because it benefits the school. And we have universities that offer a 2:1 degree, as the IT company director put it, to “anyone who bothers to sit down and take the exam”.
On top of that is the attitude of the staff themselves. I was visiting schools to discover why so many black Caribbean and white working-class boys were failing. One reason soon became obvious. Their teachers, middle class themselves, failed to pass on those very values that had allowed them to progress in life.
They viewed inculcating attributes such as lucidity, spelling, grammar, punctuality and manners as “patronising”. They feared anything that smacked of the didactic. “I am not a teacher. I am a facilitator,” said one teacher primly. The head of another school insisted she was a “head learner” rather than a headmistress.
Joseph P Parkes is clear who he is and it is definitely not a head learner. Father Parkes is the president of Cristo Rey, a Catholic coeducational school in East Harlem, New York. His mainly black and Puerto Rican pupils come from single-parent homes; many have fathers in prison. But he is determined that no one is going to turn them down for a job.
His school operates an ingenious work-share scheme with some of New York’s most prestigious companies and charities. Once a week pupils put on their identity cards, go down to Wall Street and enter another world — of law firms and investment banks.
From the age of 14 they join a team of five pupils each performing clerical work one day a week. They know their salary pays “a big chunk” of their education. As one young man said: “They treat me like an adult.” Parkes explained: “It encourages them to take school seriously.”
How seriously I saw for myself when Parkes addressed morning assembly. We stood in rows, teachers patrolling on either side, straightening a shoulder here, checking a tie there. The talk was entitled First Impressions. “Now what kind of first impression have you made on our visitor from the UK here?” asked Parkes. “Have you shaken Miss Sergeant by the hand and looked her in the eye?” he demanded. Seventy pairs of eyes immediately engaged me. “Have you greeted her?” “Good morning,” they all chanted enthusiastically.
He held up a sheaf of papers, printouts of emails. The previous day, he had set them the task of applying for a job interview on the internet. First, had they researched the company? He summoned one boy to the front, who listed his company’s interests fluently. Parkes nodded approval, then turned back to us. Now then, how many had tracked down the right address for the email? Who was dispatching their precious job application to the man in the post room? Everyone laughed.
No detail seemed too small for Parkes. Had they spelt names correctly? He waved the papers accusingly. Some of the students had addressed their emails to him: “You were not following directions. You have got to learn to follow directions.” He selected three or four sheets. “And some of you have an email address that is inappropriate for a job application. Put yourself in the company’s shoes. Are you really going to give an interview to JosetheNiceGuy, FastandFurious@Hotmail” — the boy next to me blushed — “or Cristo Rey Hottie?” The pupils erupted. Finally, the head demanded: “What happens when you are not proactive?” “You are being a procrastinator,” they shouted back.
Parkes knows that his school is the only chance these young people have. Education has to make up for their background and the lack of those values that ensure success. He knows they are totally dependent on him for their future. If employers like the managing director are to recruit in England again, it is a lesson that our state schools will have to learn.
The thought that sprung to my mind was that - aha, now, this does not look like a typical Malaysian problem. Could it then be a problem of the times - and in particular, recession times?
When times are good, employers do not mind hiring anybody so long as that body will turn up for work - to answer phone calls, letters or emails.
When times are bad, employers argue about quality and price. As do everybody else.
I think that the only difference that we have among ourselves or between us is the scope for us to suffer errors and be allowed to live another day. At the end of the day, when times get tough, the only way out is to work hard and not die.
***
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7034975.ece
Schools are churning out the unemployable
Harriet Sergeant
The latest unemployment figures are a shocker. Eight million adults are “economically inactive”. That means one in five people of working age does not have a job. A new and expanding group, poignantly described as “discouraged” workers, have even given up looking.
They are right to be discouraged but wrong that there is no work. A report out on Friday points out that a fifth of firms and a quarter of employers in the state sector are still hiring — despite the recession. Except they are taking on migrant workers — not our home-grown “discouraged” variety.
The managing director of a medium-sized IT company explained why. High-flyers — Oxford and Cambridge graduates — are still as good as any in the world. His problems come when he tries to recruit middle management. Last year he interviewed 52 graduates — all educated in state schools. On paper they looked “brilliant students”. Each had three As at A-level and a 2:1 degree. He shook his head. “There’s a big difference between people passing exams and being ready for work.”
This was obvious even before the interview began. Of the 52 applicants, half arrived late. Only three of the 52 walked up to the managing director, looked him in the eye, shook his hand and said, “Good morning.” The rest “just ambled in”. When he asked them to solve a problem, only 12 had come equipped with a notebook and pencil.
The three who had greeted him proved the strongest candidates and he hired them. Within a year they were out because of their “lackadaisical” attitude. They did not turn up on time; for the first six months a manager had to check all their emails for spelling and grammar; they did not know how to learn. It was the first time they had ever been asked to learn on their own. Their ability to “engage in business” was “incredibly” disappointing and “at 5.30 on the dot they left the office”.
This year the managing director has joined the 20% of companies recruiting overseas. “We are an English company but we have no English staff. It’s just too much trouble,” he said.
It is the same story with employers at every level in the UK. Sir Terry Leahy, the chief executive of Tesco, put it bluntly. Too many children have been leaving school after 11 or 13 years of compulsory education “without the basic skills to get on in life and hold down a job”. He said 5m adults were functionally illiterate and 17m could not add up properly. “On-the-job training” cannot act as a “bandage or sticking plaster” for “the failure of our education system”.
A CBI survey revealed that literacy and numeracy were not the only problems. More than 50% of employers complained that young people were inarticulate, unable to communicate concisely, interpret written instructions or perform simple mental calculations.
This goes a long way to explain why, of the 1.7m jobs created since 1997, 81% have gone to foreign workers. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) agrees with Leahy. UK citizens are on the dole because of “issues around basic employability skills, incentives and motivation”. It is a pity it has not passed that insight on to the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
The DWP has made it clear: work is where the inflated claims for our state education finally hit the buffers. At every stage we have a system in which the expediency of politicians and the ideology of the educational establishment take precedence over the interests of pupils.
We have children who can barely read and write scoring high marks in their Sats because it makes the school, and therefore politicians, look good. We have exam boards competing to offer the lowest pass mark because it allows heads to fulfil their GCSE targets. We have pupils pushed into easy subjects at A-level — which excludes them from applying to a top university — because it benefits the school. And we have universities that offer a 2:1 degree, as the IT company director put it, to “anyone who bothers to sit down and take the exam”.
On top of that is the attitude of the staff themselves. I was visiting schools to discover why so many black Caribbean and white working-class boys were failing. One reason soon became obvious. Their teachers, middle class themselves, failed to pass on those very values that had allowed them to progress in life.
They viewed inculcating attributes such as lucidity, spelling, grammar, punctuality and manners as “patronising”. They feared anything that smacked of the didactic. “I am not a teacher. I am a facilitator,” said one teacher primly. The head of another school insisted she was a “head learner” rather than a headmistress.
Joseph P Parkes is clear who he is and it is definitely not a head learner. Father Parkes is the president of Cristo Rey, a Catholic coeducational school in East Harlem, New York. His mainly black and Puerto Rican pupils come from single-parent homes; many have fathers in prison. But he is determined that no one is going to turn them down for a job.
His school operates an ingenious work-share scheme with some of New York’s most prestigious companies and charities. Once a week pupils put on their identity cards, go down to Wall Street and enter another world — of law firms and investment banks.
From the age of 14 they join a team of five pupils each performing clerical work one day a week. They know their salary pays “a big chunk” of their education. As one young man said: “They treat me like an adult.” Parkes explained: “It encourages them to take school seriously.”
How seriously I saw for myself when Parkes addressed morning assembly. We stood in rows, teachers patrolling on either side, straightening a shoulder here, checking a tie there. The talk was entitled First Impressions. “Now what kind of first impression have you made on our visitor from the UK here?” asked Parkes. “Have you shaken Miss Sergeant by the hand and looked her in the eye?” he demanded. Seventy pairs of eyes immediately engaged me. “Have you greeted her?” “Good morning,” they all chanted enthusiastically.
He held up a sheaf of papers, printouts of emails. The previous day, he had set them the task of applying for a job interview on the internet. First, had they researched the company? He summoned one boy to the front, who listed his company’s interests fluently. Parkes nodded approval, then turned back to us. Now then, how many had tracked down the right address for the email? Who was dispatching their precious job application to the man in the post room? Everyone laughed.
No detail seemed too small for Parkes. Had they spelt names correctly? He waved the papers accusingly. Some of the students had addressed their emails to him: “You were not following directions. You have got to learn to follow directions.” He selected three or four sheets. “And some of you have an email address that is inappropriate for a job application. Put yourself in the company’s shoes. Are you really going to give an interview to JosetheNiceGuy, FastandFurious@Hotmail” — the boy next to me blushed — “or Cristo Rey Hottie?” The pupils erupted. Finally, the head demanded: “What happens when you are not proactive?” “You are being a procrastinator,” they shouted back.
Parkes knows that his school is the only chance these young people have. Education has to make up for their background and the lack of those values that ensure success. He knows they are totally dependent on him for their future. If employers like the managing director are to recruit in England again, it is a lesson that our state schools will have to learn.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Noah's Ark In A World Of Excess Liquidity
The global fact today is excess liquidity. The excess liquidity was created by Greenspan over nearly two decades of unrestrained monetary exuberance, justified somewhat by the need to lubricate the IT revolution, and which has resulted in the following:
1. The rise of China as a global economic power fed first by the battle for cheap exports to the US and second by the flight of investment cash to the brave new Chinese market. This is probably the single biggest consequence of the Greenspan monetary mismanagement.
2. Underneath the China rise is the relentless search for better returns by investment bankers in markets around the world, which resulted in the flooding of every equity market of any substance with the flow and ebb of investment capital which accentuates the fluctuations in the forex and equity markets. There is now the IMF rethink that probably capital restraint is not a bad think - and I think it should better be directed at the money market rather than in the capital market.
3. With any excessive monetary creation is always the problem of inflation - and there are many analysts who would like to think that, given the quantity of money supply and the output level, inflation is not excessive. In the initial stages, when the excessive money is sloshing in the equity market and then, when that dies, and the cash goes into the property market, triggered by hapless bankers seeking to earn supernormal bonuses, the inflation in real estate is "bearable" and some would even say "desirable." Less so in Malaysia than the US where the property bubble burst after the bubble burst in Malaysia and our neighbours and that was after the Japan bubble burst not that long ago.
4. By the rescue of financial institutions, the US is doing what we less beings had done with ours. Whether that act is justified or not is a subject for debate - at least in the academic world of monetary and banking theory. The rescue of banks by central banks is a necessary evil in this articial monetary world of fiat money we have unfortunately created for ourselves - clever, yes, as well as illusionary. But don't let us think there is no appreciable consequence. The key effect is that asset prices are now artificially held up above equilibrium levels that time becomes the only solution as income struggles to rise to justify the high asset prices. Struggles because the asset-rich elite now do not have to work, and the poor workers on low pay in stagnant economies have to live in cramp conditions to give the asset-rich their rental income that they live on.
5. But the ultimate consequence of the excess liquidity in the world is the rise of China which unleashes a world new world of consequence, when a third of the world which used to be hungry is now not so destitute. With the frenzy of consumption (and investment), there is a significant and noticeable shift in the global aggregate demand curve to the right and hence a global rise in prices across all markets - except for the finished Chinese products. Nobody should think that the excess liquidity created by Greenspan had no impact on global inflation.
Noah's Ark
If there is excess liquidity, where is Noah's Ark to save us all?
The excess liquidity remains because the central banks have all plunged the holes with their bank rescues and so we are now all trapped in a world of ample worthless cash. Unplugging the holes does not appear to be a practical option.
The larger world now seems caught in a stalemate. The only way out for most countries seems to be a pray that somehow investors would be inspired with new innovative ideas to start a new round of investment projects - creating products that will entice the people of the world to consume and hence stimulating more economic activities.
In economies where confidence is at the lowest, the interest rate for savings would be the lowest because politicians, in their desperate bid to save their political careers, are very willing to punish the small savers in order to applease the big investors. This policy may work to opposite effects - as small savers, i.e., the many voters - will be unhappy over the erosion of true traditional values of hard work and saving, while the big investors will take the cheap funds and invest where the market exists.
In more confident economies, of which there is probably only one in the world at present, i.e., China, the policy action is exactly the opposite - instilling monetary discipline, raise interest and generally trying to slowdown the growth of the bubble. China is the only country in the world where the people are hungry and the environment is conducive for people to work hard to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. China is probably the Noah's Ark, if any one should be looking for one to climb onboard.
1. The rise of China as a global economic power fed first by the battle for cheap exports to the US and second by the flight of investment cash to the brave new Chinese market. This is probably the single biggest consequence of the Greenspan monetary mismanagement.
2. Underneath the China rise is the relentless search for better returns by investment bankers in markets around the world, which resulted in the flooding of every equity market of any substance with the flow and ebb of investment capital which accentuates the fluctuations in the forex and equity markets. There is now the IMF rethink that probably capital restraint is not a bad think - and I think it should better be directed at the money market rather than in the capital market.
3. With any excessive monetary creation is always the problem of inflation - and there are many analysts who would like to think that, given the quantity of money supply and the output level, inflation is not excessive. In the initial stages, when the excessive money is sloshing in the equity market and then, when that dies, and the cash goes into the property market, triggered by hapless bankers seeking to earn supernormal bonuses, the inflation in real estate is "bearable" and some would even say "desirable." Less so in Malaysia than the US where the property bubble burst after the bubble burst in Malaysia and our neighbours and that was after the Japan bubble burst not that long ago.
4. By the rescue of financial institutions, the US is doing what we less beings had done with ours. Whether that act is justified or not is a subject for debate - at least in the academic world of monetary and banking theory. The rescue of banks by central banks is a necessary evil in this articial monetary world of fiat money we have unfortunately created for ourselves - clever, yes, as well as illusionary. But don't let us think there is no appreciable consequence. The key effect is that asset prices are now artificially held up above equilibrium levels that time becomes the only solution as income struggles to rise to justify the high asset prices. Struggles because the asset-rich elite now do not have to work, and the poor workers on low pay in stagnant economies have to live in cramp conditions to give the asset-rich their rental income that they live on.
5. But the ultimate consequence of the excess liquidity in the world is the rise of China which unleashes a world new world of consequence, when a third of the world which used to be hungry is now not so destitute. With the frenzy of consumption (and investment), there is a significant and noticeable shift in the global aggregate demand curve to the right and hence a global rise in prices across all markets - except for the finished Chinese products. Nobody should think that the excess liquidity created by Greenspan had no impact on global inflation.
Noah's Ark
If there is excess liquidity, where is Noah's Ark to save us all?
The excess liquidity remains because the central banks have all plunged the holes with their bank rescues and so we are now all trapped in a world of ample worthless cash. Unplugging the holes does not appear to be a practical option.
The larger world now seems caught in a stalemate. The only way out for most countries seems to be a pray that somehow investors would be inspired with new innovative ideas to start a new round of investment projects - creating products that will entice the people of the world to consume and hence stimulating more economic activities.
In economies where confidence is at the lowest, the interest rate for savings would be the lowest because politicians, in their desperate bid to save their political careers, are very willing to punish the small savers in order to applease the big investors. This policy may work to opposite effects - as small savers, i.e., the many voters - will be unhappy over the erosion of true traditional values of hard work and saving, while the big investors will take the cheap funds and invest where the market exists.
In more confident economies, of which there is probably only one in the world at present, i.e., China, the policy action is exactly the opposite - instilling monetary discipline, raise interest and generally trying to slowdown the growth of the bubble. China is the only country in the world where the people are hungry and the environment is conducive for people to work hard to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. China is probably the Noah's Ark, if any one should be looking for one to climb onboard.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What's In A Word: Dictionary vs Translation
What a difference a word makes!
It was Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary - which he wrote singlehandedly, bar a few scrawny Scottish helpers, over a period of nine years - which laid the foundation of the English dictionaries that we have today.
Johnson's was not the first English dictionary, and earlier dictionaries were unsatisfactory because they tried to define what a word means, and not how a word has been used or is being used today. An unsatisfactory dictionary tries to fossilise a word in its historical usage, whereas a proper dictionary should try to demonstrate how a word is being used today - which may be very different from the way it was used before.
For me, the one word that has changed drastically in usage is this lovely simple word "gay." I like this word a lot. It tells of a condition in a person that is light and happy, not quite exuberant or just contented. Today, the word "gay" has a heavy sexual connotation.
Johnson's dictionary was significant because it tried to give example of how a word had been used or was being used. Words which had been used before was quite easy for him to discover, by borrowing books from friends and marking them so that his clerks could copy out. Words which were being used could be found out from current publications, and if he could not find one example, he simply gave his own version of the word. The most famous example was the word "Oats: a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people"
The greatness of Johnson's dictionary is to present for posterity the right to use words in the way as we so choose, which then make words living words rather than dead words, as opposed to giving the right over the usage of words to grammaritarians and some external linguistic authority.
So, if one were to do translation, how would one translate. Does one merely refer to the dictionary on the meaning of the word (as one would think of the nature of a poor dictionary) or does one try to understand how the word has been used or is being used and how it now can be used.
At the end of the day, the meaning of a word can be discovered only within the context that it is being used. The word does not define the context; but the context, the word.
It is only by opening words out for variations that we encourage creativity and innovation in the way we think. We can create new words for new ideas but we usually find that what we think is new is not really that new and that it could be the same old thing that now has taken a more modern facade.
If we are not allowed to think freely and express ourselves freely, then we may not be using words to master our thoughts; instead, we may find our thoughts being enslaved by words.
The way we use words betray our hidden innermost feelings about ourselves and how we see life.
It was Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary - which he wrote singlehandedly, bar a few scrawny Scottish helpers, over a period of nine years - which laid the foundation of the English dictionaries that we have today.
Johnson's was not the first English dictionary, and earlier dictionaries were unsatisfactory because they tried to define what a word means, and not how a word has been used or is being used today. An unsatisfactory dictionary tries to fossilise a word in its historical usage, whereas a proper dictionary should try to demonstrate how a word is being used today - which may be very different from the way it was used before.
For me, the one word that has changed drastically in usage is this lovely simple word "gay." I like this word a lot. It tells of a condition in a person that is light and happy, not quite exuberant or just contented. Today, the word "gay" has a heavy sexual connotation.
Johnson's dictionary was significant because it tried to give example of how a word had been used or was being used. Words which had been used before was quite easy for him to discover, by borrowing books from friends and marking them so that his clerks could copy out. Words which were being used could be found out from current publications, and if he could not find one example, he simply gave his own version of the word. The most famous example was the word "Oats: a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people"
The greatness of Johnson's dictionary is to present for posterity the right to use words in the way as we so choose, which then make words living words rather than dead words, as opposed to giving the right over the usage of words to grammaritarians and some external linguistic authority.
So, if one were to do translation, how would one translate. Does one merely refer to the dictionary on the meaning of the word (as one would think of the nature of a poor dictionary) or does one try to understand how the word has been used or is being used and how it now can be used.
At the end of the day, the meaning of a word can be discovered only within the context that it is being used. The word does not define the context; but the context, the word.
It is only by opening words out for variations that we encourage creativity and innovation in the way we think. We can create new words for new ideas but we usually find that what we think is new is not really that new and that it could be the same old thing that now has taken a more modern facade.
If we are not allowed to think freely and express ourselves freely, then we may not be using words to master our thoughts; instead, we may find our thoughts being enslaved by words.
The way we use words betray our hidden innermost feelings about ourselves and how we see life.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Economic Relativity: Stocks & Exchange Rates
So much for the stock market to play the role of risk-taking in order to create a market for the trading of stocks in according to the expectations by investors of their future earnings. The stock market takes risks which ordinary men and women including entrepreneurs with their high sense of business would not even touch with a ten-foot pole. This is, in essence, the idea behind the establishment of the stock market in each country around the world - to help boost actual investments by real investors in order to provide an orderly basis for growth in an economy.
Now, the Malaysian stock market called Bursa Malaysia has its chief executive officer expressing dismay by the low 12% participation by the young 20-29 age group in Malaysia in "investing" in the stock market. He calls for a better business model by the stock market to attract the young.
As a parent, I am appalled by such irresponsible thinking on the part of the manager of a major market in the Malaysian economy. I would not advise my young children to think of investing in the stock market as the way forward in their career in living.
The current dismal state of the Malaysian economy is due to the overwhelming success of the stock market in enticing the best talents and the most precious of our resources into something of a zero-sum game akin to the casino. We have lost the woods for the trees. We have turned the means to investment into the only avenue for investment.
The thinking of the stock market does not jive with that of an economist. In the stock market, inflation of asset value is seen as an investment opportunity, whereas an economist will try to avoid introducing inflationary pressures into the system so that there will not be a huge wedge between monetary values and real values.
Unfortunately, today, expansionary monetary policy is seen not to be inflationary because the increase in monetary values is considered to be stable without much escalation. In economics, a constant rate of increase in monetary values is inflation and an increase in the inflation rate is an escalation of monetary values - both of which are only possible by a constant expansion of the money supply, most often inititated by external flow and later justified by the steady and rapid expansion of loans by banks.
The only fear in this twisted thinking is deflation, the decline in monetary values, because of the difficulty of stopping the price decline - as would be the case of inflation. It is therefore conventional wisdom in economics that we do not try to stroke inflation because we have to suffer deflation later.
But after having encouraged inflation (which we all are quite happy about it, especially those with physical assets), policy makers and politicians now do not allow deflation to occur. There is no downward adjustment to correct for any overshooting of prices in a market run-up in stocks or real estate.
(There is probably universal agreement on such a tacit no-deflation zone because everybody has inflated, the the deflation-ridden economy will be the worst-hit re Japan for the last twenty years.)
Be that as it may, we must recognised that monetary values around the world are all inflated, thanks to the easy money policy - easy because it makes life easy for politicians and those who have made it and do not wish to lose what they have easily gotten.
In economics, we know that the only other relative value that has to adjust downwards to be in some some eqivalence with real values (read: productivity growth and newly invested industries) is the exchange rate.
The policy issue around the world today is the correct adjustments and realignment of the exchange rates which are reflective of the underlying economic fundamentals, in an enviroment when everybody has to adjust downwards.
This policy decision boils down to choosing a scapegoat - the one currency that must appreciate when everybody must depreciate or be seen to have depreciated, in a world of economic relativity.
Now, the Malaysian stock market called Bursa Malaysia has its chief executive officer expressing dismay by the low 12% participation by the young 20-29 age group in Malaysia in "investing" in the stock market. He calls for a better business model by the stock market to attract the young.
As a parent, I am appalled by such irresponsible thinking on the part of the manager of a major market in the Malaysian economy. I would not advise my young children to think of investing in the stock market as the way forward in their career in living.
The current dismal state of the Malaysian economy is due to the overwhelming success of the stock market in enticing the best talents and the most precious of our resources into something of a zero-sum game akin to the casino. We have lost the woods for the trees. We have turned the means to investment into the only avenue for investment.
The thinking of the stock market does not jive with that of an economist. In the stock market, inflation of asset value is seen as an investment opportunity, whereas an economist will try to avoid introducing inflationary pressures into the system so that there will not be a huge wedge between monetary values and real values.
Unfortunately, today, expansionary monetary policy is seen not to be inflationary because the increase in monetary values is considered to be stable without much escalation. In economics, a constant rate of increase in monetary values is inflation and an increase in the inflation rate is an escalation of monetary values - both of which are only possible by a constant expansion of the money supply, most often inititated by external flow and later justified by the steady and rapid expansion of loans by banks.
The only fear in this twisted thinking is deflation, the decline in monetary values, because of the difficulty of stopping the price decline - as would be the case of inflation. It is therefore conventional wisdom in economics that we do not try to stroke inflation because we have to suffer deflation later.
But after having encouraged inflation (which we all are quite happy about it, especially those with physical assets), policy makers and politicians now do not allow deflation to occur. There is no downward adjustment to correct for any overshooting of prices in a market run-up in stocks or real estate.
(There is probably universal agreement on such a tacit no-deflation zone because everybody has inflated, the the deflation-ridden economy will be the worst-hit re Japan for the last twenty years.)
Be that as it may, we must recognised that monetary values around the world are all inflated, thanks to the easy money policy - easy because it makes life easy for politicians and those who have made it and do not wish to lose what they have easily gotten.
In economics, we know that the only other relative value that has to adjust downwards to be in some some eqivalence with real values (read: productivity growth and newly invested industries) is the exchange rate.
The policy issue around the world today is the correct adjustments and realignment of the exchange rates which are reflective of the underlying economic fundamentals, in an enviroment when everybody has to adjust downwards.
This policy decision boils down to choosing a scapegoat - the one currency that must appreciate when everybody must depreciate or be seen to have depreciated, in a world of economic relativity.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Exclusiveness vs Oneness
I have often been intrigued by the concept of exclusiveness - the idea that one is different from everybody else - the specialness that one has that other people do not have. How does one distinguishes oneself from everybody else - the idea of being unique.
In the land of the poor, the rich person is unique.
In the land of the rich, the poor is unique.
Even among the poor, it is still quite possible for the poor to compete among themselves to see who is the poorest.
In the same way, among the rich, each will compete with the other to see who is the richest.
But between the apex and the bottom most, if the distance between the two poles can be made large enough, it is quite possible for us to see that among those who are in caught in between, there will be sufficient space between each that makes one different from the other - and hence it is possible to say everybody is unique by being different from the next, no matter how small the difference.
In such a case, then the only truly situation is a tie, where one is the same as another - for that one is unqiuely different from the others by being the same as another - as in identical twins.
It will then be unusual and hence truly unique when a third or a fourth is unique with others - as in identical triplets and quadruplets.
As in the case of uniquely different viruses, we probably should enbark on a method for resolving the problem of naming elements in an environment of all uniquely different elements - a1, a2, a3, a4 - similar like viruses but different as in strands.
In the land of diversity, the only solution to true uniqueness is exclusion - by disallowing the existence of others, or disallowing others the use of the same symbol or word to identify one particularisation.
But, in the land of the happy people, commonness is embraced where none exists - the outside acceptance of similarity is only possible by the blatant discregard of the noticeable differences, banishing into oblivion in the mind by their insignificant of the differences.
Oneness can really only exist in the mind, when the mind accepts the concept of all being the same - even the pimple and the pus are the same, even if they are of grossly different colour and texture.
In the land of the poor, the rich person is unique.
In the land of the rich, the poor is unique.
Even among the poor, it is still quite possible for the poor to compete among themselves to see who is the poorest.
In the same way, among the rich, each will compete with the other to see who is the richest.
But between the apex and the bottom most, if the distance between the two poles can be made large enough, it is quite possible for us to see that among those who are in caught in between, there will be sufficient space between each that makes one different from the other - and hence it is possible to say everybody is unique by being different from the next, no matter how small the difference.
In such a case, then the only truly situation is a tie, where one is the same as another - for that one is unqiuely different from the others by being the same as another - as in identical twins.
It will then be unusual and hence truly unique when a third or a fourth is unique with others - as in identical triplets and quadruplets.
As in the case of uniquely different viruses, we probably should enbark on a method for resolving the problem of naming elements in an environment of all uniquely different elements - a1, a2, a3, a4 - similar like viruses but different as in strands.
In the land of diversity, the only solution to true uniqueness is exclusion - by disallowing the existence of others, or disallowing others the use of the same symbol or word to identify one particularisation.
But, in the land of the happy people, commonness is embraced where none exists - the outside acceptance of similarity is only possible by the blatant discregard of the noticeable differences, banishing into oblivion in the mind by their insignificant of the differences.
Oneness can really only exist in the mind, when the mind accepts the concept of all being the same - even the pimple and the pus are the same, even if they are of grossly different colour and texture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)