This is just a crazy thought but it might be just the time for the people who actually work and bring something valuable to the table to rise again. People who produce things that solve real-life problems. The industries who are doing their job and people like their products will, eventually, get back on their feet. They may not get back to the top but they will do just fine.
I am just throwing names but I think the show business, some IT companies including Google, wine and other alcoholic drinks vendors, some food stores, fashion and farmers are doing their job efficiently. It is hard to come up with something that makes them more efficient. However, most of the other companies like banks, automakers, Telecom and IT providers, insurance companies and more importantly the government itself have terrible performances. These areas are open to other people who can do a better job or at least drastically lower the costs.
It is going to be hard as hell but we all have to suffer so that these morons get back off their ass and learn to do a better job.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
A second look at the economic crisis
You don't even have to be a news person to know there is a crisis going on. Many got fired from their jobs, many companies went bankrupt and many lost their homes. So, unless you are filthy rich, blind and deaf all at the same time, you would know there is a problem somewhere.
However, this awareness does not mean that the causes are also known. For one, a number of greedy American banks contributed to the creation of this mess by giving out mortgages to the people who could not afford it. The people who received the mortgages bought houses all over the US which led to increases in real-estate values. However, people could still afford these high prices as the banks kept giving out mortgages!
One cannot help but notice that the price increase was backed by the mortgages which were supposed to be backed by the people who received them. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The value increase was just a bubble.
The purpose of this article is not to look at this specific cause. The goal is to analyze the situation from a different perspective: wealth creation.
It is true that the financial institutions triggered this mess but were they really the main cause? One may ask, why can't the American people afford their houses in the first place?
The answer is, to my opinion, the lack of wealth in the US. There is not enough wealth in the US to provide everyone with the life style that they currently expect in the current system. But why? There used to be enough for everybody. There used to be an American dream! What happened?
Lets take a look at how the United States of America became the super economic power and compare what has changed since.
According to Former Indian National Security Advisor Jyotindra Nath Dixit: "The state concerned [a superpower] should be economically well to do and should be endowed with food security and natural resources, particularly energy resources and infrastructural resources in terms of minerals and metals. Such a state should have a strong industrial base backed by productive capacities and technological knowledge."
The culture of the American people who worked years ago was nothing like the current culture. They actually worked! They invented new technologies, they came up with new ideas and they built them.
Sad thing was that they needed to market these products. Marketing, business, sales and other related sciences were then improved. It then became possible to become a millionaire with way less effort than was previously required to actually build things. The number of people who joined the screaming group of people in the stock market grew and so did the number of business people in many other related areas.
The nation then became less and less productive. Many production lines, software developments, cheapest designs and other productive activities were outsourced to the countries whose people were willing to do some actual work with a very low salary. Not that it was bad for them. They could support their families which was not possible prior to these outsourcing activities.
But what were the results? Well, take a look around you. Not that many things are made in USA anymore. You can see China, Japan, Taiwan and India but not that many US as it used to be. The work is being done in other countries; the Americans are just selling them! That's why America is not a super economic power anymore. If I wanted to summarize the cause of this mess, I'd say: The desire of a good portion of Americans to make easy money.
However, this awareness does not mean that the causes are also known. For one, a number of greedy American banks contributed to the creation of this mess by giving out mortgages to the people who could not afford it. The people who received the mortgages bought houses all over the US which led to increases in real-estate values. However, people could still afford these high prices as the banks kept giving out mortgages!
One cannot help but notice that the price increase was backed by the mortgages which were supposed to be backed by the people who received them. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The value increase was just a bubble.
The purpose of this article is not to look at this specific cause. The goal is to analyze the situation from a different perspective: wealth creation.
It is true that the financial institutions triggered this mess but were they really the main cause? One may ask, why can't the American people afford their houses in the first place?
The answer is, to my opinion, the lack of wealth in the US. There is not enough wealth in the US to provide everyone with the life style that they currently expect in the current system. But why? There used to be enough for everybody. There used to be an American dream! What happened?
Lets take a look at how the United States of America became the super economic power and compare what has changed since.
According to Former Indian National Security Advisor Jyotindra Nath Dixit: "The state concerned [a superpower] should be economically well to do and should be endowed with food security and natural resources, particularly energy resources and infrastructural resources in terms of minerals and metals. Such a state should have a strong industrial base backed by productive capacities and technological knowledge."
The culture of the American people who worked years ago was nothing like the current culture. They actually worked! They invented new technologies, they came up with new ideas and they built them.
Sad thing was that they needed to market these products. Marketing, business, sales and other related sciences were then improved. It then became possible to become a millionaire with way less effort than was previously required to actually build things. The number of people who joined the screaming group of people in the stock market grew and so did the number of business people in many other related areas.
The nation then became less and less productive. Many production lines, software developments, cheapest designs and other productive activities were outsourced to the countries whose people were willing to do some actual work with a very low salary. Not that it was bad for them. They could support their families which was not possible prior to these outsourcing activities.
But what were the results? Well, take a look around you. Not that many things are made in USA anymore. You can see China, Japan, Taiwan and India but not that many US as it used to be. The work is being done in other countries; the Americans are just selling them! That's why America is not a super economic power anymore. If I wanted to summarize the cause of this mess, I'd say: The desire of a good portion of Americans to make easy money.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Iranian negotiation
Iranian nuclear program has been all over the news for sometimes now.
There are two main parties involved: the Iranian government and the west (also called 5+1). It is a simple and yet sensitive matter for all the parties involved. Here is a simplified version of what's happening:
A win-win condition in a negotiation happens only if "parties look not at their stated positions but rather at their underlying interests and requirements to reach a decision that benefits both parties". This does not seem to be the case in ongoing negotiations.
Iranians do NOT want to put their program on hold but claim to understand west's concern about the missing trust. Therefore they are prepared to let international organizations to validate the peacefulness of their nuclear program.
The west simply says Iranians should do more than just letting international organizations verify their program. This validation must have happened when they initiated the program not sometimes in the middle.
I am assuming both parties are truthful in their claims and it's just the matter of negotiation. Lets see if this leads us to any contradiction.
Doesn't sound promising. Does it?
Iranians are using rather odd ways of doing the negotiations. They keep announcing they are ready to "negotiate" but what they are doing is not really negotiating! They have to offer something beyond what they are obliged to by law to rebuild trust If they don't want to put their program on hold.
Iranians also do not accept west offers which might be the result of doing a cost-benefit analysis. However the main reason remains Iranian's reluctance to offer something that can rebuild west's missing trust.
There are two main parties involved: the Iranian government and the west (also called 5+1). It is a simple and yet sensitive matter for all the parties involved. Here is a simplified version of what's happening:
- Iranians have been working on a nuclear program for a number of years now but they just recently informed the rest of the world that such program exists.
- According to accepted protocols by Iranians, a peaceful nuclear program cannot be kept secret since its peacefulness must be verified by international organizations.
- Iranians claim their program is peaceful.
- The west questions Iranians claim basically because of the period that the program was kept secret. "Why didn't Iranians publicize their program from the beginning if their claim about its peacefulness is in fact true?", the west asks.
- Iranians want to continue their program.
- The west wants Iranians to put a hold on their program to rebuild trust.
A win-win condition in a negotiation happens only if "parties look not at their stated positions but rather at their underlying interests and requirements to reach a decision that benefits both parties". This does not seem to be the case in ongoing negotiations.
Iranians do NOT want to put their program on hold but claim to understand west's concern about the missing trust. Therefore they are prepared to let international organizations to validate the peacefulness of their nuclear program.
The west simply says Iranians should do more than just letting international organizations verify their program. This validation must have happened when they initiated the program not sometimes in the middle.
I am assuming both parties are truthful in their claims and it's just the matter of negotiation. Lets see if this leads us to any contradiction.
- The underlying incentives for having a nuclear program is economical. In this specific case Iranians made it to be about their pride as well. The latter one is mostly caused by the government to have internal approval of what it does.
- The underlying incentive for the west's demands is to rebuild trust.
Doesn't sound promising. Does it?
Iranians are using rather odd ways of doing the negotiations. They keep announcing they are ready to "negotiate" but what they are doing is not really negotiating! They have to offer something beyond what they are obliged to by law to rebuild trust If they don't want to put their program on hold.
Iranians also do not accept west offers which might be the result of doing a cost-benefit analysis. However the main reason remains Iranian's reluctance to offer something that can rebuild west's missing trust.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
A different election in the democratic side
I really enjoy watching this race. I am talking about the presidential election and in particular the democratic election. Wow, can these guys make speeches or what. Just as a side note, do you think there is a reason behind the fact that democrats, in general, are better speakers? There have been exceptions throughout history though but nevertheless.
The republican side is not that different from previous elections. There are a number of extreme conservatives and some folks who are, well, in the middle!
On the democratic side, on the contrary, the two runners are very different. Obama is a fantastic speaker whose speeches are usually persuasive. He tries to keep pushing people to believe that his plans for future are executable and can benefit them and other Americans. Clinton, on the other hand, can sure talk too. She tries to show the people that it is the experience that matters and therefore she focuses on what she has done.
The characteristic that distinguishes this year's democratic election from the past ones is neither the ability of the candidates to talk nor their future plans! It is their supporters and their approach.
Being an experienced traditional politician, Clinton approaches the election with the good old lobbying strategy. She has a top down approach. She talks to the big guys to get to the bottom. I can argue that this is the strategy that originates from a capital economy. To make it short, it means that it is the economy which drives.
Obama is a young politician who tries to use a bottom up approach. He talks about all the good things that "can" happen to the people if he is elected. He is all about giving hopes, some of which may not necessarily be viable.
I do believe that people, democrats of course, like this guy. However, I doubt his success should he get in to the white house. I have to admit though, he is personally more reliable and likable than Clinton but as a president, well, let me just say he might not be the best option.
As we move forward we can see who will win. Is it going to be someone who is practicing common American values which the US has been built on? Or are the American people going to vote for somebody who is not really compatible with the way that capital economy works? The second option may lead to a huge change whose results remain vague until their time comes, if ever!
The republican side is not that different from previous elections. There are a number of extreme conservatives and some folks who are, well, in the middle!
On the democratic side, on the contrary, the two runners are very different. Obama is a fantastic speaker whose speeches are usually persuasive. He tries to keep pushing people to believe that his plans for future are executable and can benefit them and other Americans. Clinton, on the other hand, can sure talk too. She tries to show the people that it is the experience that matters and therefore she focuses on what she has done.
The characteristic that distinguishes this year's democratic election from the past ones is neither the ability of the candidates to talk nor their future plans! It is their supporters and their approach.
Being an experienced traditional politician, Clinton approaches the election with the good old lobbying strategy. She has a top down approach. She talks to the big guys to get to the bottom. I can argue that this is the strategy that originates from a capital economy. To make it short, it means that it is the economy which drives.
Obama is a young politician who tries to use a bottom up approach. He talks about all the good things that "can" happen to the people if he is elected. He is all about giving hopes, some of which may not necessarily be viable.
I do believe that people, democrats of course, like this guy. However, I doubt his success should he get in to the white house. I have to admit though, he is personally more reliable and likable than Clinton but as a president, well, let me just say he might not be the best option.
As we move forward we can see who will win. Is it going to be someone who is practicing common American values which the US has been built on? Or are the American people going to vote for somebody who is not really compatible with the way that capital economy works? The second option may lead to a huge change whose results remain vague until their time comes, if ever!
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Sexism
Do the laws have to reflect inherited sexual inequalities? Lets clarify what I mean by this:
It is a fact that there were systematic discriminations toward people based on their gender. There were sexism against female and male throughout history. These systematic discriminations have been reflected even in legislations in various countries. For example women's suffrage in the United States used to be denied not a long time ago. Some countries started recognizing these flaws, after years of activists' campaigns, and took some actions to address them. In other words, they started to equalize the laws.
However, this equalization is not actualized the same way in different countries. Even within a single country, the actions took to equalize different laws were different. In some cases they just removed the terms which were representing the discrimination and in some they added some terms. New bills were also passed to address the issues case by case.
Now, here is my question: Do we do it right? Do all activists want what they should really want? There are many cases that laws are de-equalized in order to have an equalized set of laws. In other words, there are cases in which some discriminatory bills are passed to balance out the historical discriminations in that area. Bills have been drafted specifically for women/men to address their concerns. Isn't it irony? Doesn't this type of laws create inequalities in the long run?
Do you prefer to have a law which favors women and another one to favor men in order to balance out the previous one or do you want a law which is equalized by not being gender specific at all?
It is a fact that there were systematic discriminations toward people based on their gender. There were sexism against female and male throughout history. These systematic discriminations have been reflected even in legislations in various countries. For example women's suffrage in the United States used to be denied not a long time ago. Some countries started recognizing these flaws, after years of activists' campaigns, and took some actions to address them. In other words, they started to equalize the laws.
However, this equalization is not actualized the same way in different countries. Even within a single country, the actions took to equalize different laws were different. In some cases they just removed the terms which were representing the discrimination and in some they added some terms. New bills were also passed to address the issues case by case.
Now, here is my question: Do we do it right? Do all activists want what they should really want? There are many cases that laws are de-equalized in order to have an equalized set of laws. In other words, there are cases in which some discriminatory bills are passed to balance out the historical discriminations in that area. Bills have been drafted specifically for women/men to address their concerns. Isn't it irony? Doesn't this type of laws create inequalities in the long run?
Do you prefer to have a law which favors women and another one to favor men in order to balance out the previous one or do you want a law which is equalized by not being gender specific at all?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
How soon is too soon?
I was reading an article about the new movie "Golden Compass". It was criticizing the movie because, according to the author, it exposes the children to Atheism. I don't intend to prove or disprove this claim as I have not watched the movie! The question that popped into my mind as I was reading the article was how soon should the children be exposed to various subject matters including god, sex, ...?
There is no doubt that people's perception about many controversial subjects has changed throughout history. Not a long time ago, having premarital sex was a taboo. Is it anymore? It was even highly inappropriate to discuss it in high schools. Nowadays, even some elementary schools have some programs to familiarize kids with sex to some extent. Apparently, sex is not as "dangerous" as it used to be!
Not many of these limitations have academic basis. Not many researchers have worked on "When is too soon?" question. They are mostly based on the opinion of highly concerned parents who think if there is no exposure, kids are going to accept what they think is right and as the result they are going to be safe.
Is it really a good idea to let parents decide when to expose their kids to various subjects? Is it helping the kids? Is it always fair? Don't we need to have academic basis for these decisions?
While I believe that certain limits should exist, I think many of them should be relaxed.
There is no doubt that people's perception about many controversial subjects has changed throughout history. Not a long time ago, having premarital sex was a taboo. Is it anymore? It was even highly inappropriate to discuss it in high schools. Nowadays, even some elementary schools have some programs to familiarize kids with sex to some extent. Apparently, sex is not as "dangerous" as it used to be!
Not many of these limitations have academic basis. Not many researchers have worked on "When is too soon?" question. They are mostly based on the opinion of highly concerned parents who think if there is no exposure, kids are going to accept what they think is right and as the result they are going to be safe.
Is it really a good idea to let parents decide when to expose their kids to various subjects? Is it helping the kids? Is it always fair? Don't we need to have academic basis for these decisions?
While I believe that certain limits should exist, I think many of them should be relaxed.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
A path to democracy or more
Do democratic societies always have to talk to their oppositions in order to transfer their message?
Is it justified for a democratic society to depend on military forces instead of powerful negotiators?
Is it a valid argument for a non democratic country to say that a democratic opposition does not respect its own values because it is participating in non democratic events such as coup d'etats?
The answer is NO and here is why.
Lets analyze a simplified example to shed some light on the subject. For the sake of the argument lets say that it was possible for a stone age society to coexist with a modern democratic community. Just imagine what would happen if the two wanted to solve their issues based on democratic values. Would they be able to even sit around a table and understand each other? Does a stone age individual even understand the democratic values? If not, what is the common language that they can both understand? Is it possible for the stone age people to upgrade or do the modern people have to downgrade?
Lets define social stabilization to be the social condition in which everybody respect everybody else's values and ideas while each person is allowed to do whatever he/she wants.(it almost sounds like anarchy I know). By looking at how societies have evolved it sounds like a good idea to say that social stabilization is where the mankind has been aiming.
The path to social stabilization has been an evolution rather than a revolution. It also requires knowledge. A dictator leaded society never evolved to a democratic country unless its members became aware of democratic values. It is something that takes time to take effect. You cannot just define the terms and say you have a democratic country.
Now, what would happen if an already evolved country has some common interests with a country in which democratic values have no place? How can they communicate?
The most vital issue is to find a common language that both parties can understand. However, it is difficult to find such a thing. It is like when an adult wants to talk to a baby. It does not make sense to expect the baby to understand adult terms. However it is possible for an adult to speak baby's language as he/she once was a baby and knows that language.
This is why modern communities have always been accused of being involved in conspiracies against some undeveloped countries. Conspiracy is surely a common language!
Is it justified for a democratic society to depend on military forces instead of powerful negotiators?
Is it a valid argument for a non democratic country to say that a democratic opposition does not respect its own values because it is participating in non democratic events such as coup d'etats?
The answer is NO and here is why.
Lets analyze a simplified example to shed some light on the subject. For the sake of the argument lets say that it was possible for a stone age society to coexist with a modern democratic community. Just imagine what would happen if the two wanted to solve their issues based on democratic values. Would they be able to even sit around a table and understand each other? Does a stone age individual even understand the democratic values? If not, what is the common language that they can both understand? Is it possible for the stone age people to upgrade or do the modern people have to downgrade?
Lets define social stabilization to be the social condition in which everybody respect everybody else's values and ideas while each person is allowed to do whatever he/she wants.(it almost sounds like anarchy I know). By looking at how societies have evolved it sounds like a good idea to say that social stabilization is where the mankind has been aiming.
The path to social stabilization has been an evolution rather than a revolution. It also requires knowledge. A dictator leaded society never evolved to a democratic country unless its members became aware of democratic values. It is something that takes time to take effect. You cannot just define the terms and say you have a democratic country.
Now, what would happen if an already evolved country has some common interests with a country in which democratic values have no place? How can they communicate?
The most vital issue is to find a common language that both parties can understand. However, it is difficult to find such a thing. It is like when an adult wants to talk to a baby. It does not make sense to expect the baby to understand adult terms. However it is possible for an adult to speak baby's language as he/she once was a baby and knows that language.
This is why modern communities have always been accused of being involved in conspiracies against some undeveloped countries. Conspiracy is surely a common language!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
