perrytong.blogspot.com
http://parlerment.blogspot.com/2006/07/language-cleansing-evils-of-speak.html
ahh! so late!
Read the blogs, read the books (ah, books are insufficient now. to keep up with modern and ever changing views of casual people, blogs and newspaper forums will come in handy), and you know what? You should talk to people about these issues. Have a discussion.
Of course, A Sleepwalking Land is getting very boring. It is written in such a strange format, all allegorical. But perhaps in such a book, the content is less important than the language and descriptions that portray a set of mentalities - in this case African mentality, though not generalized. For Russian mentalities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Dostoevsky is always available for reading. *wink wink*
Unless you've got the time, perhaps that should wrap up "African studies" for now, having Things Fall Apart completed as well. For further readings in the future, search for the "12 best African novels" online and add Arrow of God.
For "Economic studies", there is an insane amount to be done. Moreover, it is constantly on-going and evolving. Start with Hot, Flat & Crowded to level the playing field. To know what other business oriented people might be influenced by and therefore are more inclined to think, reading the top books based on sales may be a good start. Freakanomics seemed popular, although it may not be my taste. I think it would be useful to learn the history behind the modern system of money and banking and a book from the Mises Institute may be fitting for this. I also suggest reading The Post American World.
"Linguistic studies" will be definitely useful and interesting as I continue my university education in this field. Its concepts can be applied to any language being learned to make it much more interesting. There is also a treasure in my possession and that is Singlish. Studies have surely been made on this creole language and it will serve well for a Singaporean interested in linguistics to analyze Singlish.
"International Relations", "Political studies" and "History" will also account for a wealth of knowledge. Knowledge about Singapore in every aspect is essential to becoming a good commentator of the country and its policies. Areas like its "Speak Mandarin, No Speak Dialect" or equivalent campaign can be scrutinized, observing "social engineering" and attempted "linguicide" as quoted from other sources. Its education system and policies will be a very interesting area for critical analysis.
Night makes a great book to be read not only because of its international fame but also because its author is a professor at my university.
Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Cops...
Newlywed shot dead by cops in his yard
A story on CNN's website today. Can you imagine, the wife of this man, having her beloved killed on her wedding day? Her biggest day, her new life...she is widowed on the day she leaves her family to start a new life. And the shooter...cops....COPS....
You think it would be better if the groom had been killed by a thug instead?
Or if he was injured and left crippled on this day instead?
Of course, surely being mistaken shot in your yard by COPS 20 years after your marriage probably should be as big a deal. It's just more musical to die and be widowed on your wedding day. Which is why I lied so far...he didn't die on his wedding day. But he got married just a few days ago. Shot...bang bang...
By COPS...
Cops who were chasing burglar suspects...looks like the groom was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cops shot without verifying his identity. But then, could they without risking their lives?
who are these cops anyway? Brings the question, how good are these cops? Are they men of highest virtue selected to police the country and enforce the law? Or are they just people who have few other job options. And what's going through their heads? Are they seeking action...do they love holding a gun...do they have fantasies of being in a battle...have 80s and 90s cop vs thug movies as their vision of their job? Can they be trusted and given a gun?
Are they neutral in matters such as race...?
What is their idea of justice...?
If cops can be armed...perhaps that's the best justification I have had so far of why owning a gun should be legal in the country. Because you don't know when you'll meet some idiot with a gun, and if guns are only available to cops, then that idiot might just be a cop. Except...you can't shoot a cop, so idiot cops are granted immunity from the bullets of righteous citizens. Bet most of you don't remember that Rambo was a idiot-cop shooter.
But then Rambo was fine...because after his psychotic jihad against the idiot cops, he was either living peacefully in another country or serving in the military. He wasn't gonna be around civilians or our streets posing a threat. Nah, he was killing those justified to be killed by his commanders, in battlefields. Idiot cops, should be promoted to the military...away from peaceful settlements...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
things fall apart
interesting book. didn't know where it was leading, which caused me not to have any pre-conceived endings. Though at times, I anticipate that a certain part is the turning point of the book and that the main novel revolves about that event and its consequences, with the hint coming only from its title...it turns out not to be so. In fact, it is great because it is like life. just going though, and yet not boring. and yet all the parts of the novel served a purpose. skillfully done, with all the previous parts turning out to be a good foundation for the last part and last events, which aren't too heavily harped upon either. it is like taking gathering information about many things over time, and one day encountering a period when all those u gathered became useful the understand one momentful week of your life. good book.
spoilers ahead. i recommend reading the book without wiki-ing it or anything. it is short after all. and preferable without reading the summary if any on your book back cover. :)
how ignorant and arrogant are we when we don't actually fully understand a type of people and make judgments on them...more so when we have power over them. shows ignorance and arrogance of the westerners colonizing africa. like how different classes may look down on the lower classes. personal experience for me was in the military when i mingled with people different from those i was more naturally meeting in school.
also, religion...terrible...won't argue about the validity of the religion. but the way it is used...abused....the initial aims of the missionaries may be good.....i expect the things they belief and talk about to be what i experience in church when i was young...sounds all good and all that...like going out to convert ppl...to the one true God....face difficulties....must reach the lost....oh the devil has strong hold over the lost....etc. but from the other point of view, especially since missionaries tend to be imperfect, and in the book even had their own government set up according to their rules...which they deem fair. they think throwing away twin babies is evil....fair enough i can undestand. but the igbo people have long believed they were evil babies of some sort. they had their rituals. religion is powerful....gets into the minds of people...crusades, islamic terrorists...etc but maybe not merely abused by misinterpreted...or just interpretated differently and is realized differently. First pastor in missionaries had gentle approach. peaceful. 2nd was more radical. both probably have their justifications. district commissioner doesn't understand the people. concerned with his career and thinks he knows enough to write what he was going to call "The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger". What an insult to the africans. pacification? primitive? moreover, a man had hung himself. and they were more peaceful and forgiving that the missionaries in the book whose company beat and hanged people.
spoilers ahead. i recommend reading the book without wiki-ing it or anything. it is short after all. and preferable without reading the summary if any on your book back cover. :)
how ignorant and arrogant are we when we don't actually fully understand a type of people and make judgments on them...more so when we have power over them. shows ignorance and arrogance of the westerners colonizing africa. like how different classes may look down on the lower classes. personal experience for me was in the military when i mingled with people different from those i was more naturally meeting in school.
also, religion...terrible...won't argue about the validity of the religion. but the way it is used...abused....the initial aims of the missionaries may be good.....i expect the things they belief and talk about to be what i experience in church when i was young...sounds all good and all that...like going out to convert ppl...to the one true God....face difficulties....must reach the lost....oh the devil has strong hold over the lost....etc. but from the other point of view, especially since missionaries tend to be imperfect, and in the book even had their own government set up according to their rules...which they deem fair. they think throwing away twin babies is evil....fair enough i can undestand. but the igbo people have long believed they were evil babies of some sort. they had their rituals. religion is powerful....gets into the minds of people...crusades, islamic terrorists...etc but maybe not merely abused by misinterpreted...or just interpretated differently and is realized differently. First pastor in missionaries had gentle approach. peaceful. 2nd was more radical. both probably have their justifications. district commissioner doesn't understand the people. concerned with his career and thinks he knows enough to write what he was going to call "The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger". What an insult to the africans. pacification? primitive? moreover, a man had hung himself. and they were more peaceful and forgiving that the missionaries in the book whose company beat and hanged people.
the kite runner
not much to comment on this. just a short glimpse of afghanistan...some cultural aspects...and the change from peace to troubles...
most striking thing, perhaps what the whole novel leads up to, was when it talks about how forgiveness just crept in.
"I slipped the picture back where I had found it. Then I realized something: That last thought iI had brought no sting with it. Closing Sohrab's door, I wondered if that was how forgiveness budded, not with the fanfare of epiphany, but with pain gathering its things, packing up, and slipping away unannounced in the middle of the night."
i guess many things are like that. not just bitterness. but even sadness....it harps on you so much, u feel desperate....but suddenly, u're fine and u never worry. though it may not last, the sadness did not go away with a boom. neither does glory always come with fanfare. something you achieve something, and it's just that. maybe scoring a winning goal in the world cup finals would be different.
most striking thing, perhaps what the whole novel leads up to, was when it talks about how forgiveness just crept in.
"I slipped the picture back where I had found it. Then I realized something: That last thought iI had brought no sting with it. Closing Sohrab's door, I wondered if that was how forgiveness budded, not with the fanfare of epiphany, but with pain gathering its things, packing up, and slipping away unannounced in the middle of the night."
i guess many things are like that. not just bitterness. but even sadness....it harps on you so much, u feel desperate....but suddenly, u're fine and u never worry. though it may not last, the sadness did not go away with a boom. neither does glory always come with fanfare. something you achieve something, and it's just that. maybe scoring a winning goal in the world cup finals would be different.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
future.
ah! where is my future now? It all started when I became 21. Suddenly, without me feeling the real impact it would have on me, I left Singapore for an education in America. How long would I be there? What was the system like there? I didn't know. What was I going to be after I graduate? Where was my future headed toward? Ohhh...such questions...terrible questions. The future is so uncertain. Yes there is the common phrase that people often don't end up doing what they studied in university, or that university is when you discover yourself. But I don't like the uncertainty. I wish I had just gone into a vocational concentration like engineering, medicine, law, or architecture in Singapore. Why was I in America? I could study the same things back home if it were these vocational fields of education. As it turns out, university is a time of discovering about myself. But probably every period in time is a time of discovery anyway.
What am I going to do with a degree in Linguistics? A science. I think of it more as a social science. I like to slap the word "pseudoscience" on it. Oh, people are going to say "Oh! How many languages do you speak?" as if Linguistics was the acquiring of as many languages as needed for graduation. I'd have to answer "Oh, just two. English, half of Mandarin (I'm already being generous), and half of Russian (likely more generous here)."
They'd probably go, "Ooooh, that's nice."
As if speaking 2 or even 3 languages these days is anything special. I'd need to know Arabic, Spanish and Hindi to command some respect.
Well, I'd learned what I didn't want to do. Or at least I had more doubts about more things that before and more openness to others that I had shut out at first glance. I know I didn't want to study business because I thought that what corresponded to success in business, even in the educational aspect of it, was not intelligence in the kind of knowledge a school or classroom education can give but height and public relational skills. I took science courses and university halted there. I was transported and floated in a period of Junior College and Secondary School. Eventually I decided that a liberal arts education did not seem worth the money paid for the university education. I could probably read it elsewhere myself anyway. I should be studying something that gives me a job when I graduate! Ah!! But in the liberal arts, where does that lead? Everywhere and nowhere. That's the thing. Economics looked promising if not for some influences on my life that has made me doubtful of economics especially in its prescriptive-ness, but the bigger problem with economics was that there were just too many people doing it. The competition would be high. Too many people within my school, or from the people I had met to constitute my sample group, and too many other smart people in nearby Harvard and probably even M.I.T. to compete with.
But Linguistics is not the source of my troubles. I am happy with it. The stress comes from expectation.
My parents want me to become a doctor. a doctor? Oh my gosh. It is prestigious, it pays well, the working hours aren't my main problem with being a doctor. In fact, I don't mind being a doctor. But wait, really? Well, I discovered America only two years ago and man is it different from Singapore. Back home, we're a small place. Now, studying to be a doctor in America might, who knows, lead me to become a doctor in America. Stay in America?? Ah. Well, it's not too bad I suppose. But wait, which part? What if the job is not in the city? It's horrible! I can't spend the next decades of my life in Indiana driving to the 5-storied and tallest building in the nearby region to work with blood and coughing, sad looking, grumpy people amongst the smell of antiseptic. Life is not like "Scrubs". Oh my gosh! Moreover, blood and naked tissues, physical pain and mental numbness...these aren't my fortes. I'm not a true Spartan! And I'm not a masochist. I don't want to deal with light but intensely bright blood, viscous fluids like puss or mucus, or slice up a person and sew him back like a toy! Well, people can get used to anything. But I'm not exactly inclined to want that. It would be so much easier if I didn't have a choice. It even took me long seconds before I was able to pierce the prawns I caught straight from the water and hold them as they struggle, their life essence almost transferring with sick and innocent cries from their inanimate shells to my fingers, and then laying them up orderly like soldiers on my BBQ grill. The only thing short of making me a monster that moment was my ironic allergy to prawns. Wait, maybe that makes it more monstrous. But I don't have an allergy to humans, sickness or blood. So I theoretically could be a doctor. Oh No! But there are people who aren't allergic to prawns and don't want to eat it!
I'd rather go to do law. Law is prestigious. Maybe looked upon in a different light nonetheless. But it is more appealing to wear shirts and suits, hold briefcases, attend boring meetings in classy buildings, spend hours working on a computer and having none of it actually used, never having the fun of court moments as in "Boston Legal" et cetera, than it is to be a doctor. The pay is good. And I would be closer to the world - more meaningless than the doctor's world though it might be. I can picture having a drink after work nearby in the city. I picture doctors sipping coffee in the eatery.
And the MCAT. Oh my gosh. I'd rather sit for the LSAT. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but the MCAT means a lot of studying of science and things that I have no more love for. LSAT on the other hand is about logical arguments and critical breaking down of things or creating effective categorizations. Well well...that sounds more fun for the nerd I try to be! I don't want to know about chiral molecules, or about benzene, or have every boy's childhood fantasy "physics" degraded to a enemy of my future holding a spear that is the short time I have to neutralize it, or about the frickin' animal anatomy, or the names and processes of the cells. Plants are okay; I developed a recent fascination for them, especially for fungi and its mycelium.
But I want to do my family proud. This is my life. But life is so fragile. Life is so...meaningless, in the grand scheme of things (if any). And so, living for myself is also so futile. Maybe I should live to do my parents proud. After all, people can adapt to anything and I'm not being in denial here. I just have too much choice. The choices that give me something to regret. Damn you choice! I am only a sheep-like human. I am no God. I cannot cope with excess choice! Give me back my innocence. Send me back to the matrix. Give me back my humanity!
Ahhh.......so I sit here on my bed, in this wonderful hotel, with fresh city wind coming in through my window opening slit, a night view of the city and a river that does not let this place become still and stale....and I do not know where I am going. And as long as I do not know, I am happy. When I think I am going where I want, I am alright. But when I hear those words on the phone and the joyful tones that are covered over and in it, my heart sinks....and I don't know what to do. I must, begin on my preparations. And I must go one way. One way or the highway. One way or into the river (metaphorically, don't worry).
What am I going to do with a degree in Linguistics? A science. I think of it more as a social science. I like to slap the word "pseudoscience" on it. Oh, people are going to say "Oh! How many languages do you speak?" as if Linguistics was the acquiring of as many languages as needed for graduation. I'd have to answer "Oh, just two. English, half of Mandarin (I'm already being generous), and half of Russian (likely more generous here)."
They'd probably go, "Ooooh, that's nice."
As if speaking 2 or even 3 languages these days is anything special. I'd need to know Arabic, Spanish and Hindi to command some respect.
Well, I'd learned what I didn't want to do. Or at least I had more doubts about more things that before and more openness to others that I had shut out at first glance. I know I didn't want to study business because I thought that what corresponded to success in business, even in the educational aspect of it, was not intelligence in the kind of knowledge a school or classroom education can give but height and public relational skills. I took science courses and university halted there. I was transported and floated in a period of Junior College and Secondary School. Eventually I decided that a liberal arts education did not seem worth the money paid for the university education. I could probably read it elsewhere myself anyway. I should be studying something that gives me a job when I graduate! Ah!! But in the liberal arts, where does that lead? Everywhere and nowhere. That's the thing. Economics looked promising if not for some influences on my life that has made me doubtful of economics especially in its prescriptive-ness, but the bigger problem with economics was that there were just too many people doing it. The competition would be high. Too many people within my school, or from the people I had met to constitute my sample group, and too many other smart people in nearby Harvard and probably even M.I.T. to compete with.
But Linguistics is not the source of my troubles. I am happy with it. The stress comes from expectation.
My parents want me to become a doctor. a doctor? Oh my gosh. It is prestigious, it pays well, the working hours aren't my main problem with being a doctor. In fact, I don't mind being a doctor. But wait, really? Well, I discovered America only two years ago and man is it different from Singapore. Back home, we're a small place. Now, studying to be a doctor in America might, who knows, lead me to become a doctor in America. Stay in America?? Ah. Well, it's not too bad I suppose. But wait, which part? What if the job is not in the city? It's horrible! I can't spend the next decades of my life in Indiana driving to the 5-storied and tallest building in the nearby region to work with blood and coughing, sad looking, grumpy people amongst the smell of antiseptic. Life is not like "Scrubs". Oh my gosh! Moreover, blood and naked tissues, physical pain and mental numbness...these aren't my fortes. I'm not a true Spartan! And I'm not a masochist. I don't want to deal with light but intensely bright blood, viscous fluids like puss or mucus, or slice up a person and sew him back like a toy! Well, people can get used to anything. But I'm not exactly inclined to want that. It would be so much easier if I didn't have a choice. It even took me long seconds before I was able to pierce the prawns I caught straight from the water and hold them as they struggle, their life essence almost transferring with sick and innocent cries from their inanimate shells to my fingers, and then laying them up orderly like soldiers on my BBQ grill. The only thing short of making me a monster that moment was my ironic allergy to prawns. Wait, maybe that makes it more monstrous. But I don't have an allergy to humans, sickness or blood. So I theoretically could be a doctor. Oh No! But there are people who aren't allergic to prawns and don't want to eat it!
I'd rather go to do law. Law is prestigious. Maybe looked upon in a different light nonetheless. But it is more appealing to wear shirts and suits, hold briefcases, attend boring meetings in classy buildings, spend hours working on a computer and having none of it actually used, never having the fun of court moments as in "Boston Legal" et cetera, than it is to be a doctor. The pay is good. And I would be closer to the world - more meaningless than the doctor's world though it might be. I can picture having a drink after work nearby in the city. I picture doctors sipping coffee in the eatery.
And the MCAT. Oh my gosh. I'd rather sit for the LSAT. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but the MCAT means a lot of studying of science and things that I have no more love for. LSAT on the other hand is about logical arguments and critical breaking down of things or creating effective categorizations. Well well...that sounds more fun for the nerd I try to be! I don't want to know about chiral molecules, or about benzene, or have every boy's childhood fantasy "physics" degraded to a enemy of my future holding a spear that is the short time I have to neutralize it, or about the frickin' animal anatomy, or the names and processes of the cells. Plants are okay; I developed a recent fascination for them, especially for fungi and its mycelium.
But I want to do my family proud. This is my life. But life is so fragile. Life is so...meaningless, in the grand scheme of things (if any). And so, living for myself is also so futile. Maybe I should live to do my parents proud. After all, people can adapt to anything and I'm not being in denial here. I just have too much choice. The choices that give me something to regret. Damn you choice! I am only a sheep-like human. I am no God. I cannot cope with excess choice! Give me back my innocence. Send me back to the matrix. Give me back my humanity!
Ahhh.......so I sit here on my bed, in this wonderful hotel, with fresh city wind coming in through my window opening slit, a night view of the city and a river that does not let this place become still and stale....and I do not know where I am going. And as long as I do not know, I am happy. When I think I am going where I want, I am alright. But when I hear those words on the phone and the joyful tones that are covered over and in it, my heart sinks....and I don't know what to do. I must, begin on my preparations. And I must go one way. One way or the highway. One way or into the river (metaphorically, don't worry).
Monday, October 6, 2008
evolution of written language.
languages probably started as speech, maybe first to grammar, but eventually for many to the written. maybe even before it became written, the concept of the breakdown of a word was already created in our heads.
how do we classify english as alphabet based and japanese as syllabary based if not for the written forms (or even the adoption of alphabets to explain the sounds of a japanese minimal sound, as we also do so when we written the pin yin of mandarin)?
today i am thinking about English, since it is the language i use most. it seems that the written form of it was transcribed phonetically. we assigned "a" to a certain sound (as it turns out, we have more than one sound assigned to "a" as we have "air" for the first "a" in "Africa", and "ahh" for the last "a". In "Goldman", it is "err" and there wil be many more). So maybe i just contradicted myself. Did we derive "a" phonetically? if we did, we jumped too far ahead, because later we would break it down using tools like the International Phonetic Alphabet. those alphabets are greatly reduced in ambiguity.
so, why don't we spell phonetically and write with IPA alphabets? it it just because we have already a strong writing system in place? Where did this alphabet system come from?
What is more concerning is this. What if we did create the alphabets phonetically? What if we has decided "rock" would be spelt "rock" because we managed to break down the word we spoke into 4 sounds (r, o, c, k) and we created the spelling? maybe we were not smart enough as we seem to be now then and did not realize that we had ambiguity in our pronunciation of our primitive alphabets. why does IPA use 3 alphabets? was "ck" considered one sound then and now considered one under a new symbol used in the IPA?
english surely isn't a great example because it's derived from older roots like latin right? or greek? or both and more probably. why, in english and other languages (for now i can only think on alphabet based ones and not others like Chinese) do we have a spelling that does not immediately show the pronunciation? I had learnt to read from those alphabets. why do we have silent alphabets? perhaps we simplified languages over the centuries too much (which makes it less complex though, surely?). how do we relate spelling and pronunciation now?
maybe...the alphabet isn't as strong an influence as the smaller words we had come to learn through the alphabets and then adjusted in terms of sounds. Like "work", pronounced (by me at least, i am quite sure same for most others to consider this the 'right' version) "werk". so maybe we used the 4 alphabets at first to make "werrr...orrr....rrrr....kkhh"..."woorrrkh"..."workh" and then we decided it would be "werk". and so now, "working" is "werking", "workplace" is "werkplace".....then...."world" extracted "wor" as "wer" and made "world" into "werld".....or do you say it some other way? maybe..."werl"? and so a big bunch of strange rules appearing almost with some and no logic took over everything.
anyway, since this is just academic....i can find more info online when i have the time.
how do we classify english as alphabet based and japanese as syllabary based if not for the written forms (or even the adoption of alphabets to explain the sounds of a japanese minimal sound, as we also do so when we written the pin yin of mandarin)?
today i am thinking about English, since it is the language i use most. it seems that the written form of it was transcribed phonetically. we assigned "a" to a certain sound (as it turns out, we have more than one sound assigned to "a" as we have "air" for the first "a" in "Africa", and "ahh" for the last "a". In "Goldman", it is "err" and there wil be many more). So maybe i just contradicted myself. Did we derive "a" phonetically? if we did, we jumped too far ahead, because later we would break it down using tools like the International Phonetic Alphabet. those alphabets are greatly reduced in ambiguity.
so, why don't we spell phonetically and write with IPA alphabets? it it just because we have already a strong writing system in place? Where did this alphabet system come from?
What is more concerning is this. What if we did create the alphabets phonetically? What if we has decided "rock" would be spelt "rock" because we managed to break down the word we spoke into 4 sounds (r, o, c, k) and we created the spelling? maybe we were not smart enough as we seem to be now then and did not realize that we had ambiguity in our pronunciation of our primitive alphabets. why does IPA use 3 alphabets? was "ck" considered one sound then and now considered one under a new symbol used in the IPA?
english surely isn't a great example because it's derived from older roots like latin right? or greek? or both and more probably. why, in english and other languages (for now i can only think on alphabet based ones and not others like Chinese) do we have a spelling that does not immediately show the pronunciation? I had learnt to read from those alphabets. why do we have silent alphabets? perhaps we simplified languages over the centuries too much (which makes it less complex though, surely?). how do we relate spelling and pronunciation now?
maybe...the alphabet isn't as strong an influence as the smaller words we had come to learn through the alphabets and then adjusted in terms of sounds. Like "work", pronounced (by me at least, i am quite sure same for most others to consider this the 'right' version) "werk". so maybe we used the 4 alphabets at first to make "werrr...orrr....rrrr....kkhh"..."woorrrkh"..."workh" and then we decided it would be "werk". and so now, "working" is "werking", "workplace" is "werkplace".....then...."world" extracted "wor" as "wer" and made "world" into "werld".....or do you say it some other way? maybe..."werl"? and so a big bunch of strange rules appearing almost with some and no logic took over everything.
anyway, since this is just academic....i can find more info online when i have the time.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Bailout, without a fight.
263-171 from 228-205.
Apparently, the bailout has become more receptive with the added 100 billion dollars worth of tax breaks in various matters such as movie production, wooden arrows of some sort for children, racetrack ownership, and in perhaps the more useful field of alternate energy. But what has all these got to do with the subprime crisis? Apparently $17b in tax incentives for alternate energy, but $700b elsewhere. Which part of the bailout or rescue plan is a rescue, and who is being rescued?
What will happen with $700b pumped into the economy? Unless basic monetary policy is not sufficient here due to the complexities of the real world, more money of such high quantities will create inflation. Higher prices on goods. Lower purchasing power of the American dollar. Prices of bread may rise and the same will follow for milk, eggs, candies, soda, clothing, gadgets, and even oil. After all, taxes on oil and gas production is set to be raised to fund the bill's incentives for green energy. In the big picture, that may encourage companies to move toward a more environmental source of energy production and expedite the move to eco-friendly fuel. Thomas Friedman may be getting the results of his arguments. However, I suspect that a switch to green energy is not going to be swift and easy and the average American is still running his or her vehicle on oil. Oil prices have gone up from about $2 per gallon to over $4 per gallon in two years. Can we expect oil prices to fall in the future? No. Firstly, people are so dependent on oil in america and the producers have so much more power than the consumers that they would not consider dropping prices for the welfare of the people at the expense of their revenue or profit. Secondly, oil production has gone up and so this cost, in this oligopoly, will be reflected back onto the consumers. Surely, oil prices will jump. With an increase in prices of commodities, the bailout has yet to address the common person. Will any of the $700 billion of the bailout or the $100 billion in tax breaks go toward subsidising the commodities that the average person considers a neccessary good? I don't know. But as of yet, I have heard nothing about that. If there is indeed subsidising on these products, does it cover the negative impacts the bill would have financially cost? Will solar powered sedans be available at competitive prices to the public soon? Will they be subsidized so the less affluent people in the country can trade their oil-dependent vehicles for something that runs cheaper?
Here, Thomas Friedman will be disappointed with the truth of his analogy of nobody wanting to pay extra to have his lamp powered by green technology when he already has light from his lamp. Perhaps he would if he knew that a non-green technology driven lamp will not be available during his time due to decreasing natural resources. But oil is not exactly running out in the lifetimes of the leaders of the nation. Will the goverment spend money to subsidise the people and help usher an era where funding will no longer be available from the taxation of oil? When J.P. Morgan found out that Nikola Tesla's free power Wardenclyffe Tower would conflict with the idea of a meter to charge for electricity or for the need to construct cables for the transmission of electricity, both ways through which a business was possible, investing came to a halt and was advised against by Morgan himself. Unlimited and free electrical and related power in the world, were it truly possible by Tesla's tower, was denied to the world in place for monetary profit. Surely the national government must have known of Tesla's project, if for no other reason but national secutiry. Surely, it could have provided the funds if it so desired as it would later fund space exploration. And surely the priorities of the governments and the nature of men have not changed considerably to warrant trust over distrust that one should expect government support toward free energy.
Tax breaks are instead directed into movie production. While some may consider movies a neccessary good, the vast abundance of entertainment available for free on the internet should not make it as important a product as basic groceries or oil. When Merill Lynch is being bought over and other financial institutions are collapsing at the benefit to the surviving players, the cost of making a movie is getting cheaper. The government is claiming less money from the movie production industry for its budget and probably going to claim it instead from somewhere else, possibly the households. Racing car tracks will be taxed less. Who will be taxed in its place? After all, $700 billion dollars and more is being transferred out to save the financial institutions troubled by the subprime crisis. Will the money come from withdrawing military prescence in the Middle East? The tax breaks for those industries are irrelevant.
A saving of the companies that have until now been financial giants will surely save a lot of jobs. It will keep employees with a salary. With retrenching or retiring of some employees or with a company deciding to hire more people, this also means jobs for people seeking to be employed in the relevant field. But if the purchasing power of the average person's salary in that field of business and that of someone in a totally different industry declines due to increased cost of living, then even among the small players of the world's money, the share of the pie is being redistributed. Those in the business sector may get a slice but also a considerable amount taken back in the form of a higher cost of living. Those in other sectors that have no benefit from the bailout will have more of their pie taken away too. Some will have less money so that more people have some money. But then of course, surely people employed in the area of business could get a job outside of those firms that are saved by the bailout whether in another business sector or in an entirely different field altogether. Without the sustaining of these financial giants, workers in this financial sector may be laid off and the high earners in the field will stop, temporarily or not, getting thier large salaries. In that respect, less people will have some money (in terms of a regular pay) so that more people will not have less money.
The first case sounds rather socialist - taking money from some and having more people have money. But it becomes capitalistic if the new people make more money than those who paid the sacrifice.
The second sounds capitalistic - less people with money so others can have more money. But it is also socialist if the people paying for the benefit of the others were the richer lot.
What happens now to the free market model? A $700 billion investment into the companies the government deems it wants to uphold, probably paid for by the average taxpayer, blatantly resembles a command economy. What's more is that there was not even a fight. The rejection of the bill 5 days before it was revised with auxillaries and approved surely does not constitute even a decent show of force. The first bill was ridiculous with its request for total control over bailouts in the hands of one man. Yet, the ridiculous only became more ridiculous 5 days later before approval.
Apparently, the bailout has become more receptive with the added 100 billion dollars worth of tax breaks in various matters such as movie production, wooden arrows of some sort for children, racetrack ownership, and in perhaps the more useful field of alternate energy. But what has all these got to do with the subprime crisis? Apparently $17b in tax incentives for alternate energy, but $700b elsewhere. Which part of the bailout or rescue plan is a rescue, and who is being rescued?
What will happen with $700b pumped into the economy? Unless basic monetary policy is not sufficient here due to the complexities of the real world, more money of such high quantities will create inflation. Higher prices on goods. Lower purchasing power of the American dollar. Prices of bread may rise and the same will follow for milk, eggs, candies, soda, clothing, gadgets, and even oil. After all, taxes on oil and gas production is set to be raised to fund the bill's incentives for green energy. In the big picture, that may encourage companies to move toward a more environmental source of energy production and expedite the move to eco-friendly fuel. Thomas Friedman may be getting the results of his arguments. However, I suspect that a switch to green energy is not going to be swift and easy and the average American is still running his or her vehicle on oil. Oil prices have gone up from about $2 per gallon to over $4 per gallon in two years. Can we expect oil prices to fall in the future? No. Firstly, people are so dependent on oil in america and the producers have so much more power than the consumers that they would not consider dropping prices for the welfare of the people at the expense of their revenue or profit. Secondly, oil production has gone up and so this cost, in this oligopoly, will be reflected back onto the consumers. Surely, oil prices will jump. With an increase in prices of commodities, the bailout has yet to address the common person. Will any of the $700 billion of the bailout or the $100 billion in tax breaks go toward subsidising the commodities that the average person considers a neccessary good? I don't know. But as of yet, I have heard nothing about that. If there is indeed subsidising on these products, does it cover the negative impacts the bill would have financially cost? Will solar powered sedans be available at competitive prices to the public soon? Will they be subsidized so the less affluent people in the country can trade their oil-dependent vehicles for something that runs cheaper?
Here, Thomas Friedman will be disappointed with the truth of his analogy of nobody wanting to pay extra to have his lamp powered by green technology when he already has light from his lamp. Perhaps he would if he knew that a non-green technology driven lamp will not be available during his time due to decreasing natural resources. But oil is not exactly running out in the lifetimes of the leaders of the nation. Will the goverment spend money to subsidise the people and help usher an era where funding will no longer be available from the taxation of oil? When J.P. Morgan found out that Nikola Tesla's free power Wardenclyffe Tower would conflict with the idea of a meter to charge for electricity or for the need to construct cables for the transmission of electricity, both ways through which a business was possible, investing came to a halt and was advised against by Morgan himself. Unlimited and free electrical and related power in the world, were it truly possible by Tesla's tower, was denied to the world in place for monetary profit. Surely the national government must have known of Tesla's project, if for no other reason but national secutiry. Surely, it could have provided the funds if it so desired as it would later fund space exploration. And surely the priorities of the governments and the nature of men have not changed considerably to warrant trust over distrust that one should expect government support toward free energy.
Tax breaks are instead directed into movie production. While some may consider movies a neccessary good, the vast abundance of entertainment available for free on the internet should not make it as important a product as basic groceries or oil. When Merill Lynch is being bought over and other financial institutions are collapsing at the benefit to the surviving players, the cost of making a movie is getting cheaper. The government is claiming less money from the movie production industry for its budget and probably going to claim it instead from somewhere else, possibly the households. Racing car tracks will be taxed less. Who will be taxed in its place? After all, $700 billion dollars and more is being transferred out to save the financial institutions troubled by the subprime crisis. Will the money come from withdrawing military prescence in the Middle East? The tax breaks for those industries are irrelevant.
A saving of the companies that have until now been financial giants will surely save a lot of jobs. It will keep employees with a salary. With retrenching or retiring of some employees or with a company deciding to hire more people, this also means jobs for people seeking to be employed in the relevant field. But if the purchasing power of the average person's salary in that field of business and that of someone in a totally different industry declines due to increased cost of living, then even among the small players of the world's money, the share of the pie is being redistributed. Those in the business sector may get a slice but also a considerable amount taken back in the form of a higher cost of living. Those in other sectors that have no benefit from the bailout will have more of their pie taken away too. Some will have less money so that more people have some money. But then of course, surely people employed in the area of business could get a job outside of those firms that are saved by the bailout whether in another business sector or in an entirely different field altogether. Without the sustaining of these financial giants, workers in this financial sector may be laid off and the high earners in the field will stop, temporarily or not, getting thier large salaries. In that respect, less people will have some money (in terms of a regular pay) so that more people will not have less money.
The first case sounds rather socialist - taking money from some and having more people have money. But it becomes capitalistic if the new people make more money than those who paid the sacrifice.
The second sounds capitalistic - less people with money so others can have more money. But it is also socialist if the people paying for the benefit of the others were the richer lot.
What happens now to the free market model? A $700 billion investment into the companies the government deems it wants to uphold, probably paid for by the average taxpayer, blatantly resembles a command economy. What's more is that there was not even a fight. The rejection of the bill 5 days before it was revised with auxillaries and approved surely does not constitute even a decent show of force. The first bill was ridiculous with its request for total control over bailouts in the hands of one man. Yet, the ridiculous only became more ridiculous 5 days later before approval.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
meanings and language as communication
i was watching a talkshow about business, regarding the economic crisis in US, and the guest was chatting about leverage and such. have you wondered how so little words can mean something so deep? by deep, i mean a concept that's not just visible but something more abstract. leverage may not be an abstract idea, but other abstract ideas, especially those not described by mathematics, are often described in language and words. how do we understand these concepts through the usage of words? how do we understand a brand new idea that we have never heard of from the words spoken to us and the associations we have with those words?
do we need a model already somewhat similar to the new idea in order to have words merely mold it in a certain direction and give us a new picture? or can words alone, perhaps the method of phrasing, the chronological order of the words and sentences spoken to us, the pace et cetera all included, transmit a new concept in one person's mind to another person's mind? how accurate is this transmission of the concept? is it possible that after a conversation, two people seem to agree on the nature of a concept...that in their further talks they don't find any inconsistencies or misunderstandings...and yet the concept is different in each person's mind?
art is a way of expression. in various piece of art, the picture has a meaning to the artist and the picture is shown to an audience to convey the idea. there are also art whereby the picture is intended to mean different things to different audiences. perhaps there are pictures that don't even have meaning at all to the artist. for those, an audience might nonetheless derive a meaning either because the picture strikes an idea in them or the audience expects a meaning within it and leads his or her mind down a certain path that eventually force creates an idea to identify with it.
this is interesting. language is like art. it is yet another form of expression, as is music, drama, poetry (what i considered language but merged with a sort of rhythm, tune and rhyme), and all sorts of devices, including new or radical ideas...perhaps like a man jumping in a trash can attempting to convey a message, which for all i know could be "the children is our future, we should invest in them" or something else like " music is the key to the soul". but language is the most used of all. it is, perhaps, the most fundamental. everybody uses it and often effectively. to discuss music, we use words to convey the feelings we feel. we don't discuss how we feel about Chopin's ballades me playing the drums and you replying with tunes on a flute. we don't discuss it by me performing a mine and you conjuring what you can by performing whatever crazy stunts you can. perhaps we could do this to express our ideas, but we don't. language is effective and much less tiring. we have a tongue and mouth. but then again, we have fingers and toes. we have eyes too and although it apparently conveys a lot, how can we initiate and proceed with a conversation on current affairs and how we might be able to solve our economic crisis with our eyes alone. when it comes to something more abstract, the visual isn't enough or precise enough but words, newly conjured words, can somehow bring the idea to life. probably the next best thing is sign language. but then, i guess i have to define "language" in this context more strictly to the spoken or written word, including widely accepted languages like English, Arabic, and Chinese, but not mere symbols written on paper that the reader doesn't know how to decipher.
ah! so the key is this. the secret to effective communication is the synchronization of the encrypting mind and the deciphering mind. the language is but a code. all English speakers have the key to deciphering the words to an idea and the more similar the "version" to the one of the one who spoke or wrote, the closer the accuracy of the communication. if the speaker of writer thinks of a boston terrier and says dog, then the idea is most efficiently gotten across if the receiver pictures "dog" as a boston terrier and not a siberian husky.
do we need a model already somewhat similar to the new idea in order to have words merely mold it in a certain direction and give us a new picture? or can words alone, perhaps the method of phrasing, the chronological order of the words and sentences spoken to us, the pace et cetera all included, transmit a new concept in one person's mind to another person's mind? how accurate is this transmission of the concept? is it possible that after a conversation, two people seem to agree on the nature of a concept...that in their further talks they don't find any inconsistencies or misunderstandings...and yet the concept is different in each person's mind?
art is a way of expression. in various piece of art, the picture has a meaning to the artist and the picture is shown to an audience to convey the idea. there are also art whereby the picture is intended to mean different things to different audiences. perhaps there are pictures that don't even have meaning at all to the artist. for those, an audience might nonetheless derive a meaning either because the picture strikes an idea in them or the audience expects a meaning within it and leads his or her mind down a certain path that eventually force creates an idea to identify with it.
this is interesting. language is like art. it is yet another form of expression, as is music, drama, poetry (what i considered language but merged with a sort of rhythm, tune and rhyme), and all sorts of devices, including new or radical ideas...perhaps like a man jumping in a trash can attempting to convey a message, which for all i know could be "the children is our future, we should invest in them" or something else like " music is the key to the soul". but language is the most used of all. it is, perhaps, the most fundamental. everybody uses it and often effectively. to discuss music, we use words to convey the feelings we feel. we don't discuss how we feel about Chopin's ballades me playing the drums and you replying with tunes on a flute. we don't discuss it by me performing a mine and you conjuring what you can by performing whatever crazy stunts you can. perhaps we could do this to express our ideas, but we don't. language is effective and much less tiring. we have a tongue and mouth. but then again, we have fingers and toes. we have eyes too and although it apparently conveys a lot, how can we initiate and proceed with a conversation on current affairs and how we might be able to solve our economic crisis with our eyes alone. when it comes to something more abstract, the visual isn't enough or precise enough but words, newly conjured words, can somehow bring the idea to life. probably the next best thing is sign language. but then, i guess i have to define "language" in this context more strictly to the spoken or written word, including widely accepted languages like English, Arabic, and Chinese, but not mere symbols written on paper that the reader doesn't know how to decipher.
ah! so the key is this. the secret to effective communication is the synchronization of the encrypting mind and the deciphering mind. the language is but a code. all English speakers have the key to deciphering the words to an idea and the more similar the "version" to the one of the one who spoke or wrote, the closer the accuracy of the communication. if the speaker of writer thinks of a boston terrier and says dog, then the idea is most efficiently gotten across if the receiver pictures "dog" as a boston terrier and not a siberian husky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
