It's rather sad, reading article like this one, on a previously struggling school in a predominantly poor, black neighborhood, to suddenly becoming a high performing school and high test scores. Praises were consistent from all quarters (students, parents, school workers, teachers, the walks) that the principal under cloud (who herself reassigned before bad news started coming in).
America, as a country, has become rather politically correct, in avoiding hurt feelings, all in the hope of lifting children in poor neighborhood in academic standards. I won't doubt that there are bright kids amongst them, but lowering the standards, or letting them pass with flying colors fraudulently in order to make the kids feel good about themselves, are not the way to go. As it is, when these kids eventually move onto other schools, they would find themselves struggling and wouldn't even know why or how to improve themselves.
I have little doubts that this principal did something unseemly to boost the test scores, and that she did it on good intentions. But it does not do the kids (or anyone who works to help them) any good if these kids do not know what area(s) they need improvement on, or how to go about it. This now-former principal did a great disservice to the kids and her community. Perhaps if she had run a community center, rather than a school, she could have achieved her purpose of helping the neighborhood, without ruining the kids chances further (since the further you delay bringing the kids up to speed academically, the harder it is for them to catch up).
The whole thing is just so sad...
Friday, October 31, 2008
On the new wonder bum bra, aka Double-O Thong...
The new so-called wonder bum bra, aka Double-O Thong, must be one of the ugliest and unsexiest lingerie there is. By referring to a piece of garment as lingerie, one would infer that it's meant to be seen, and be sexy when you're wearing on yourself and when someone's looking at you in it. But this new contraption simply looks awful. I wonder if there's any woman who ever buys this.
Somehow I have a distinct feeling that this is designed by a man, with no female input during the design process. In fact, this looks much much uglier than maternity bra.
The article could well be right, in that the lingerie has run out of ideas. Afterall, it's been a very long time since it comes out with wonder bra and rebrand stripper G-string as desirable thongs for the mass market.
Somehow I have a distinct feeling that this is designed by a man, with no female input during the design process. In fact, this looks much much uglier than maternity bra.
The article could well be right, in that the lingerie has run out of ideas. Afterall, it's been a very long time since it comes out with wonder bra and rebrand stripper G-string as desirable thongs for the mass market.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
On more analysis of the credit market saga...
As we move further down the path of the subprime, then credit market mess, people are able to draw more hindsight conclusion on what went right, but in large part, on what went wrong, and who are to blame for these messes. The latest 20/20 hindsight was from Bloomberg, which serves to remind us how those once-great men/brains (like Greenspan and Rubin) turned out to be dead wrong about pushing for less regulation of the derivatives, and how industry lobbyists that serve no one but the interested parties like banks pushed the envelope further in order to allow banks to take on more and more risks, basically with no oversight.
It's worth noting that some $680 billions were written down, another $700 billions in bailout from Washington, and endless loans and guarantees from US Treasury and EU countries in the attempt to prop up the markets across the globe. One notable success which stands out like a green island in this sea of chaos, is the mortgage market in China. Though Washington and bankers from the West can do all they want, to talk down the Chinese government's attempt in strictly regulating its market and currency, and on how unsophisticated the Chinese banking industry and credit market might be, the Chinese did do some things right. Obviously, some of the Chinese's practices won't sell in the West (eg. mandating all mortgages to end when mortgagees reach retirement age), but they work just as intended, in the local markets.
Perhaps other developing countries like India should draw the lessons learnt from China; in particular, that the Western (and IMF) approach does not always work, and that they should draw up their own action plans to suit their own local needs.
It's worth noting that some $680 billions were written down, another $700 billions in bailout from Washington, and endless loans and guarantees from US Treasury and EU countries in the attempt to prop up the markets across the globe. One notable success which stands out like a green island in this sea of chaos, is the mortgage market in China. Though Washington and bankers from the West can do all they want, to talk down the Chinese government's attempt in strictly regulating its market and currency, and on how unsophisticated the Chinese banking industry and credit market might be, the Chinese did do some things right. Obviously, some of the Chinese's practices won't sell in the West (eg. mandating all mortgages to end when mortgagees reach retirement age), but they work just as intended, in the local markets.
Perhaps other developing countries like India should draw the lessons learnt from China; in particular, that the Western (and IMF) approach does not always work, and that they should draw up their own action plans to suit their own local needs.
On the politics of the Obama crowds...
Wall Street Journal carries a well-written article on the politics and fallacy of the crowds that have greeted Obama in his rallies so far. Of particular interest is the juxtaposition of what was once the politics of the crowds in the Middle East, where the columnist came from, and that of Obama. It's open knowledge that Obama had not delivered much so far, based on his empty resume, but as the article has rightly pointed out, the "leaders" do not have to say or do much since it's the power of the crowd and, more importantly, their imagination that do all the walking and talking. Along the same line, the less substance and details that Obama put out, the better. The crowd can project whatever their hearts' desire to him as possible, but come November, should Obama win, they are bound for profound disappointment and bitterness, since it's not likely the chardonnay-sipping white elite liberals who are soaked in social righteousness, are willing to part with much of their wealth in order to advance the greater good of the less wealthy mass that makes up more than 80% of the populace. The lower classes are bound for disappointment still, for it's unlikely Obama will dismantle Wall Street to redistribute executive pay to the crowds to help with their household finance. The young, idealistic crowds are in for a much needed awakening, since they would see how little principles Obama really has, given his record number of high profile flip-flops of back-pedaling on agenda that he had once promised them so vehemently, but reneg'ed without missing a beat.
Do I believe in social justice? You bet I do. But I do not have the confidence at all in Obama that he'll deliver the chops. To me, it's a fake. As such, I'd rather have someone like McCain who, while I don't agree with all of his positions, I know where he stands and I know he can deliver and doesn't back down on tough issues.
It's less than a week to go from November 4th. While campaigning goes to feverish height, with Obama spending like a madman, what with his 30-minute non-stop infomercial and all, I'm peculiarly serene and calm about this. My only hope is, hope for the best, but at least I don't have illusion in either of the candidates, and I go in the booth with my eyes wide opened.
Do I believe in social justice? You bet I do. But I do not have the confidence at all in Obama that he'll deliver the chops. To me, it's a fake. As such, I'd rather have someone like McCain who, while I don't agree with all of his positions, I know where he stands and I know he can deliver and doesn't back down on tough issues.
It's less than a week to go from November 4th. While campaigning goes to feverish height, with Obama spending like a madman, what with his 30-minute non-stop infomercial and all, I'm peculiarly serene and calm about this. My only hope is, hope for the best, but at least I don't have illusion in either of the candidates, and I go in the booth with my eyes wide opened.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
On consumer credit and debt load...
Apart from McDonald's, Starbucks, and Hollywood movies, one of the "great" US exports has been the culture of debts to the developing world.
In the late 1980s when I left Hong Kong, it's an almost avant garde idea to hold credit cards. American Express was only starting to distribute application forms to college students to apply for pre-approved cards, with not too takers. So, it was a rather abrupt about-face, when I went back for a visit in late 1990s, with only a decade later, that I saw TV commercials of debt consolidators to offer their service for people looking to alleviate their debt burden.
The same is happening in India now, with the younger generations jumping onto the bandwagon of easy money, seemingly "free" from credit cards. Naturally, most of them might not have bothered checking the fine-prints of their credit cards, how much interests they could be charged, should they carry balance, and the like. Some cardholders use more than 75% of their salary in paying card balance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The issue hits closer to home when, a few years back, I realized that my elder sister (approaching middle age) in Hong Kong has had some 10 credit cards, covering balances of one card with another. I would never have thought she, of all people, would cross the threshold to become a credit card junkie. Last month, I found out from my younger sister that our big sis is using some 99% of her salary for all debt loads, leaving only a few hundred dollars for monthly expenses. We were flabbergasted.
I'm not sure how we could help her. I know for a fact that if we, the family, help her pay off all the debts, it will only encourage more future misdeeds, much like the moral hazards that Greenspan committed, in keeping interest rate artificially low in early 2000s, effectively throwing easy money to feed the greed of Wall Street, and contributing to the current subprime and credit crisis globally now.
And we also know, for a fact that, with the way big sis is going, she would never be able to pay off the debts in her lifetime. She has maybe 10 to 20 years (max) of working life left in her, given the Hong Kong labor market that always favors the young who are cheaper. I'm not sure how she could manage herself in her retirement, since she would have nothing left but a good-for-nothing boyfriend (if he's still around) who will continue to suck her dry. And if we help her pay off the debt, it'll only feed off this guy who will find other imaginative ways to lurk her back into the debt game.
Man, every time my thinking gets to this point, it makes my stomach every sick...
In the late 1980s when I left Hong Kong, it's an almost avant garde idea to hold credit cards. American Express was only starting to distribute application forms to college students to apply for pre-approved cards, with not too takers. So, it was a rather abrupt about-face, when I went back for a visit in late 1990s, with only a decade later, that I saw TV commercials of debt consolidators to offer their service for people looking to alleviate their debt burden.
The same is happening in India now, with the younger generations jumping onto the bandwagon of easy money, seemingly "free" from credit cards. Naturally, most of them might not have bothered checking the fine-prints of their credit cards, how much interests they could be charged, should they carry balance, and the like. Some cardholders use more than 75% of their salary in paying card balance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The issue hits closer to home when, a few years back, I realized that my elder sister (approaching middle age) in Hong Kong has had some 10 credit cards, covering balances of one card with another. I would never have thought she, of all people, would cross the threshold to become a credit card junkie. Last month, I found out from my younger sister that our big sis is using some 99% of her salary for all debt loads, leaving only a few hundred dollars for monthly expenses. We were flabbergasted.
I'm not sure how we could help her. I know for a fact that if we, the family, help her pay off all the debts, it will only encourage more future misdeeds, much like the moral hazards that Greenspan committed, in keeping interest rate artificially low in early 2000s, effectively throwing easy money to feed the greed of Wall Street, and contributing to the current subprime and credit crisis globally now.
And we also know, for a fact that, with the way big sis is going, she would never be able to pay off the debts in her lifetime. She has maybe 10 to 20 years (max) of working life left in her, given the Hong Kong labor market that always favors the young who are cheaper. I'm not sure how she could manage herself in her retirement, since she would have nothing left but a good-for-nothing boyfriend (if he's still around) who will continue to suck her dry. And if we help her pay off the debt, it'll only feed off this guy who will find other imaginative ways to lurk her back into the debt game.
Man, every time my thinking gets to this point, it makes my stomach every sick...
Monday, October 27, 2008
On the Great Wall and Chinese identity...
I read with great interest, the article in Smithsonia magazine on the Great Wall in China. Of particular interest or concern, if you will, is its efforts in preservation (or the apparent lack thereof), and its link to the identity of Chinese.
It's greatly ironical, that China as a country and as a people, place such high value in its culture and history of 5000 years, as witnessed in its much celebrated opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics 2008, yet its indifference (on the border of ignorance, when most local Chinese don't even know how old the Great Wall is), its impotence in protecting one of the Seven Wonders on the world, make it so very infuriating. This shortcoming is particularly glaring, in the face of the wealth built up by the tremendous surplus that its government has built up, yet it could not and would not spare even 100 people in preservation. It has no documented efforts to better understand their own treasure, with the scholars on Great Wall all come from the West (the derogatory gwei-lo).
Chinese is a proud race. Its people are willing to smash anything and everything in their own house, by its own people, but they would not allow outsiders (foreigners) utter a single word of it. There was this saying (I can't remember who the source was, so I can only quote it), that Chinese can only look up to, or look down upon gwei-lo, but they can never bring themselves to look to the gwei-lo in the eyes, on level field. It's so true.
It's greatly ironical, that China as a country and as a people, place such high value in its culture and history of 5000 years, as witnessed in its much celebrated opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics 2008, yet its indifference (on the border of ignorance, when most local Chinese don't even know how old the Great Wall is), its impotence in protecting one of the Seven Wonders on the world, make it so very infuriating. This shortcoming is particularly glaring, in the face of the wealth built up by the tremendous surplus that its government has built up, yet it could not and would not spare even 100 people in preservation. It has no documented efforts to better understand their own treasure, with the scholars on Great Wall all come from the West (the derogatory gwei-lo).
Chinese is a proud race. Its people are willing to smash anything and everything in their own house, by its own people, but they would not allow outsiders (foreigners) utter a single word of it. There was this saying (I can't remember who the source was, so I can only quote it), that Chinese can only look up to, or look down upon gwei-lo, but they can never bring themselves to look to the gwei-lo in the eyes, on level field. It's so true.
On structured finance, securitization, and disaster in the making...
I read this well-written article on Bloomberg that pretty much sums up some good background, main figures, and the undoing of the financial markets at the hands of structured finance, securitization, the "new technology" of shifting risk off-balance-sheet, and the undoing of all these, as we know it now. Oftentimes, it's good to take a rear-mirror look at things in a larger scheme, in order to appreciate and hopefully better avoid the next disaster(s).
I remember quite some years back, one of my friends (let's call her BW) in Australia was on her way into a non-traditional (ie. not through the Wall Street or Greenwich route) finance career at Andersen Consulting which had since folded into Accenture. At one point, she mentioned to me that she wanted to do "structured finance." The term was new to me, and I never prodded her on what she knows (that is, IF she knows what it means, which I have my doubts) on the subject.
Fast forward to maybe 11 years back, when I was preparing to move to America in 1997, she was moving back to Hong Kong. Her proclamation at the time was, she wants to get into the Shanghai stock market and the A shares. Even at the time, her claim had not sat very well with me. The rough ride in that Exchange since then, and the significant lack of transparency on all A share listing companies, all contribute and reaffirm my belief that she doesn't actually know much about the subject matters she's talking about.
In a way, it's not unlike most of those finance types discussed in the Bloomberg article, of the fools who would follow leads from some pioneering folks in inventing new ways to package and sell debts, and even more new ways to hide those debts and associated risks, here we have BW who would quote the investment vehicles from some alphabet soup as the flavor of the day, and take her plunge to accentuate bubbles.
I remember quite some years back, one of my friends (let's call her BW) in Australia was on her way into a non-traditional (ie. not through the Wall Street or Greenwich route) finance career at Andersen Consulting which had since folded into Accenture. At one point, she mentioned to me that she wanted to do "structured finance." The term was new to me, and I never prodded her on what she knows (that is, IF she knows what it means, which I have my doubts) on the subject.
Fast forward to maybe 11 years back, when I was preparing to move to America in 1997, she was moving back to Hong Kong. Her proclamation at the time was, she wants to get into the Shanghai stock market and the A shares. Even at the time, her claim had not sat very well with me. The rough ride in that Exchange since then, and the significant lack of transparency on all A share listing companies, all contribute and reaffirm my belief that she doesn't actually know much about the subject matters she's talking about.
In a way, it's not unlike most of those finance types discussed in the Bloomberg article, of the fools who would follow leads from some pioneering folks in inventing new ways to package and sell debts, and even more new ways to hide those debts and associated risks, here we have BW who would quote the investment vehicles from some alphabet soup as the flavor of the day, and take her plunge to accentuate bubbles.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
On the need to go out occasionally...
I have almost forgotten how relaxing it is to do outdoor sports. Ever since I have my kids, I don't think I have ever got out at all. Actually...come to think of it, I haven't been doing much outdoorsy things since high school.
So, it should have been fun to go kayaking with my kids today. While my son has tried it before, it's the first time for me and the little one. My husband is missing-in-action since I started a cold war of sort with him, on disagreement in disciplining kids. Strangely but sadly, I don't feel like I miss his presence. I'd rather be left alone, than to have to put up with his grumpy attitude. In fact, speaking of grouchiness, the occasional whining and fussing of my kids during the kayak trip had put a dent on my otherwise high spirit to the trip. Perhaps it's our first steps toward a very long separation, as customary to most Chinese couples, which is sadly but true. I must admit, when you catch me on a bad day, and I'm grumpy and grouchy too, I even have the urge to divorce him. If it's not for the kids, I probably would have taken that step already.
Granted that I understand kids being kids, they're bound to seemingly trivial things, and I have come to less tolerate their almost-civic disobedience when I tell them to do things. My daughter certainly knows how to press my hot buttons, by saying "I hate you" or "You are a bad mother" kind of things for mindless things, like I refuse to let her take all her layers off except a short sleeve since she just got off of a warm car, when it's 50F outside, and we're about to go on the kayaks and go out to river which will be even chillier, and there will be no clothes for her when she gets cold, which is a certainty.
Sometimes I do wonder to myself why I have to keep yelling at the kids to get them do things. Well, that's one complaint my husband has of me, which is that I don't discipline them well, hence the need to yell. But I do not subscribe to the notion of beating up kids in the name of discipline.
In any case, I had not realized how much I enjoy other different things, like looking at the waters, the oars making whirlpools when pedaling, trees with leaves falling on the river, and the geese flying off in the steel gray sky. It's a nice change of scene from working in front of my laptop all the time.
So, it should have been fun to go kayaking with my kids today. While my son has tried it before, it's the first time for me and the little one. My husband is missing-in-action since I started a cold war of sort with him, on disagreement in disciplining kids. Strangely but sadly, I don't feel like I miss his presence. I'd rather be left alone, than to have to put up with his grumpy attitude. In fact, speaking of grouchiness, the occasional whining and fussing of my kids during the kayak trip had put a dent on my otherwise high spirit to the trip. Perhaps it's our first steps toward a very long separation, as customary to most Chinese couples, which is sadly but true. I must admit, when you catch me on a bad day, and I'm grumpy and grouchy too, I even have the urge to divorce him. If it's not for the kids, I probably would have taken that step already.
Granted that I understand kids being kids, they're bound to seemingly trivial things, and I have come to less tolerate their almost-civic disobedience when I tell them to do things. My daughter certainly knows how to press my hot buttons, by saying "I hate you" or "You are a bad mother" kind of things for mindless things, like I refuse to let her take all her layers off except a short sleeve since she just got off of a warm car, when it's 50F outside, and we're about to go on the kayaks and go out to river which will be even chillier, and there will be no clothes for her when she gets cold, which is a certainty.
Sometimes I do wonder to myself why I have to keep yelling at the kids to get them do things. Well, that's one complaint my husband has of me, which is that I don't discipline them well, hence the need to yell. But I do not subscribe to the notion of beating up kids in the name of discipline.
In any case, I had not realized how much I enjoy other different things, like looking at the waters, the oars making whirlpools when pedaling, trees with leaves falling on the river, and the geese flying off in the steel gray sky. It's a nice change of scene from working in front of my laptop all the time.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
On NYTimes endorsement of Obama...
On the utterly unimaginative and predictable endorsement of New York Times of Obama, I can't help but completely agree with one of the letters to editors (see below):
To the Editor:
In 2000, The New York Times, in its presidential endorsement of Al Gore, said of him, “We today firmly endorse Al Gore as the man best equipped for the presidency by virtue of his knowledge of government, his experience at the top levels of federal and diplomatic decision-making.”
In that same endorsement, in contrast, The Times wrote of George W. Bush: “But his résumé is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims already to be. He does have great personal charm.”
In its 2008 general-election presidential endorsement, The Times could have aptly recycled these aforementioned quotes nearly verbatim, this time substituting John McCain’s name for Al Gore’s and Barack Obama’s for George W. Bush’s.
One can only conclude that the only difference this time around is that the eminently more qualified but less charismatic candidate happens to be a Republican.
Nicole Samura
Chelsea, Mass., Oct. 24, 2008
That precisely sums up how I feel.
Friday, October 24, 2008
On Oil, a book and a movie...
It's almost coincidental that we're gripping with world events that move oil prices in big swings, both ups and downs, in the past year or so, with a recent movie There Will Be Blood that goes with it, and I came across this tiny book called Oil, A Groundwork Guide by James Laxer last weekend at the public library. Since my increased attention to oil related events, I've decided to read the little book and see the movie too.
Sure enough, the book has the feel of a lecture series by a professor who takes me through some brief historical background, landmark events in the oil industry, and where it's headed. While some might say the book is left-leaning, it's quite even-keeled. There could have been more quantitative data to backup some of its claim. But then, the book has not attempted to be an encyclopaedia of all things that are oil, but a time capsule of major events that are leading until now (2008) when it's published.
Surely most adults would know of world events like the Six Day War in 1967, the oil embargo and the resulting oil crisis in 1973, the geopolitical struggles between Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, the struggles in Latin America (notably oil in Mexico and Venezuela), and the like. But the book succeeded in putting the events into perspective for me, in relating events and struggles in the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, United States, Europe, even Canada. There is the stark contrast between the partial nationalization of BP and PetroCanada, and the private nature of US oil enterprises (yet impacting public policy tremendously), illustrating the plain hypocrisy of US government in mixing and masking for-profit oil outfits with national security interests. And while I know about the anti-trust case and the eventual break-up of Standard Oil, I had not realized the importance and the amount of oil that Texas had produced in the bygone days that had once dominated the world market, hence I had not come to the appreciation of why Americans have still been so fond of talking about onshore (even offshore) drilling on its soil. No wonder both John McCain (GOP) and Barack Obama (Dem) have been open to the idea of drilling in Alaska, both having almost exact same position in this presidential campaign.
As to the movie, I was moved by its grittiness and mean-spiritedness, which is pretty much how the image of the oil industry has been. I don't doubt the hard-ball that oil executives play in coercing more out of the oil field owners, be it small farm owners or third world countries. Sure, one can argue that since the movie was adapted from Upton Sinclair, it must be about some power struggle that put down the lower class. But the movie surprised me in many ways, including the focus of the movie as a character study of Daniel Plainview (name of the main character is, ironically, anything but "plain view"), and the hypocrisy of some of the people around him, including the young church pastor (the "Sunday" folks, who sport the same last name too) who use the church to line his own pocket.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For so many reasons, mankind is long overdue in sucking up resources from the land (now that it's inarguable that oil, among other resources, is but a finite natural resource that would run out some day), and starts stepping up to being better steward of this planet earth. Surely, transition to alternative energy source(s) is going to be painful. But the longer we postpone it, the more painful it's going to get. I would not want to see my children, grandchildren, and beyond to bear the blunt to have to live with the last barrel of oil.
Sure enough, the book has the feel of a lecture series by a professor who takes me through some brief historical background, landmark events in the oil industry, and where it's headed. While some might say the book is left-leaning, it's quite even-keeled. There could have been more quantitative data to backup some of its claim. But then, the book has not attempted to be an encyclopaedia of all things that are oil, but a time capsule of major events that are leading until now (2008) when it's published.
Surely most adults would know of world events like the Six Day War in 1967, the oil embargo and the resulting oil crisis in 1973, the geopolitical struggles between Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, the struggles in Latin America (notably oil in Mexico and Venezuela), and the like. But the book succeeded in putting the events into perspective for me, in relating events and struggles in the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, United States, Europe, even Canada. There is the stark contrast between the partial nationalization of BP and PetroCanada, and the private nature of US oil enterprises (yet impacting public policy tremendously), illustrating the plain hypocrisy of US government in mixing and masking for-profit oil outfits with national security interests. And while I know about the anti-trust case and the eventual break-up of Standard Oil, I had not realized the importance and the amount of oil that Texas had produced in the bygone days that had once dominated the world market, hence I had not come to the appreciation of why Americans have still been so fond of talking about onshore (even offshore) drilling on its soil. No wonder both John McCain (GOP) and Barack Obama (Dem) have been open to the idea of drilling in Alaska, both having almost exact same position in this presidential campaign.
As to the movie, I was moved by its grittiness and mean-spiritedness, which is pretty much how the image of the oil industry has been. I don't doubt the hard-ball that oil executives play in coercing more out of the oil field owners, be it small farm owners or third world countries. Sure, one can argue that since the movie was adapted from Upton Sinclair, it must be about some power struggle that put down the lower class. But the movie surprised me in many ways, including the focus of the movie as a character study of Daniel Plainview (name of the main character is, ironically, anything but "plain view"), and the hypocrisy of some of the people around him, including the young church pastor (the "Sunday" folks, who sport the same last name too) who use the church to line his own pocket.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For so many reasons, mankind is long overdue in sucking up resources from the land (now that it's inarguable that oil, among other resources, is but a finite natural resource that would run out some day), and starts stepping up to being better steward of this planet earth. Surely, transition to alternative energy source(s) is going to be painful. But the longer we postpone it, the more painful it's going to get. I would not want to see my children, grandchildren, and beyond to bear the blunt to have to live with the last barrel of oil.
On sushi bullies and etiquette of eating sushi...
I've always like raw food since I was a kid. Back then, my mom would admonish me for "stealing" the raw food that she's marinating, or licking the marinating sauce off of the raw meat that I'm not supposed to eat (like pork or chicken).
That's probably one main reason why I like sushi so much. I read the Wall Street Journal, with interest, on sushi bullies - the sushi chefs who dictate which patrons get to eat what and how. I must confess that I routinely break sushi rules and etiquette, like ordering miso soup upfront, and adding more wasabi than I'm supposed to, because I like very spicy food, and I like the kick out of a heavy dose of wasabi. But there are a few things that I would do right. For one, I hate California rolls (I don't know how anyone would like these rolls). And I don't like too much soy sauce.
There's this sushi place in Boston, MA, called Sushi Express which offers pretty decent Japanese food for very reasonable price. It's a small, dingy place with maybe 5 small tables on high stools, a tiny sushi bar, and they do takeouts. But there's no sushi bullying chef to boss you around. You order whatever you want, and it won't break your wallet. The kids have come to love sushi too. For a decent meals for a family of four, it can cost less than $50. If you compare that to Mr Sushi in Brooklina, MA, for example, and you'll feel the pain when the bill comes, particularly in this hard economic times.
That's probably one main reason why I like sushi so much. I read the Wall Street Journal, with interest, on sushi bullies - the sushi chefs who dictate which patrons get to eat what and how. I must confess that I routinely break sushi rules and etiquette, like ordering miso soup upfront, and adding more wasabi than I'm supposed to, because I like very spicy food, and I like the kick out of a heavy dose of wasabi. But there are a few things that I would do right. For one, I hate California rolls (I don't know how anyone would like these rolls). And I don't like too much soy sauce.
There's this sushi place in Boston, MA, called Sushi Express which offers pretty decent Japanese food for very reasonable price. It's a small, dingy place with maybe 5 small tables on high stools, a tiny sushi bar, and they do takeouts. But there's no sushi bullying chef to boss you around. You order whatever you want, and it won't break your wallet. The kids have come to love sushi too. For a decent meals for a family of four, it can cost less than $50. If you compare that to Mr Sushi in Brooklina, MA, for example, and you'll feel the pain when the bill comes, particularly in this hard economic times.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
On the about-face of Greenspan...
It's almost painful to see the unraveling of the mystique of Alan Greenspan, having been kept under wrap for so long, the guy with the midas touch, who was credited with the economic expansion, the stock market rise, and the soft landing since the tech bubble burst in 2000. For the general populace, it's better to maintain the facade, knowing that perhaps someone really does know most everything, and have the capability to deliver salvation, in the face of disaster. Such was the collapse of credibility of Greenspan, and to a less extent, Robert Rubin.
The reckoning was long overdue, now that we know how vehemently these two men had fought against any attempt to regulate derivatives that are at the heart of the current credit market woes. Now we also know that the free market has systematically failed to regulate itself (against what Greenspan had long maintained would be far more effective than government regulation), when risks can all be packaged and passed along to the next guy like hot potatoes.
For Greenspan to consistently maintaining the current events as a once-in-a-century tsunami-like event, that there's no way to avoid it from happening, is just plain BS. While government regulations could have muffled market innovations, they would also have reduced the blunt impact of catastrophic events, should the market fail to operate according to theory.
If only Greenspan and Rubin had allowed even better mandatory disclosure of derivatives to provide some form of transparency, we would not have been in deep shit like we are now, when no one practically knows where the most toxic elements are. Perhaps then, Hank Paulson, the current Treasury Secretary and the fall guy holding the bag, who tries to devise some bailout plan, would have been in a better position to do something more effectively, rather than limping from crisis to crisis. As it is now, Paulson is but one impotent demigod who is losing his confidence game fast.
Last year, when things started getting worse from mid 2007, people were saying, things will get better by end 2008. From the look of it now, and how the subprime, then the credit market have been pulling down not just the housing, but the general economy as a whole, it looks increasingly like that it'll be at least another year, till end of 2009 that things will look any better, before it gets worse.
There are buying opportunities, although it's sad that our business venture in watches will probably have to wait till economy picks up again before it takes off. You win some, you lose some.
The reckoning was long overdue, now that we know how vehemently these two men had fought against any attempt to regulate derivatives that are at the heart of the current credit market woes. Now we also know that the free market has systematically failed to regulate itself (against what Greenspan had long maintained would be far more effective than government regulation), when risks can all be packaged and passed along to the next guy like hot potatoes.
For Greenspan to consistently maintaining the current events as a once-in-a-century tsunami-like event, that there's no way to avoid it from happening, is just plain BS. While government regulations could have muffled market innovations, they would also have reduced the blunt impact of catastrophic events, should the market fail to operate according to theory.
If only Greenspan and Rubin had allowed even better mandatory disclosure of derivatives to provide some form of transparency, we would not have been in deep shit like we are now, when no one practically knows where the most toxic elements are. Perhaps then, Hank Paulson, the current Treasury Secretary and the fall guy holding the bag, who tries to devise some bailout plan, would have been in a better position to do something more effectively, rather than limping from crisis to crisis. As it is now, Paulson is but one impotent demigod who is losing his confidence game fast.
Last year, when things started getting worse from mid 2007, people were saying, things will get better by end 2008. From the look of it now, and how the subprime, then the credit market have been pulling down not just the housing, but the general economy as a whole, it looks increasingly like that it'll be at least another year, till end of 2009 that things will look any better, before it gets worse.
There are buying opportunities, although it's sad that our business venture in watches will probably have to wait till economy picks up again before it takes off. You win some, you lose some.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
On aging and women...
There is always something reassuring, yet repulsive, about reading women (and men alike) and their attempt to "stay young." Lots of them are in display. Mike Jagger, for one, is infamous in the male species, who in his 60s, is still flashing his pouting lips. In the female species, we have an exemplary "model" of Madonna.
Don't get me wrong. I like Madonna. I've always enjoyed her music, maybe not so much the sugar-pops in her very early days, but her skills and music have matured and morphed to stay ahead of her times. And I like her attitude, not so much her tendency/need to provoke sexually, but her way of keeping her life firmly in her own hands and control.
I do have one problem with Madonna, in terms of aging, as she reaches 50 now, though. Not that I think being 50 is old. Quite far from it, I think there's still alot of life and legs left. But do we, as a collective group, really need to redefine 50 as the new 40 or even the new 30? Should we really accept our sense and space in time, carve out our niche in the 50-year-old's space, and hold our own; rather than competing for attention with the 20- and 30-year-olds? That's how I feel now about Madonna, and the Sydney Morning Herald article captures this essence well.
Recently, I watched Sex And The City (SATC), the movie. Honestly, I think it's a mistake for Sarah Jessica Parker to try to prolong a franchise that should have been graceful retired, much like Seinfeld. Do we really feel the need to see women stepping into middle age to talk obsessively about sex and their toy boy, as one of the main characters would have us believed? I don't think so. Not that Madonna is doing that much anymore (with her new found domesticity, kids adoption and all), but I really don't need to see a 50-year-old in fishnet stockings on stage. To me, it's just not cool.
When I find the need to see older women acting their part and have fun, I'd rather watch Something's Gotta Give, a truly funny movie and is age appropriate. To me, that's acceptance for the gracefully aged. Madonna and Mike Jagger are decidedly not one of them.
Don't get me wrong. I like Madonna. I've always enjoyed her music, maybe not so much the sugar-pops in her very early days, but her skills and music have matured and morphed to stay ahead of her times. And I like her attitude, not so much her tendency/need to provoke sexually, but her way of keeping her life firmly in her own hands and control.
I do have one problem with Madonna, in terms of aging, as she reaches 50 now, though. Not that I think being 50 is old. Quite far from it, I think there's still alot of life and legs left. But do we, as a collective group, really need to redefine 50 as the new 40 or even the new 30? Should we really accept our sense and space in time, carve out our niche in the 50-year-old's space, and hold our own; rather than competing for attention with the 20- and 30-year-olds? That's how I feel now about Madonna, and the Sydney Morning Herald article captures this essence well.
Recently, I watched Sex And The City (SATC), the movie. Honestly, I think it's a mistake for Sarah Jessica Parker to try to prolong a franchise that should have been graceful retired, much like Seinfeld. Do we really feel the need to see women stepping into middle age to talk obsessively about sex and their toy boy, as one of the main characters would have us believed? I don't think so. Not that Madonna is doing that much anymore (with her new found domesticity, kids adoption and all), but I really don't need to see a 50-year-old in fishnet stockings on stage. To me, it's just not cool.
When I find the need to see older women acting their part and have fun, I'd rather watch Something's Gotta Give, a truly funny movie and is age appropriate. To me, that's acceptance for the gracefully aged. Madonna and Mike Jagger are decidedly not one of them.
Monday, October 20, 2008
On Joe The Plumber and Obama...
I'm sure Obama must have wished that he hadn't taken the impromptu question from Joe The Plumber, the average-joe who asked him a seemingly innocent question about taxes.
Not that I disagree with Obama completely. In a way, government has a role to play to even out wealth distribution, and to provide some social safety net, among its populace. Obama's response was forthcoming enough, in a sense that he acknowledged he would tax the higher income bracelet in order to "spread the wealth."
What I find highly distasteful is how Joe The Plumber was treated by main media (including NPR), that as one NPR's listener response I heard on radio the other day, that this average guy would need to get briefed on the latest US tax codes and to keep his financial house in order, before he should go open his mouth and ask a presidential candidate on the proposed policy change that would impact him. I find it equally distasteful that the Obama camp and main media would choose to attack this guy, for not agreeing 110% with Obama and to go with the flow. For what Obama had accused McCain in doing (ie. sidestepping policy discussions and choosing to go personal), he's doing the exact same thing for an average voter who disagrees with him.
For what's worth, the follow-up news conference by Joe The Plumber is surprisingly down-to-earth. Here is a guy who is opinionated and is not afraid to speak up for what's on his mind, while acknowledging he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Over half of those questions that the reporters asked in this news conference were completely beside the point (ie. not pertinent to the tax question that he had asked Obama). No wonder average Americans are having less of it from main media.
McCain is supposed to be behind in poll numbers right now, and there are only 2 more weeks to go. If it had been the Bill Clinton's famous campaign "it's the economy, stupid" that puts Clinton into the White House, and if McCain is to come from behind to win on November 4th, it would have been Joe The Plumber. I would also highly doubt that to be due to the so-called Bradley Effect, should Obama lose. The society has advanced and become much more tolerant and open since then, and those who blame Obama's loss to lingering race issue are but fools. It's all policy, policy, policy (or the lack thereof).
Not that I disagree with Obama completely. In a way, government has a role to play to even out wealth distribution, and to provide some social safety net, among its populace. Obama's response was forthcoming enough, in a sense that he acknowledged he would tax the higher income bracelet in order to "spread the wealth."
What I find highly distasteful is how Joe The Plumber was treated by main media (including NPR), that as one NPR's listener response I heard on radio the other day, that this average guy would need to get briefed on the latest US tax codes and to keep his financial house in order, before he should go open his mouth and ask a presidential candidate on the proposed policy change that would impact him. I find it equally distasteful that the Obama camp and main media would choose to attack this guy, for not agreeing 110% with Obama and to go with the flow. For what Obama had accused McCain in doing (ie. sidestepping policy discussions and choosing to go personal), he's doing the exact same thing for an average voter who disagrees with him.
For what's worth, the follow-up news conference by Joe The Plumber is surprisingly down-to-earth. Here is a guy who is opinionated and is not afraid to speak up for what's on his mind, while acknowledging he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Over half of those questions that the reporters asked in this news conference were completely beside the point (ie. not pertinent to the tax question that he had asked Obama). No wonder average Americans are having less of it from main media.
McCain is supposed to be behind in poll numbers right now, and there are only 2 more weeks to go. If it had been the Bill Clinton's famous campaign "it's the economy, stupid" that puts Clinton into the White House, and if McCain is to come from behind to win on November 4th, it would have been Joe The Plumber. I would also highly doubt that to be due to the so-called Bradley Effect, should Obama lose. The society has advanced and become much more tolerant and open since then, and those who blame Obama's loss to lingering race issue are but fools. It's all policy, policy, policy (or the lack thereof).
Thursday, October 16, 2008
On silver lining of market turmoil...
It can be very unsettling in a weak economy, what if all the still-falling property prices, tumultuous stock market, job loss, and stagnant salary for extended period. Given a relatively secure job in a tech leader company that has demonstrated commitment in US, I sometimes watch the markets with almost clinical detachment.
Sure, my 401k balance has fallen by 30%, albeit as diversified as it can ever get. I still check it from time to time (to make sure no one hacks my account, and sell everything off, without me knowing it - as some horror stories had it), but I don't really bother with it as much. To me, it's not really loss to me unless I have to do fire-sale now.
I do find a silver lining in it all. I have come to appreciate the market gyrations. I must admit, I haven't touched the stock market, or bought/sold anything since the tech bubble burst in 2000. In a way, I have kind of mentally tuned out since the paper profit from my company's stock options evaporated, and I don't find a compelling need to check the market.
The market up/downs this year have had me refocused. I was looking at the market, the market swings, and thought, it's not altogether a bad thing. If I don't get greedy, I can buy-low-sell-high and make some candy money out of it. And so I did.
Here's my little strategy would work out:
(1) So, I picked only a few solid companies that I certainly won't mind holding long-term, but have experienced huge price swings. (Well, most every company goes through that these days anyways, so the selection is big.)
(2) I limit myself to a small amount of funds. In that, I acknowledge that this is nothing more than casino gambling, and I want to limit my downside.
(3) I don't limit myself to day-trading. Trading costs are high these days. There's no point mandating myself to close out positions in day-trading. Afterall, I don't mind holding the selected companies in the long term anyways.
(4) I pick a price point to buy/sell for the next trading, after the market close today. Since I sleep late anyways, I would take a look at the sentiment/performance in overseas markets overnight, maybe once or twice. Before US market opens, I finalize the buy/sell price points, look at my cash positions, and decide on how much profits I'm comfortable to take.
(5) Since I have limited the funding, I have to be mindful that even if I take profit, it'll take T+3 to have the funds available again. That limits the amount of trading I can do, which is fine with me.
It's working ok so far, although I have only started since the huge market swings happen for the past few months. Initially, it wasn't as good, since I was greedier. These days, I compare the gains to, say, treasury or money market yields, and it's alot more attractive.
Naturally, there's risk involved, but I'm more comfortable in taking control of these small funds, and manage it myself, rather than delegating to some mediocre fund managers whom I have no control over their performance.
Huge market swings won't last forever. But it's quite fun, actually. I have only myself to be accountable to. It'll probably extend till beginning of next year. I'll have my share of fun, for as long as "my party" lasts. :)
Sure, my 401k balance has fallen by 30%, albeit as diversified as it can ever get. I still check it from time to time (to make sure no one hacks my account, and sell everything off, without me knowing it - as some horror stories had it), but I don't really bother with it as much. To me, it's not really loss to me unless I have to do fire-sale now.
I do find a silver lining in it all. I have come to appreciate the market gyrations. I must admit, I haven't touched the stock market, or bought/sold anything since the tech bubble burst in 2000. In a way, I have kind of mentally tuned out since the paper profit from my company's stock options evaporated, and I don't find a compelling need to check the market.
The market up/downs this year have had me refocused. I was looking at the market, the market swings, and thought, it's not altogether a bad thing. If I don't get greedy, I can buy-low-sell-high and make some candy money out of it. And so I did.
Here's my little strategy would work out:
(1) So, I picked only a few solid companies that I certainly won't mind holding long-term, but have experienced huge price swings. (Well, most every company goes through that these days anyways, so the selection is big.)
(2) I limit myself to a small amount of funds. In that, I acknowledge that this is nothing more than casino gambling, and I want to limit my downside.
(3) I don't limit myself to day-trading. Trading costs are high these days. There's no point mandating myself to close out positions in day-trading. Afterall, I don't mind holding the selected companies in the long term anyways.
(4) I pick a price point to buy/sell for the next trading, after the market close today. Since I sleep late anyways, I would take a look at the sentiment/performance in overseas markets overnight, maybe once or twice. Before US market opens, I finalize the buy/sell price points, look at my cash positions, and decide on how much profits I'm comfortable to take.
(5) Since I have limited the funding, I have to be mindful that even if I take profit, it'll take T+3 to have the funds available again. That limits the amount of trading I can do, which is fine with me.
It's working ok so far, although I have only started since the huge market swings happen for the past few months. Initially, it wasn't as good, since I was greedier. These days, I compare the gains to, say, treasury or money market yields, and it's alot more attractive.
Naturally, there's risk involved, but I'm more comfortable in taking control of these small funds, and manage it myself, rather than delegating to some mediocre fund managers whom I have no control over their performance.
Huge market swings won't last forever. But it's quite fun, actually. I have only myself to be accountable to. It'll probably extend till beginning of next year. I'll have my share of fun, for as long as "my party" lasts. :)
On heart-warming stories...
I have this habit of discussing current news and stories with my kids. Although they're only 6 and 8, they get the gist of the issues pretty fast. Oftentimes though, passing judgment and conclusion to a story or news is not as easy as it might seem, involving alot of gray areas and ambiguity that young kids might not be able to appreciate. So, I pick more discrete black-and-white issues for discussions, and leave the others till they're older.
News have mostly doom-and-gloom. I didn't realize it until one time, after we discussed about a bad cop news story. My kids asked me, "why are you always reading sad stories, mom?" I was taken aback. I had not realized that those were mostly what I read, and they're right. Perhaps that has alot to do with why I'm more suspicious to human nature these days, and prefer to err on the wrong side (eg. not allowing my kids to be alone with so-and-so, because you don't want to find out some years later that this so-and-so relative had abused your kid when you left them alone). These days, I try to find a balance; though I must say, it's not easy.
Recently, there're a couple of readings, which are rather uplifting. One is about how a boy found his inspiration to become a writer later; the other is about the "Oxford Project" that follows 100 people in small-town Oxford, Iowa, and their life stories. Sometimes, our lives are moved and touched seismically by seemingly small things and incidents. I know I have a few, although I try to be more forward-looking these days for my kids. Perhaps, when I get older and slow down in my life, I'll come to more fully appreciate and revisit those incidents in my own life. For now, the future are the kids', and I'm trying not to miss it. :)
News have mostly doom-and-gloom. I didn't realize it until one time, after we discussed about a bad cop news story. My kids asked me, "why are you always reading sad stories, mom?" I was taken aback. I had not realized that those were mostly what I read, and they're right. Perhaps that has alot to do with why I'm more suspicious to human nature these days, and prefer to err on the wrong side (eg. not allowing my kids to be alone with so-and-so, because you don't want to find out some years later that this so-and-so relative had abused your kid when you left them alone). These days, I try to find a balance; though I must say, it's not easy.
Recently, there're a couple of readings, which are rather uplifting. One is about how a boy found his inspiration to become a writer later; the other is about the "Oxford Project" that follows 100 people in small-town Oxford, Iowa, and their life stories. Sometimes, our lives are moved and touched seismically by seemingly small things and incidents. I know I have a few, although I try to be more forward-looking these days for my kids. Perhaps, when I get older and slow down in my life, I'll come to more fully appreciate and revisit those incidents in my own life. For now, the future are the kids', and I'm trying not to miss it. :)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
On teacher's pay and the $125k a year proposal...
Of one of the oldest, ongoing discussions of all time, we've debated to death of what to do with our education system; and, how to improve it, or rather, how to halt the long term downward slide of American younger generation's education level (math and science, in particular), compared to their Asian and East European counterparts.
George W Bush thinks he has the one-minute solution, namely, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Given a White House with Karl Rove, it's constantly in campaign mode. All complex, real-world issues are reduced to two-minute soundbites that promise quick fixes. While most everyone agrees that standardized tests (a central theme of NCLB), the Act is riddled with holes like swiss cheese, and poor executed to the max.
So here it is, another discussion, another attempt on improving our education system, resulting in heated online debates. This one suggests that we should give $125,000 a year to teachers, since they are poorly paid compared to engineers.
A bit of disclosure is in order. I totally agree that teachers in this country are poorly paid. (I can tell you though, that this is the same in other parts of the world.) I agree too, that in order to have first-class education system, you cannot be expecting teachers to scrap by with crumbs. And we should not be expecting the young, well-educated, and idealistic grads to do "sacrifice" for the next generation, by doing "social service/welfare" for being teachers to our children.
Ok, so we agree that low teacher's pay is one of the problems that riddles our education system, at least we can talk.
When I look at problems, I always relay back to my own experience (as a student, as a parent, and as someone who works in the commercial world). Say, I go straight to my boss' office, and tell me with a serious face, that I reckon my job is very important to the company, and that I deserve x amount in salary. What do you think my boss will say to me? What would YOU say to me if you were my boss?
What I can tell you is what I would say to this employee, if I were the boss. I need a few qualifiers though:
(a) You say your job is important? How important?
Ok, we have agreed that we put our kids' education in the teacher's hands, so it must be one helluva important job.
(b) You say you want $125,000 a year in salary? Why $125,000?
So you say since engineers earn $125,000 a year, me as a teacher should be earning as much.
Now, this gets tricky. How do you compare apples to oranges? Why aren't teachers compared to, say, social workers who arguably have a more stressful workload and no 2-month vacation a year, but get paid less? Why aren't teachers compared to CEO or CFO who earn exponentially more? Shouldn't teachers be paid like CEO/CFO?
You would see, that singling engineers' pay scale out as comparison to teacher's is as arguable as the subject matter itself. I don't see how anyone could pick a random out simply because they want someone else's paycheck.
(c) Say, there are 30 teachers in the school. If you're paid $125,000 a year, should the other 29 teachers get the same? If yes, is it fair? If no, how much should they be paid, and why someone should be earning $100,000 and you should get $25,000 more? In other words, how do you judge pay scale and performance.
One of the things I don't like about is the union. Sure, unions serve some purpose in ensuring workers benefits. But when it comes to performance evaluation, collective bargaining is one big, terrible idea.
In a way, unions take away all the incentives of the star teachers to excel, by ensuring that everyone - the mediocres, in particular - earns the same.
One tough question remains unanswered is, how to judge a teacher's performance. NCLB is correct in introducing the idea of accountability - so that the performance is decoupled by rigid work rules and hierarchy of unions. But NCLB fails utterly in relying on standardized test scores alone to test teachers' performance.
Sure, I grew up in a system of standardized tests. I grew up in Asia, and believe me, it's all about tests and exams. Back then, when I was a kid and a student, I didn't realize it to be such a big issue, since if someone flunks an exam, s/he gets kick out of school. Period. It's up to him/her to find their way in the society, or fall on the wayside. S/he becomes a social issue, but not an issue for the school. Out of sight, out of mind, y'see.
As a parent now, I'm not sure if I want to shovel one issue over the fence, and let the next system deal with it. What if it's my kid who can't catch up? I certainly would not want a system to rely on the test/exam scores, and that alone. But that's what happens with NCLB. Worse still, Bush scores political points with getting NCLB passed, without providing sufficient fundings.
Back to the issue of what the performance critera for teacher, it's still up in the air. In the commercial world, you have the Jack Welsh's GE way (ie. constantly sifting and cutting off the bottom 10% while rewarding top performers). Now we know it breeds anxiety, animosity, and low rationale (saved the top 10% percentile), and the top guys leave anyways.
For the past few years, the "360" approach is the rage. Basically, instead of relying solely on your own manager's evaluation of your performance, you're being evaluated by everyone whom you've worked with. That provides one extra element - ie. team work - which is not likely to show up in the Jack Welsh perf review. In the school settings, could we have tried surveying the input from parents and students (if they're old enough to judge) as well? In a way, parents are one best gauge on how well their kids have learnt or improved.
Of course, in real world, life is more complicated than that. The above suggestion assumes active parent involvement which oftentimes is glaringly absent in poor schools. How do we overcome that?
(d) And we haven't even talked about the definitive budget constraint that a school has. Sure, the GOP know-it-all hawks are going to tell the schools to cut spending and bureaucracy. Realistically, I doubt how many school districts can up the teachers pay from $50k to $125k across the board. It's just not gonna happen, even in the commercial world.
Well...it leaves many questions open, without addressing even a small subset of it.
George W Bush thinks he has the one-minute solution, namely, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Given a White House with Karl Rove, it's constantly in campaign mode. All complex, real-world issues are reduced to two-minute soundbites that promise quick fixes. While most everyone agrees that standardized tests (a central theme of NCLB), the Act is riddled with holes like swiss cheese, and poor executed to the max.
So here it is, another discussion, another attempt on improving our education system, resulting in heated online debates. This one suggests that we should give $125,000 a year to teachers, since they are poorly paid compared to engineers.
A bit of disclosure is in order. I totally agree that teachers in this country are poorly paid. (I can tell you though, that this is the same in other parts of the world.) I agree too, that in order to have first-class education system, you cannot be expecting teachers to scrap by with crumbs. And we should not be expecting the young, well-educated, and idealistic grads to do "sacrifice" for the next generation, by doing "social service/welfare" for being teachers to our children.
Ok, so we agree that low teacher's pay is one of the problems that riddles our education system, at least we can talk.
When I look at problems, I always relay back to my own experience (as a student, as a parent, and as someone who works in the commercial world). Say, I go straight to my boss' office, and tell me with a serious face, that I reckon my job is very important to the company, and that I deserve x amount in salary. What do you think my boss will say to me? What would YOU say to me if you were my boss?
What I can tell you is what I would say to this employee, if I were the boss. I need a few qualifiers though:
(a) You say your job is important? How important?
Ok, we have agreed that we put our kids' education in the teacher's hands, so it must be one helluva important job.
(b) You say you want $125,000 a year in salary? Why $125,000?
So you say since engineers earn $125,000 a year, me as a teacher should be earning as much.
Now, this gets tricky. How do you compare apples to oranges? Why aren't teachers compared to, say, social workers who arguably have a more stressful workload and no 2-month vacation a year, but get paid less? Why aren't teachers compared to CEO or CFO who earn exponentially more? Shouldn't teachers be paid like CEO/CFO?
You would see, that singling engineers' pay scale out as comparison to teacher's is as arguable as the subject matter itself. I don't see how anyone could pick a random out simply because they want someone else's paycheck.
(c) Say, there are 30 teachers in the school. If you're paid $125,000 a year, should the other 29 teachers get the same? If yes, is it fair? If no, how much should they be paid, and why someone should be earning $100,000 and you should get $25,000 more? In other words, how do you judge pay scale and performance.
One of the things I don't like about is the union. Sure, unions serve some purpose in ensuring workers benefits. But when it comes to performance evaluation, collective bargaining is one big, terrible idea.
In a way, unions take away all the incentives of the star teachers to excel, by ensuring that everyone - the mediocres, in particular - earns the same.
One tough question remains unanswered is, how to judge a teacher's performance. NCLB is correct in introducing the idea of accountability - so that the performance is decoupled by rigid work rules and hierarchy of unions. But NCLB fails utterly in relying on standardized test scores alone to test teachers' performance.
Sure, I grew up in a system of standardized tests. I grew up in Asia, and believe me, it's all about tests and exams. Back then, when I was a kid and a student, I didn't realize it to be such a big issue, since if someone flunks an exam, s/he gets kick out of school. Period. It's up to him/her to find their way in the society, or fall on the wayside. S/he becomes a social issue, but not an issue for the school. Out of sight, out of mind, y'see.
As a parent now, I'm not sure if I want to shovel one issue over the fence, and let the next system deal with it. What if it's my kid who can't catch up? I certainly would not want a system to rely on the test/exam scores, and that alone. But that's what happens with NCLB. Worse still, Bush scores political points with getting NCLB passed, without providing sufficient fundings.
Back to the issue of what the performance critera for teacher, it's still up in the air. In the commercial world, you have the Jack Welsh's GE way (ie. constantly sifting and cutting off the bottom 10% while rewarding top performers). Now we know it breeds anxiety, animosity, and low rationale (saved the top 10% percentile), and the top guys leave anyways.
For the past few years, the "360" approach is the rage. Basically, instead of relying solely on your own manager's evaluation of your performance, you're being evaluated by everyone whom you've worked with. That provides one extra element - ie. team work - which is not likely to show up in the Jack Welsh perf review. In the school settings, could we have tried surveying the input from parents and students (if they're old enough to judge) as well? In a way, parents are one best gauge on how well their kids have learnt or improved.
Of course, in real world, life is more complicated than that. The above suggestion assumes active parent involvement which oftentimes is glaringly absent in poor schools. How do we overcome that?
(d) And we haven't even talked about the definitive budget constraint that a school has. Sure, the GOP know-it-all hawks are going to tell the schools to cut spending and bureaucracy. Realistically, I doubt how many school districts can up the teachers pay from $50k to $125k across the board. It's just not gonna happen, even in the commercial world.
Well...it leaves many questions open, without addressing even a small subset of it.
On my big sis, her debts, and getting burnt by Lehman's bonds...
Talking about getting burnt by investing in the bonds from Lehman Brothers, my sister is one of those. I would certainly have hoped that, given my eldest sister (A) is well-educated and is a financial controller in her company, she would be more discerning that the average retired/near-retirement investors who lost most or all of their savings by investing everything in the bonds backed by Lehman Brothers, claiming to have principal protection by the retail banks who were pushing them. Amazingly, my sister did not read the fine print. She's now lost probably more than US$50,000 worth of her savings which is a fair chunk.
About my sister and her debts...
Me and my other sister (J) were upset at A. Oftentimes, A is a kind-hearted and very easy-going person, but at times seems so complacent as to the point of naive:
(1) She's single, but she bought more than 6 insurance policies, at least 3 of which are whole-life and the rest term-life. She buys one every time her friends approach her. Invariably, these "friends" are new to the insurance agent game, and are always pushing to families and friends. Invariably, she would buy from them. She bought all those whole-life policies "to do savings." She would buy these policies and file them away, without bothering to reveal them for details, or investment returns (for the "savings" portion).
(2) J and I ask her why she's holding 3 term life policies when there's no one who needs support from her, should she pass away. A has no answer for it. We ask her why she hasn't kept the money herself, and do the investment/savings herself. A can't be sure of herself to do those duties. Admittedly, she's a very good financial controller for her employer. It sets me to wonder why and how some people are always better at making/keeping money for others, but not themselves?
(3) Only just last year, a friend of hers approached her about this "investment idea" of the bonds from Lehman Brothers. It's "structured product," she's told. That's about as much as she can tell us. She doesn't know what these structured product does, but it sounds impressively, and it's from a big company, and her friend told her it's "principal protection." So, she poured her life savings into it. Amazing, isn't it, how she would do that without second thought?!
(4) Sometimes, though, I think A's complacency and laid-back attitude come from her religious belief. She strongly believes that God will provide for her, and in helping others. Not that they're bad traits, but it got her burnt time and again. I don't think she ever learnt her lesson.
(5) Twenty years back, she lost all her savings "playing" gold margin. The idea is simple enough. Gold price could either go up or down. You put certain deposits in your margin account with the brokerage. If you bet it to go up, and the price goes up, you win; but if price goes down, the deposits will be pulled out to cover margin loss. Likewise, if you bet it going down, and it does go down, you win; if it goes up instead, it's your margin loss. As long as you have enough money in the margin account, you can stay in the game (as you can stay on at the gambling table); but if all money in the account is used and you don't have any money to cover margin calls, they cut you lose and you definitely lost. She won a little bit initially. That got her started. (Isn't that how every gambler gets started, to have small gains initially?) In a perfect world when she bet against the market, she might have stayed on for a bit longer. BUT, what she didn't realize at the time was that, the so-called "price" quote from the brokerage does not always sync with the open market. The brokerage constantly "tweaks" or delays their price quote, knowing which of their customer(s) would not be able to make the margin calls, and the brokerage would be able to cut them out and pocket the profit itself. Gold margin is a 24x7 market. During the height of her "game" in gold margin, she hardly had a good night sleep as she's constantly calling in to the brokerage's hotline to check the price... until they cut her lose for coming up short with the margin calls. In the end, she lost close to US$200,000 in all - her total savings.
(6) Twenty years on, she's doing it again. This time though, it's not just these "structured products" or various life insurance policies. Afterall, investment loss (unlike margins and derivatives when the loss can be unknown for a long time) is only limited to the amount you put in. Apparently, A never learnt her lesson. This time, though, it's worse. The "holes" that she dug herself include not just these investment products, but her so-called boyfriend (bf).
(7) Now, I have to say something about this bf of hers. He's a sales. He used to earn big money in the 1980s doing import/export (I/E) from Asia to US. That was before China got in the direct-manufacturing game, and all big Western buyers go straight to the Chinese manufacturers for finished products. The middleman profits were very handsome back then, and he didn't need to do much hard work. In the 1990s, he split from his previous employer and tried his luck to be his own boss, dabbling in blackmarket watch dealing in/out of China. He paired up with a couple of shady mainland Chinese to start a shop at the border of China/Hong Kong. My big sis started dating him around the time when he started out on this. The money was good for a while, and then the mainland Chinese guys decided that they knew all his merchandise source, and since they knew how to sell now, they wanted to kick him out. What followed were a couple of armed robbery to the shop, and all watch inventory were "cleaned out." He got kicked out of the venture, with the mainland Chinese guys maintaining that he still owed them half of what's lost in the lost inventory. All he got left were some very old inventory from the previous I/E venture.
(8) For the past 5-6 years, he wanted to make a "comeback," first in the watch dealing, then the I/E side. He sunk all his own savings, sold off all his properties, saved the last one he's living, but re-mortgaged it too. But you know where it's heading... my big sis, being kind-hearted and gentle as she is, she sunk ALL her savings to his various dealings too. In a way, she's not an investor type. She didn't even so much as asking for info on how business dealings. All she knows was to supply the cash to him. When all her own savings were gone (all sunk to his failed biddings), she asked us (all siblings) to chip in. I told her at the time, it's not for him, but it's for her own use. No matter, she sunk all the borrowings from the family to him.
(9) It's only until last week, that J and I realized that A has even used all our parents' savings (the part held in her name for them), and even overdrafted, using parents' savings as collateral. Oftentimes, she's also paying for the mortgage payment of this good-for-nothing boyfriend too. She ended up using 96% of her monthly salary to repay loans.
(10) This was the time when she thought these "structured products" might be able to make some money for her. (Can you believe a more naive reason for investment - but it's more like a gambler's excuse?) Now she's lost it all.
(11) I'm not sure what's going to happen to A now. She has maybe another 10-12 years in working life before retirement. And she's still praying for God's providence. She's crying out loud, on why God chose such a "difficult path" for her. J and I told her time and again, that that's prayers. She has chosen this path, and she insisted that God agrees with her, and delivers her the resources to go down that path. Not so - and God has shown her repeatedly that He does not condone the way.
It's always hard when news headlines hit close to home. I would never have thought or hoped that I would have stupid investors from within my family. But things happen, and God will show us, we're all humans, and we all make the same or similar mistakes. I'm still praying for my big sis to learn her way, change her attitude, and repay all her debts; although I'm not sure how. I'm not sure if it's helping her at all, by having her hit a jackpot or something and repay all these debts miraculously. She would have learnt the lesson the hard way...much harder than her last, 20 years ago.
About my sister and her debts...
Me and my other sister (J) were upset at A. Oftentimes, A is a kind-hearted and very easy-going person, but at times seems so complacent as to the point of naive:
(1) She's single, but she bought more than 6 insurance policies, at least 3 of which are whole-life and the rest term-life. She buys one every time her friends approach her. Invariably, these "friends" are new to the insurance agent game, and are always pushing to families and friends. Invariably, she would buy from them. She bought all those whole-life policies "to do savings." She would buy these policies and file them away, without bothering to reveal them for details, or investment returns (for the "savings" portion).
(2) J and I ask her why she's holding 3 term life policies when there's no one who needs support from her, should she pass away. A has no answer for it. We ask her why she hasn't kept the money herself, and do the investment/savings herself. A can't be sure of herself to do those duties. Admittedly, she's a very good financial controller for her employer. It sets me to wonder why and how some people are always better at making/keeping money for others, but not themselves?
(3) Only just last year, a friend of hers approached her about this "investment idea" of the bonds from Lehman Brothers. It's "structured product," she's told. That's about as much as she can tell us. She doesn't know what these structured product does, but it sounds impressively, and it's from a big company, and her friend told her it's "principal protection." So, she poured her life savings into it. Amazing, isn't it, how she would do that without second thought?!
(4) Sometimes, though, I think A's complacency and laid-back attitude come from her religious belief. She strongly believes that God will provide for her, and in helping others. Not that they're bad traits, but it got her burnt time and again. I don't think she ever learnt her lesson.
(5) Twenty years back, she lost all her savings "playing" gold margin. The idea is simple enough. Gold price could either go up or down. You put certain deposits in your margin account with the brokerage. If you bet it to go up, and the price goes up, you win; but if price goes down, the deposits will be pulled out to cover margin loss. Likewise, if you bet it going down, and it does go down, you win; if it goes up instead, it's your margin loss. As long as you have enough money in the margin account, you can stay in the game (as you can stay on at the gambling table); but if all money in the account is used and you don't have any money to cover margin calls, they cut you lose and you definitely lost. She won a little bit initially. That got her started. (Isn't that how every gambler gets started, to have small gains initially?) In a perfect world when she bet against the market, she might have stayed on for a bit longer. BUT, what she didn't realize at the time was that, the so-called "price" quote from the brokerage does not always sync with the open market. The brokerage constantly "tweaks" or delays their price quote, knowing which of their customer(s) would not be able to make the margin calls, and the brokerage would be able to cut them out and pocket the profit itself. Gold margin is a 24x7 market. During the height of her "game" in gold margin, she hardly had a good night sleep as she's constantly calling in to the brokerage's hotline to check the price... until they cut her lose for coming up short with the margin calls. In the end, she lost close to US$200,000 in all - her total savings.
(6) Twenty years on, she's doing it again. This time though, it's not just these "structured products" or various life insurance policies. Afterall, investment loss (unlike margins and derivatives when the loss can be unknown for a long time) is only limited to the amount you put in. Apparently, A never learnt her lesson. This time, though, it's worse. The "holes" that she dug herself include not just these investment products, but her so-called boyfriend (bf).
(7) Now, I have to say something about this bf of hers. He's a sales. He used to earn big money in the 1980s doing import/export (I/E) from Asia to US. That was before China got in the direct-manufacturing game, and all big Western buyers go straight to the Chinese manufacturers for finished products. The middleman profits were very handsome back then, and he didn't need to do much hard work. In the 1990s, he split from his previous employer and tried his luck to be his own boss, dabbling in blackmarket watch dealing in/out of China. He paired up with a couple of shady mainland Chinese to start a shop at the border of China/Hong Kong. My big sis started dating him around the time when he started out on this. The money was good for a while, and then the mainland Chinese guys decided that they knew all his merchandise source, and since they knew how to sell now, they wanted to kick him out. What followed were a couple of armed robbery to the shop, and all watch inventory were "cleaned out." He got kicked out of the venture, with the mainland Chinese guys maintaining that he still owed them half of what's lost in the lost inventory. All he got left were some very old inventory from the previous I/E venture.
(8) For the past 5-6 years, he wanted to make a "comeback," first in the watch dealing, then the I/E side. He sunk all his own savings, sold off all his properties, saved the last one he's living, but re-mortgaged it too. But you know where it's heading... my big sis, being kind-hearted and gentle as she is, she sunk ALL her savings to his various dealings too. In a way, she's not an investor type. She didn't even so much as asking for info on how business dealings. All she knows was to supply the cash to him. When all her own savings were gone (all sunk to his failed biddings), she asked us (all siblings) to chip in. I told her at the time, it's not for him, but it's for her own use. No matter, she sunk all the borrowings from the family to him.
(9) It's only until last week, that J and I realized that A has even used all our parents' savings (the part held in her name for them), and even overdrafted, using parents' savings as collateral. Oftentimes, she's also paying for the mortgage payment of this good-for-nothing boyfriend too. She ended up using 96% of her monthly salary to repay loans.
(10) This was the time when she thought these "structured products" might be able to make some money for her. (Can you believe a more naive reason for investment - but it's more like a gambler's excuse?) Now she's lost it all.
(11) I'm not sure what's going to happen to A now. She has maybe another 10-12 years in working life before retirement. And she's still praying for God's providence. She's crying out loud, on why God chose such a "difficult path" for her. J and I told her time and again, that that's prayers. She has chosen this path, and she insisted that God agrees with her, and delivers her the resources to go down that path. Not so - and God has shown her repeatedly that He does not condone the way.
It's always hard when news headlines hit close to home. I would never have thought or hoped that I would have stupid investors from within my family. But things happen, and God will show us, we're all humans, and we all make the same or similar mistakes. I'm still praying for my big sis to learn her way, change her attitude, and repay all her debts; although I'm not sure how. I'm not sure if it's helping her at all, by having her hit a jackpot or something and repay all these debts miraculously. She would have learnt the lesson the hard way...much harder than her last, 20 years ago.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
On pension funds losing $2 trillion in value from stock market plunge...
Perhaps alot of folks care/know about the value of their 401k only on quarterly basis when the statements arrive in the mail. Not so for me. I've gone paperless statement for a while now, and I make a point to login to check the value of my 401k maybe twice a month or more. So, I know how they've been doing, and they haven't been doing well. It's been down more than 20% since the beginning of this year. So, it comes as no surprise when I read today in the news, and then heard on NPR in the evening news, that pension funds like 401k have lost about that much (in percentage) so far, with value of $2 trillion in value.
Not that I need to heed to any financial advisers or analysts' call (since they're mostly just as clueless as everybody else), but I always diversify. I learnt this from my parents who've invested in stock markets and forex for a very long time now. And I always diversify. I have some in US blue chips, some in mid cap growth, some in index funds, some in international and emerging markets, some in forex, and some in cash (for everyday use and cash buffer). The rest goes to the business venture (I don't like excessive borrowing for business needs).
These days, though, things are not looking good from all fronts. Anywhere you turn, it's going down the tube. I don't panic easily. I usually like to top up when the market goes down. I agree with the idea of dollar-averaging the portfolio, as long as you keep rebalancing the portfolio on regular basis.
I practice all these on my own. I don't panic. And when you look at the markets now (as any other turbulent times like the 1987 Black Monday), you realize that the ones who panic are the traders and mostly institutional investors - the ones who are supposed to keep their cool; the ones who are supposed NOT to panic; the ones who are big enough to move and shake the markets. For all those that they're preaching, they did a particular lousy job. And for that (like Fidelity), we pay them handsome management fees on the pension funds.
If it's not for tax purpose, I would not - never - have invested in funds (pension funds, 401k, IRA, and *particularly* mutual funds). I do not trust these so-called fund managers. I find most of them to be mediocre, at best. For the amount of fees that I pay them, I reckon I would have done a better job in managing my own funds.
Lousy.
Not that I need to heed to any financial advisers or analysts' call (since they're mostly just as clueless as everybody else), but I always diversify. I learnt this from my parents who've invested in stock markets and forex for a very long time now. And I always diversify. I have some in US blue chips, some in mid cap growth, some in index funds, some in international and emerging markets, some in forex, and some in cash (for everyday use and cash buffer). The rest goes to the business venture (I don't like excessive borrowing for business needs).
These days, though, things are not looking good from all fronts. Anywhere you turn, it's going down the tube. I don't panic easily. I usually like to top up when the market goes down. I agree with the idea of dollar-averaging the portfolio, as long as you keep rebalancing the portfolio on regular basis.
I practice all these on my own. I don't panic. And when you look at the markets now (as any other turbulent times like the 1987 Black Monday), you realize that the ones who panic are the traders and mostly institutional investors - the ones who are supposed to keep their cool; the ones who are supposed NOT to panic; the ones who are big enough to move and shake the markets. For all those that they're preaching, they did a particular lousy job. And for that (like Fidelity), we pay them handsome management fees on the pension funds.
If it's not for tax purpose, I would not - never - have invested in funds (pension funds, 401k, IRA, and *particularly* mutual funds). I do not trust these so-called fund managers. I find most of them to be mediocre, at best. For the amount of fees that I pay them, I reckon I would have done a better job in managing my own funds.
Lousy.
On market gyration and turbulent economy...
It's always exhilarating to witness turbulent times as a spectator. Of course, it helps that you're not in the blood sport yourself.
Tech stock bubble...
Such was a time to see the coming of age of the internet era in the late 1990s. I could feel the charge of energy in the air when you're in CalTech, Pasadena, Stanford, and MIT, Boston. There was so much excitement, initially for bringing about changes to the world, and then the big money came. Back then, one of the favorable past-time was to have the little yahoo ticker app installed, and see the ticker slide by right on your own machine (PC, Mac, you-name-it). For a while, even just the thought of a (paper) millionaire is enough to deliver orgasm to folks. Everyone wants to start their own company, much like every Senator in Washington thinks they are president material. It feels good even just to see it, to feel it, and be part of the movement. I feel privileged.
I didn't feel particularly burnt when the tech stock market bubble bursted in 2000. Afterall, they had only been paper profit. It's like playing monopoly. It's fun going to a party, after every party ends, and so should this.
Housing bubble...
And then there was the housing bubble. At the time, after the tech bubble burst, I recall almost every so-called analyst and financial advisers would say, housing is the way to go. It's long term investment. You can go wrong with it. Over time, property value always goes up. Even Bush was advocating the "ownership society" from the White House.
We bought our first home in the late 1990s, not for speculation, but for our real need. We paid it off, bought a second home in mid 2000s, and rented the first one out, but all based on our needs at the time (since we need more room for the kids). We never went for the extravagant. Afterall, I don't like big houses. I prefer smaller dig, but with each space fully utilized. I don't like have lots of rooms that only gather dust, with no one using them.
And we sold our first home in mid 2006, almost right at the peak of the market. I never tried to time the market. But it's indeed providence, that there's this buyer in the same building, who's so keen on buying out all units in the multi-family and convert it into a single-family, all for themselves; and he would hassle us every year to sell, ever since we moved to our second home. So, I reckon, the price was right, and we sold.
By end 2006, housing prices started plateauing and falling. Do I feel sorry for the guy who hassled us to sell to him? Not particularly. Afterall, he has an MBA and a good job (CFO) for a decent company; but so does he have 5 mortgages (4 for the various units in that same building, including his own home there, and 1 vacation home in Maine). Does he overstretch himself? I certainly think so. But that's the kind of market craze that drives people to do irrational things, even though this guy thinks he has all angles covered (except when the property market turns).
We still live in that same second home we bought. It has enough space for us for now, and I'm happy with it. My mom keeps reminding me that we would need more space as the kids grow. But for now, they can wait for a while.
Does it feel good to see the housing bubble, reap some nice profit (sold the first home for 3 times its original price, can you believe it?!?), then witness its deflation? It's almost surreal, and I know the collapse of the housing market would have hurt alot of people, including the guy who forced our hand to sell to him. But for the most part, they asked for it.
Credit market squeeze...
By now, of course we know how this plays out. The housing market downturn triggers the subprime mortgage market to collapse. That fires off the credit market squeeze since the derivatives that base on the value of subprime collaterals have all but evaporated. The Fed was sleeping at their watch. Rating agencies sucker up to the banks, investment banks, and all kinds of financial institutions, and giving AAA ratings to all tranche of securitized instruments like candies to kids at Halloween.
Another stock market plunge...
It's still hurting now. Yesterday, Dow plunged another 800 points at one point, after falling some 770 points a few days before. The crisis looks to be spreading to Europe. (Should there be any surprise?!?) Stock markets around the world fell precipitously. (And Asia still think they're immune to a recession in Europe and even US? They must still be dreaming.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do I feel exhilarated just to recount what has gone through in less than 10 years, with bubble (burst) after bubble (burst)? Most definitely.
Sometimes, though, it's an interesting thought, to see gyrations and turbulance in economy like these as opportunities, and the "invisible hand" at work, in redistributing wealth from one group to another, and from one part of the world to the next. I sure hope this redistribution is making the wealth more evenly distributed. So far, though, the signs are not good. Wealth looks to be more and more focused on a shrinking group of individuals. Oftentimes, it takes money to make money. If average joes want to play in the big league, they would need the capital. With borrowed capital, when times like this come, lenders are going to turn off the faucet.
We'll have to play safe. I hope my kids will read these one day, after they grow up, and learn something from history, since history does repeat itself. It might not be in the same form; but one way or the way, it would. That's a law of nature.
Tech stock bubble...
Such was a time to see the coming of age of the internet era in the late 1990s. I could feel the charge of energy in the air when you're in CalTech, Pasadena, Stanford, and MIT, Boston. There was so much excitement, initially for bringing about changes to the world, and then the big money came. Back then, one of the favorable past-time was to have the little yahoo ticker app installed, and see the ticker slide by right on your own machine (PC, Mac, you-name-it). For a while, even just the thought of a (paper) millionaire is enough to deliver orgasm to folks. Everyone wants to start their own company, much like every Senator in Washington thinks they are president material. It feels good even just to see it, to feel it, and be part of the movement. I feel privileged.
I didn't feel particularly burnt when the tech stock market bubble bursted in 2000. Afterall, they had only been paper profit. It's like playing monopoly. It's fun going to a party, after every party ends, and so should this.
Housing bubble...
And then there was the housing bubble. At the time, after the tech bubble burst, I recall almost every so-called analyst and financial advisers would say, housing is the way to go. It's long term investment. You can go wrong with it. Over time, property value always goes up. Even Bush was advocating the "ownership society" from the White House.
We bought our first home in the late 1990s, not for speculation, but for our real need. We paid it off, bought a second home in mid 2000s, and rented the first one out, but all based on our needs at the time (since we need more room for the kids). We never went for the extravagant. Afterall, I don't like big houses. I prefer smaller dig, but with each space fully utilized. I don't like have lots of rooms that only gather dust, with no one using them.
And we sold our first home in mid 2006, almost right at the peak of the market. I never tried to time the market. But it's indeed providence, that there's this buyer in the same building, who's so keen on buying out all units in the multi-family and convert it into a single-family, all for themselves; and he would hassle us every year to sell, ever since we moved to our second home. So, I reckon, the price was right, and we sold.
By end 2006, housing prices started plateauing and falling. Do I feel sorry for the guy who hassled us to sell to him? Not particularly. Afterall, he has an MBA and a good job (CFO) for a decent company; but so does he have 5 mortgages (4 for the various units in that same building, including his own home there, and 1 vacation home in Maine). Does he overstretch himself? I certainly think so. But that's the kind of market craze that drives people to do irrational things, even though this guy thinks he has all angles covered (except when the property market turns).
We still live in that same second home we bought. It has enough space for us for now, and I'm happy with it. My mom keeps reminding me that we would need more space as the kids grow. But for now, they can wait for a while.
Does it feel good to see the housing bubble, reap some nice profit (sold the first home for 3 times its original price, can you believe it?!?), then witness its deflation? It's almost surreal, and I know the collapse of the housing market would have hurt alot of people, including the guy who forced our hand to sell to him. But for the most part, they asked for it.
Credit market squeeze...
By now, of course we know how this plays out. The housing market downturn triggers the subprime mortgage market to collapse. That fires off the credit market squeeze since the derivatives that base on the value of subprime collaterals have all but evaporated. The Fed was sleeping at their watch. Rating agencies sucker up to the banks, investment banks, and all kinds of financial institutions, and giving AAA ratings to all tranche of securitized instruments like candies to kids at Halloween.
Another stock market plunge...
It's still hurting now. Yesterday, Dow plunged another 800 points at one point, after falling some 770 points a few days before. The crisis looks to be spreading to Europe. (Should there be any surprise?!?) Stock markets around the world fell precipitously. (And Asia still think they're immune to a recession in Europe and even US? They must still be dreaming.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do I feel exhilarated just to recount what has gone through in less than 10 years, with bubble (burst) after bubble (burst)? Most definitely.
Sometimes, though, it's an interesting thought, to see gyrations and turbulance in economy like these as opportunities, and the "invisible hand" at work, in redistributing wealth from one group to another, and from one part of the world to the next. I sure hope this redistribution is making the wealth more evenly distributed. So far, though, the signs are not good. Wealth looks to be more and more focused on a shrinking group of individuals. Oftentimes, it takes money to make money. If average joes want to play in the big league, they would need the capital. With borrowed capital, when times like this come, lenders are going to turn off the faucet.
We'll have to play safe. I hope my kids will read these one day, after they grow up, and learn something from history, since history does repeat itself. It might not be in the same form; but one way or the way, it would. That's a law of nature.
Monday, October 6, 2008
On modern etiquette...
Does anyone really care about etiquette? Should we really care about etiquette? What are modern etiquette anyways? Do we have a modified set of etiquette or should we cling to the old?
Those are always some of the questions I have when I browse the Martha Stewart Living magazine. Not that I would spend a buck on buying a magazine like that. But it's free subscription from credit cards, so I'll get a few issues every so often and see how fussy Martha Stewart, the domestic diva, has made her mark in America household.
Sure, everyone likes a spotless, neat household, much like a baby just came out of a bath. It reminds me of Johnson&Johnson baby lotion which smell I've always loved since childhood. But how many modern women really spend days at home preparing seat markers for dinner parties, gift basket in the guest bathroom, or thank you card after a dinner? Do they do that for EVERY festival there is (Valentine's Day, Easter, July 4th barbecue, Labor Day cookout, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, and oh, the summer retreat on the beach...then repeat the list again on endless loop)? Do women have better things to do that sitting around waiting for guests to come, and kids/husbands to come home?
By jove, just the thought of that makes me sick. Perhaps I've always been a city person. I've always been a working woman, now a working mom. Don't get me wrong: I like the niceties. I like those cute little things. But much as I enjoy going to weddings, than to hold my own wedding back then, I cannot fathom myself spending days on end, planning, and working through the details, for occasions.
If it's the occasions that count, can't we just get together and have a good time? Do we really need the Martha-Stewart-kind of fussy details to enjoy the occasions? I think not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But but, Martha Stewart does not embody modern etiquette. What Martha Stewart sells is her way to cling to the rituals more for 19th century domestic women. To me, modern etiquette is plain decency and respect to other people.
Do you talk loudly to your cell while in the train? Do you brush those dandruff off your shoulder when wearing a navy blue blazer? Do you have food tidbits left between your teeth after meals? Do you show your navel when you're not in a bikini (and no, not even the young Britney Spear, thank you)? Do you show your underwear or G-string band at your jeans' waistband?
And, what is your ringtone? Wonder why I asked this question? One time, there was this woman in mainland China on a train in a modern Chinese city, and her ringtone surely would ring a bell.... it's a rooster crowing...very loudly. Amazingly, the local Chinese don't even register this as any problem. It's the foreigners on the train who were visibly alarmed. Sometimes, thinking back, I wonder if that (the rooster) was her alarm clock back home.
That brings us to the question. Who are we to judge what etiquette should be "proper"? As that local Chinese woman and her fellow countrymen on the train obviously shows, ringtone isn't one of them, but it's certainly mine.
So it is then, that I have my set of etiquette, that local Chinese woman can have hers, but mine would have very little overlap with Martha Stewart's. So much for that, Martha.
Those are always some of the questions I have when I browse the Martha Stewart Living magazine. Not that I would spend a buck on buying a magazine like that. But it's free subscription from credit cards, so I'll get a few issues every so often and see how fussy Martha Stewart, the domestic diva, has made her mark in America household.
Sure, everyone likes a spotless, neat household, much like a baby just came out of a bath. It reminds me of Johnson&Johnson baby lotion which smell I've always loved since childhood. But how many modern women really spend days at home preparing seat markers for dinner parties, gift basket in the guest bathroom, or thank you card after a dinner? Do they do that for EVERY festival there is (Valentine's Day, Easter, July 4th barbecue, Labor Day cookout, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, and oh, the summer retreat on the beach...then repeat the list again on endless loop)? Do women have better things to do that sitting around waiting for guests to come, and kids/husbands to come home?
By jove, just the thought of that makes me sick. Perhaps I've always been a city person. I've always been a working woman, now a working mom. Don't get me wrong: I like the niceties. I like those cute little things. But much as I enjoy going to weddings, than to hold my own wedding back then, I cannot fathom myself spending days on end, planning, and working through the details, for occasions.
If it's the occasions that count, can't we just get together and have a good time? Do we really need the Martha-Stewart-kind of fussy details to enjoy the occasions? I think not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But but, Martha Stewart does not embody modern etiquette. What Martha Stewart sells is her way to cling to the rituals more for 19th century domestic women. To me, modern etiquette is plain decency and respect to other people.
Do you talk loudly to your cell while in the train? Do you brush those dandruff off your shoulder when wearing a navy blue blazer? Do you have food tidbits left between your teeth after meals? Do you show your navel when you're not in a bikini (and no, not even the young Britney Spear, thank you)? Do you show your underwear or G-string band at your jeans' waistband?
And, what is your ringtone? Wonder why I asked this question? One time, there was this woman in mainland China on a train in a modern Chinese city, and her ringtone surely would ring a bell.... it's a rooster crowing...very loudly. Amazingly, the local Chinese don't even register this as any problem. It's the foreigners on the train who were visibly alarmed. Sometimes, thinking back, I wonder if that (the rooster) was her alarm clock back home.
That brings us to the question. Who are we to judge what etiquette should be "proper"? As that local Chinese woman and her fellow countrymen on the train obviously shows, ringtone isn't one of them, but it's certainly mine.
So it is then, that I have my set of etiquette, that local Chinese woman can have hers, but mine would have very little overlap with Martha Stewart's. So much for that, Martha.
On the end of era for Wall Street extravaganza...
Does anyone really think that the extravaganza from the Wall Street era is coming to an end, now that the last investment banks (Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) are looking more precarious by the day, after the fall of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns?
The worship of money, as a religion, will never go away. It might go dormant for a while, but it'll come back, no doubt about that. Absent of checks and balance, everything and anything goes. That's what happens when the Community Party in China opens its door to the world. After the Cultural Revolution when all history and culture were trashed, everyone goes for money, the color of gold that outshines the color of red.
So, no, those fallen suits are going to make their way back, one way or the other. (Hedgy, private equity, or some other forms of wolf in sheep skin?) Unfortunately, humans never learn - both the victims who lost their money, and the perpetrators who made out obscene amount of money on someone else's back.
The worship of money, as a religion, will never go away. It might go dormant for a while, but it'll come back, no doubt about that. Absent of checks and balance, everything and anything goes. That's what happens when the Community Party in China opens its door to the world. After the Cultural Revolution when all history and culture were trashed, everyone goes for money, the color of gold that outshines the color of red.
So, no, those fallen suits are going to make their way back, one way or the other. (Hedgy, private equity, or some other forms of wolf in sheep skin?) Unfortunately, humans never learn - both the victims who lost their money, and the perpetrators who made out obscene amount of money on someone else's back.
On the controversy of Bill Henson and sanctity of school...
I read with apprehension, the betrayal of trusts that parents in Australia felt when it's reported that Bill Henson, the "artist" whose infamous, provocative portraits of under-aged models, provoked many parents.
Now, it's reported that at one point, he was allowed to go into a Melbourne public school, led by school principal, sparks outcry of betrayal of trust by parents. I simply can't understand how anyone, parents in particular, could have defended that act by school officials. Scouting kids for sports activities is completely different from selecting boys/girls for provocative pictures. To me, it's exactly like those pedophiles advocating lowering consenting age of sex to include very young children, saying it's "no big deal."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The issue also reminds me of something that hits closer to home. One time, a friend of mine from Asia asked me if I know of someone called Andrew, a supposedly wealthy Asian businessman who lives in the same East coast city as myself, and whose son goes to Harvard. I told her, that's impossible to tell, since her depiction of this businessman is simply too general.
Upon discussions, she reveals her story. Her sister's family, whose has an only child (boy), migrated to San Francisco about five years ago. He's enrolled in the state public elementary school. His son has befriended this businessman, who has showered this young boy (maybe 11-12 at the time) with lavish gifts, and even allowed the boy to drive his BMW with him.
I asked: How did he befriend this businessman?
She said, one time the school principal accompanied this businessman to the public school, who's "picking out kids" to be on his scholarship.
I asked: What are the criteria of this scholarship?
Her answer: No idea, but the parents were assured by the school principal that it's very hard to get on to this scholarship, and it's "an honor" to be selected.
I asked: So, what does this "scholarship" offer?
Her answer: Not sure. But this wealthy businessman would come in from time to time to spend time with the chosen kids, even allowing them to fly first-class to visit him alone (with no parents or chaperon) on the East coast.
I said: What!? Your sister allowed her son to fly over and spend time with this man alone?!?
Her answer: But this guy is really rich. He has some 12 expensive sports car in his garage in SF here.
I was soooo flabbergasted, I didn't know what to say. Shall we say, there are stupid parents in this world?! The first thing that comes to mind was, Michael Jackson, and how gullible the parents of those kids were when they allowed Jackson full access to their kids and spend nights with Jackson alone. That's all because this guy is rich.
A few years later, when I caught up with my friend again on her nephew, she told me her nephew "looks to be fine." He's not close to that businessman anymore, and didn't want to see him, even when his parents asked him to. Her nephew doesn't even want to talk about this businessman.
Sometimes I'm not sure if it's extreme naivete or gullibility or stupidity that pushes these parents to not see any warning signs or clues in the development of their children. The trauma that pedophilia has on a child can become dormant, and can exhibit only after many years have passed.
I sincerely hope that I was wrong in this case, but I don't think I am.
Now, it's reported that at one point, he was allowed to go into a Melbourne public school, led by school principal, sparks outcry of betrayal of trust by parents. I simply can't understand how anyone, parents in particular, could have defended that act by school officials. Scouting kids for sports activities is completely different from selecting boys/girls for provocative pictures. To me, it's exactly like those pedophiles advocating lowering consenting age of sex to include very young children, saying it's "no big deal."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The issue also reminds me of something that hits closer to home. One time, a friend of mine from Asia asked me if I know of someone called Andrew, a supposedly wealthy Asian businessman who lives in the same East coast city as myself, and whose son goes to Harvard. I told her, that's impossible to tell, since her depiction of this businessman is simply too general.
Upon discussions, she reveals her story. Her sister's family, whose has an only child (boy), migrated to San Francisco about five years ago. He's enrolled in the state public elementary school. His son has befriended this businessman, who has showered this young boy (maybe 11-12 at the time) with lavish gifts, and even allowed the boy to drive his BMW with him.
I asked: How did he befriend this businessman?
She said, one time the school principal accompanied this businessman to the public school, who's "picking out kids" to be on his scholarship.
I asked: What are the criteria of this scholarship?
Her answer: No idea, but the parents were assured by the school principal that it's very hard to get on to this scholarship, and it's "an honor" to be selected.
I asked: So, what does this "scholarship" offer?
Her answer: Not sure. But this wealthy businessman would come in from time to time to spend time with the chosen kids, even allowing them to fly first-class to visit him alone (with no parents or chaperon) on the East coast.
I said: What!? Your sister allowed her son to fly over and spend time with this man alone?!?
Her answer: But this guy is really rich. He has some 12 expensive sports car in his garage in SF here.
I was soooo flabbergasted, I didn't know what to say. Shall we say, there are stupid parents in this world?! The first thing that comes to mind was, Michael Jackson, and how gullible the parents of those kids were when they allowed Jackson full access to their kids and spend nights with Jackson alone. That's all because this guy is rich.
A few years later, when I caught up with my friend again on her nephew, she told me her nephew "looks to be fine." He's not close to that businessman anymore, and didn't want to see him, even when his parents asked him to. Her nephew doesn't even want to talk about this businessman.
Sometimes I'm not sure if it's extreme naivete or gullibility or stupidity that pushes these parents to not see any warning signs or clues in the development of their children. The trauma that pedophilia has on a child can become dormant, and can exhibit only after many years have passed.
I sincerely hope that I was wrong in this case, but I don't think I am.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
On mortgage debt, and the movie Harakiri...
Human drama (if you could even associate the word drama with human tragedy) is almost, always sad. Such as it is, with the 90-year-old lady who shot herself, in the face of foreclosure to the home that she and her late husband owned for almost 40 years.
The report says, "In 2004, Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent mortgage for $45,620 with a Countrywide Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The same day, she also took out an $11,380 line of credit." That was when she's alone, at 84, and Countrywide would lend her. It's obviously clear that this very senior lady won't be able to afford the loan. But she has a house, and it's a business decision for Countrywide, given the lending rules have been relaxed over the years in mortgage lending. One could argue against the almost predatory lending practice by Countrywide, or the extreme naviete/stupidity/gullibility of this woman. As it is, she should become homeless by the time she gets to 85, IF she's still alive.
Well, she got lucky. She didn't die. Public outpour goes to her, and Fannie Mae who took over her loan prior to foreclosure, forgives all outstanding balance of her loan.
Do you think it's a happy ending? I cannot say, for certain. If this frail woman falls for predatory lending once, she could (actually, it's almost certain she would) fall for same or different tricks again next time. And next time she might not be this lucky, since it could be just another con man round the street corner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All these reminds me of the classic Japanese movie Harakiri from the 1960s. If you haven't seen this movie yet, go do it. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen. The movie sets the stage during the turbulent warlord era, when an upright samurai tried to rear his daughter and the orphaned son of his comrade who committed harakiri, upon the collapse of their warlord clan. Lots of ronins were roaming the country, trying to find a new master. Hard times hit, beyond their control, after the young daughter and young samurai married and had a new baby.
At the time, there was story of a ronin asking a warlord the honor to let him commit harakiri. The warlord returns the ronin the honor, not in the form of harakiri ritual, but took him in under his wing and become a samurai.
Odds pushing him up against the wall, the young samurai tried a copycat act of that ronin. He wasn't so lucky, since he was just but one of the thousands who asked the same thing, only to be turned away by the samurai guards of this warlord. But instead of turning this young samurai away, they granted him the "wish" to let him have harakiri ritual on their field. Naturally, the young samurai had not wanted to kill himself, since all he had wanted was just some money and he'll be on his way. Now that they granted him the wish, he has nowhere to turn but to go ahead with the harakiri.
Little did the warlord's samurai know that the young samurai had already sold his sword for money to feed his family. On the day of harakiri, these samurai sniggled when the young guy drew his sword, and it turned out to be bamboo stick. His honor would have him killed himself repeatedly with the bamboo stick, hoping but obviously failing to kill himself. So, in the end, this young samurai who copycat the suicide to beg for sympathy and money, died.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's much more to the movie.
But the point I want to note is, I wonder how human nature would have it, in the modern-day world, compared to the ronin times, of how suicide, copycats, and social injustice is going to be dealt with.
I have no doubt these fools (like this 90-year-old lady who borrowed without even thinking, assuming she can still think straight) suffer immensely. The warlord's samurai sniggled when they would become master-of-the-world, and decide who gets an ounce of sympathy (and be dispatched away with some money) and who gets the harakiri.
Admittedly, my first reflection is one of those like the warlord's samurai. That is to say, no sympathy, no help. Those fallen on hard times brought it on themselves by borrowing from banks when they knew they could ill-afford it.
But when I sit back and ponder on the subject, I can't be so sure. How many homeowners (not property speculators, not Wall Street bankers) have not been able to make it like this young samurai? Who am I to cast the first stone?
Oftentimes, there are questions that have answers with so many shades and layers that it's impossible to give a definitive conclusion on.
The report says, "In 2004, Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent mortgage for $45,620 with a Countrywide Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The same day, she also took out an $11,380 line of credit." That was when she's alone, at 84, and Countrywide would lend her. It's obviously clear that this very senior lady won't be able to afford the loan. But she has a house, and it's a business decision for Countrywide, given the lending rules have been relaxed over the years in mortgage lending. One could argue against the almost predatory lending practice by Countrywide, or the extreme naviete/stupidity/gullibility of this woman. As it is, she should become homeless by the time she gets to 85, IF she's still alive.
Well, she got lucky. She didn't die. Public outpour goes to her, and Fannie Mae who took over her loan prior to foreclosure, forgives all outstanding balance of her loan.
Do you think it's a happy ending? I cannot say, for certain. If this frail woman falls for predatory lending once, she could (actually, it's almost certain she would) fall for same or different tricks again next time. And next time she might not be this lucky, since it could be just another con man round the street corner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All these reminds me of the classic Japanese movie Harakiri from the 1960s. If you haven't seen this movie yet, go do it. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen. The movie sets the stage during the turbulent warlord era, when an upright samurai tried to rear his daughter and the orphaned son of his comrade who committed harakiri, upon the collapse of their warlord clan. Lots of ronins were roaming the country, trying to find a new master. Hard times hit, beyond their control, after the young daughter and young samurai married and had a new baby.
At the time, there was story of a ronin asking a warlord the honor to let him commit harakiri. The warlord returns the ronin the honor, not in the form of harakiri ritual, but took him in under his wing and become a samurai.
Odds pushing him up against the wall, the young samurai tried a copycat act of that ronin. He wasn't so lucky, since he was just but one of the thousands who asked the same thing, only to be turned away by the samurai guards of this warlord. But instead of turning this young samurai away, they granted him the "wish" to let him have harakiri ritual on their field. Naturally, the young samurai had not wanted to kill himself, since all he had wanted was just some money and he'll be on his way. Now that they granted him the wish, he has nowhere to turn but to go ahead with the harakiri.
Little did the warlord's samurai know that the young samurai had already sold his sword for money to feed his family. On the day of harakiri, these samurai sniggled when the young guy drew his sword, and it turned out to be bamboo stick. His honor would have him killed himself repeatedly with the bamboo stick, hoping but obviously failing to kill himself. So, in the end, this young samurai who copycat the suicide to beg for sympathy and money, died.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's much more to the movie.
But the point I want to note is, I wonder how human nature would have it, in the modern-day world, compared to the ronin times, of how suicide, copycats, and social injustice is going to be dealt with.
I have no doubt these fools (like this 90-year-old lady who borrowed without even thinking, assuming she can still think straight) suffer immensely. The warlord's samurai sniggled when they would become master-of-the-world, and decide who gets an ounce of sympathy (and be dispatched away with some money) and who gets the harakiri.
Admittedly, my first reflection is one of those like the warlord's samurai. That is to say, no sympathy, no help. Those fallen on hard times brought it on themselves by borrowing from banks when they knew they could ill-afford it.
But when I sit back and ponder on the subject, I can't be so sure. How many homeowners (not property speculators, not Wall Street bankers) have not been able to make it like this young samurai? Who am I to cast the first stone?
Oftentimes, there are questions that have answers with so many shades and layers that it's impossible to give a definitive conclusion on.
Friday, October 3, 2008
On child-rearing and generation gap...
Every generation has its own attitude and ways of dealing with things: money, relationship, child-rearing... Ah, child-rearing! I read a coop piece in Sydney Morning Herald today about generation gap and child-rearing, and find some of the remarks quite revealing.
While I'll let you read the article at your leisure, here's what's happening in my family:
My parents' generation...
(1) My mom is a wise and very tough woman. You could say she's too tough. In those early days, my dad had to work 18-hour day, 24x7, to feed a family of 7 (more like 8-9, when you consider his full support of my paternal grandmother who never worked in her life, and my paternal aunt who's good at using someone else's money). My dad is a very loving, caring man. Me and my siblings didn't get to see him often (since he's out before we woke, and back well past our bedtime), but he tried to make it out to have some occasional outings with it. Those outings were memorable, happy and fun.
(2) Since dad wasn't around most of the time, mom dealt with everything: 5 kids running around, schooling, finance, you-name-it. Now that I have kids of my own, I know how tough it was for her, particularly since she's a full time mom, and there was never any "after-school activities". Most of the time, I would recall her either grocery shopping in wet market, or washing (laundry - lots of it, and dishes), or cooking (4 meals a day, including the supper for dad when he came back at night). AND she walked to school and delivered lunch to us EVERYDAY. She's quite amazing. So, if you ever think you can handle it, think of what you have to do, and multiply that by 10-fold. That's about the workload of grandma.
(3) Circumstances dictate, mom has to be tough. Very tough, to be honest. Of course she would beat us with rattan stick if we fussed. Although I don't like beating kids, I can understand the kind of pressure she's under, so that she demanded absolute obedience, military style. Not that we're very good at it. My elder brother and sisters were better at it, but me the younger one had more fights with mom than I care to remember.
(4) By and by, we grew up with discipline and code of ethics. Thinking back, I do believe that, even though I did not agree with my mom on issues, the things that she and dad taught me were those things that were unsaid. It's their attitude to life, not never give up, to try your best, to be resourceful (it's easier said than done, mind you). My childhood has been a happy one.
My husband's parents...
(4) Every family has their own issues. My husband, P, hasn't had a happy one. At least that's the impression he presented to me. Sometimes I wonder if his unpleasant memories of his childhood are all that he chooses to remember. In any case, he's had so many problems, even becoming suicidal at one point, that I'm at times surprised that he hadn't already killed himself (or someone, given the Columbine-style atmosphere in school these days of the marginalized). He has also had bouts of depression. It's almost miraculous that he's an upright, healthy being that he is now.
(5) There are memories that P would not let go though. He could still recount vividly how his mom would kill him out of the car and make him walk 8-9 miles back home in heavy downpour, all because he's not hitting the right note in the private after-school piano lessons. (She's a music major herself.) He would recall pretty much "stop eating" about 7-8 years old when he's getting unhappy. He could recall rather pooping in his pants due to overeating in dinner of some delicious dish, than to tell his parents that he had stomach ache. He also recalls those bullying in school, when he would eventually retreat to the library, eventually becoming an avid reader (or bookworm, whatever you call it).
(6) He moves to a most liberal school in order to get away from his parents. Prestigious as the school might be in Chicago, it had not been what his parents had wanted. He rebelled, and moved out. His parents, being the traditional Asian first generation, would pay whatever tuition there is for higher education. At college, he forced himself out of his comfort zone, and joined a fraternity. (That's how he made himself learnt the social skills that he sorely lacks in high school days.) Interestingly, when it came time to choose graduate school, while he had wanted either UCSF or Wisconsin, he relented and went to MIT (the best name any Chinese parents would want their children to go to). However grudingly he did it (in going to MIT), deep down he still wants to make his parents proud, even though he rarely talks to them.
(7) His family is so dysfunctional that I don't even want to get closeup look at. He hardly talks to his brother. His mother disowned him (that's another story on its own). His mother and father effectively separated, while still living under one roof. (It's one of those traditional arrangement, I suppose: no divorce, but separation is fine.)
(8) While I understand it takes two to tango, but for his parents to create such hostile atmosphere at home, it's no wonder both P and his brother moved out the first moment they sensed their freedom.
(9) One time, P told me back then, his dad threw a boy from his dad's village into a pond, almost drowning the kid, "just to teach him a lesson." His dad's "teaching tool" is to hit him. He's all big on math and science. He had pursued a science PhD but failed (and got a masters instead). So, he weaved his own unfinished dream to his two sons, force-feeding them to excel in math. P would get beaten for getting math problem sets incorrect. His way of learning is, if you get it wrong, you get hit; then repeat that over and over again. It's no wonder he stopped eating at 7-8, given the kind of stress a kid faces. His mom, according to P, has not been very emotional stable, marrying early in order to get away from her own unhappy family (her mother being the 3rd concubine). She's such stubborn person that she refused to attend her father's funeral.
Now my family...
(10) Such as it is, the upbringing of P, and what level of child-rearing skills of his parents. You can imagine how I "value" (or if I'm being cynical - how I won't value) their input, when it comes to child-rearing of my own kids.
(11) I would say it here, that I'm disappointed at P, in a sense that, way back then, when we're contemplating marriage, he acknowledged the shortcomings of his own upbringing (or proper, normal childhood that one would have hoped), that he said to me, he would defer to me when dealing with our own kids in the future.
(12) But that didn't happen. I now know that, when stress comes, when one's subconscious kicks in, one practices what one knows best. For P, all he knows is, if you get the wrong answer to questions, you get hit. And he's repeating the same kind of high-stress treatment to our kids. The kids still love him as father, but they don't want him in the house, particularly not when they're learning or doing work. Put simply, they don't wanna get whacked.
(13) I would admit that it's highly effective, to have the kids to be "fearful" to one of the parents. It's effective for the good-cop-bad-cop routine. Herein lies my divergence with P, who dislikes being the bad copy, and reckons that I have put him in the position to BE the bad copy, simply because I'm "ineffective" or soft on the kids, when it comes to discipline. So, his argument goes, he has to do it, ie. he has to hit them when they don't listen or misbehave, because I "force his hand to do it."
(14) I strongly disagree with him on that, to a point when I don't think either of us are listening anyways. So, we pretty much stop talking these days. Cold war, all the time, so to speak.
(15) One time, after my brother had a long talk with P, my brother told me we probably had a problem that runs deeply than child-rearing. Maybe so. We had even had marriage counseling, but I stopped going after some 4-5 sessions. That's because all P bambled about was his childhood. So, one time during a session, I stood up and told the therapist and P that there's no point trying to disguise this as a marriage counseling when P couldn't even get pass his childhood. I don't want to relive as his mother figure in his childhood. It's just plain ridiculous. So I walked out. Now and then, I would ask him, what age they're dealing with now (in the therapy session). The last I heard, it was 10. But he stopped going to therapy. I can't really force him to. I don't even know if it's helping him.
(16) P's dad came to visit on occasions, mostly to see the kids. One time, P hit the kid when they're not doing the homework right. Now his dad told him, he should be kind, he should be gentle to the kid, blah blah blah. I got so upset. I thought, THAT was the kind of things P learnt from him, and now this hypocrit marched into our home, and told us you should do this, you shouldn't that?!?! I almost wanted to kick him out right there and then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of these days, when my kids read my journal here, they would understand all those that were unspoken. Perhaps they could come to appreciate not to repeat what their father has done, although he's powerless to stop what he had gone through in his own childhood.
My childhood has been a happy and memorable one. I hope my kids would share theirs with me in the same light. As to P, I'm still undecided where he would fit into the picture. No, I don't subscribe to divorce, if I can help it. But I know I would not hesitate it, if P goes too far with the kids. And I had walked out, and had him kicked out once. Perhaps that had sough bad seeds between us.
As the ancient Chinese saying goes, Every family has a book that is difficult to read...
While I'll let you read the article at your leisure, here's what's happening in my family:
My parents' generation...
(1) My mom is a wise and very tough woman. You could say she's too tough. In those early days, my dad had to work 18-hour day, 24x7, to feed a family of 7 (more like 8-9, when you consider his full support of my paternal grandmother who never worked in her life, and my paternal aunt who's good at using someone else's money). My dad is a very loving, caring man. Me and my siblings didn't get to see him often (since he's out before we woke, and back well past our bedtime), but he tried to make it out to have some occasional outings with it. Those outings were memorable, happy and fun.
(2) Since dad wasn't around most of the time, mom dealt with everything: 5 kids running around, schooling, finance, you-name-it. Now that I have kids of my own, I know how tough it was for her, particularly since she's a full time mom, and there was never any "after-school activities". Most of the time, I would recall her either grocery shopping in wet market, or washing (laundry - lots of it, and dishes), or cooking (4 meals a day, including the supper for dad when he came back at night). AND she walked to school and delivered lunch to us EVERYDAY. She's quite amazing. So, if you ever think you can handle it, think of what you have to do, and multiply that by 10-fold. That's about the workload of grandma.
(3) Circumstances dictate, mom has to be tough. Very tough, to be honest. Of course she would beat us with rattan stick if we fussed. Although I don't like beating kids, I can understand the kind of pressure she's under, so that she demanded absolute obedience, military style. Not that we're very good at it. My elder brother and sisters were better at it, but me the younger one had more fights with mom than I care to remember.
(4) By and by, we grew up with discipline and code of ethics. Thinking back, I do believe that, even though I did not agree with my mom on issues, the things that she and dad taught me were those things that were unsaid. It's their attitude to life, not never give up, to try your best, to be resourceful (it's easier said than done, mind you). My childhood has been a happy one.
My husband's parents...
(4) Every family has their own issues. My husband, P, hasn't had a happy one. At least that's the impression he presented to me. Sometimes I wonder if his unpleasant memories of his childhood are all that he chooses to remember. In any case, he's had so many problems, even becoming suicidal at one point, that I'm at times surprised that he hadn't already killed himself (or someone, given the Columbine-style atmosphere in school these days of the marginalized). He has also had bouts of depression. It's almost miraculous that he's an upright, healthy being that he is now.
(5) There are memories that P would not let go though. He could still recount vividly how his mom would kill him out of the car and make him walk 8-9 miles back home in heavy downpour, all because he's not hitting the right note in the private after-school piano lessons. (She's a music major herself.) He would recall pretty much "stop eating" about 7-8 years old when he's getting unhappy. He could recall rather pooping in his pants due to overeating in dinner of some delicious dish, than to tell his parents that he had stomach ache. He also recalls those bullying in school, when he would eventually retreat to the library, eventually becoming an avid reader (or bookworm, whatever you call it).
(6) He moves to a most liberal school in order to get away from his parents. Prestigious as the school might be in Chicago, it had not been what his parents had wanted. He rebelled, and moved out. His parents, being the traditional Asian first generation, would pay whatever tuition there is for higher education. At college, he forced himself out of his comfort zone, and joined a fraternity. (That's how he made himself learnt the social skills that he sorely lacks in high school days.) Interestingly, when it came time to choose graduate school, while he had wanted either UCSF or Wisconsin, he relented and went to MIT (the best name any Chinese parents would want their children to go to). However grudingly he did it (in going to MIT), deep down he still wants to make his parents proud, even though he rarely talks to them.
(7) His family is so dysfunctional that I don't even want to get closeup look at. He hardly talks to his brother. His mother disowned him (that's another story on its own). His mother and father effectively separated, while still living under one roof. (It's one of those traditional arrangement, I suppose: no divorce, but separation is fine.)
(8) While I understand it takes two to tango, but for his parents to create such hostile atmosphere at home, it's no wonder both P and his brother moved out the first moment they sensed their freedom.
(9) One time, P told me back then, his dad threw a boy from his dad's village into a pond, almost drowning the kid, "just to teach him a lesson." His dad's "teaching tool" is to hit him. He's all big on math and science. He had pursued a science PhD but failed (and got a masters instead). So, he weaved his own unfinished dream to his two sons, force-feeding them to excel in math. P would get beaten for getting math problem sets incorrect. His way of learning is, if you get it wrong, you get hit; then repeat that over and over again. It's no wonder he stopped eating at 7-8, given the kind of stress a kid faces. His mom, according to P, has not been very emotional stable, marrying early in order to get away from her own unhappy family (her mother being the 3rd concubine). She's such stubborn person that she refused to attend her father's funeral.
Now my family...
(10) Such as it is, the upbringing of P, and what level of child-rearing skills of his parents. You can imagine how I "value" (or if I'm being cynical - how I won't value) their input, when it comes to child-rearing of my own kids.
(11) I would say it here, that I'm disappointed at P, in a sense that, way back then, when we're contemplating marriage, he acknowledged the shortcomings of his own upbringing (or proper, normal childhood that one would have hoped), that he said to me, he would defer to me when dealing with our own kids in the future.
(12) But that didn't happen. I now know that, when stress comes, when one's subconscious kicks in, one practices what one knows best. For P, all he knows is, if you get the wrong answer to questions, you get hit. And he's repeating the same kind of high-stress treatment to our kids. The kids still love him as father, but they don't want him in the house, particularly not when they're learning or doing work. Put simply, they don't wanna get whacked.
(13) I would admit that it's highly effective, to have the kids to be "fearful" to one of the parents. It's effective for the good-cop-bad-cop routine. Herein lies my divergence with P, who dislikes being the bad copy, and reckons that I have put him in the position to BE the bad copy, simply because I'm "ineffective" or soft on the kids, when it comes to discipline. So, his argument goes, he has to do it, ie. he has to hit them when they don't listen or misbehave, because I "force his hand to do it."
(14) I strongly disagree with him on that, to a point when I don't think either of us are listening anyways. So, we pretty much stop talking these days. Cold war, all the time, so to speak.
(15) One time, after my brother had a long talk with P, my brother told me we probably had a problem that runs deeply than child-rearing. Maybe so. We had even had marriage counseling, but I stopped going after some 4-5 sessions. That's because all P bambled about was his childhood. So, one time during a session, I stood up and told the therapist and P that there's no point trying to disguise this as a marriage counseling when P couldn't even get pass his childhood. I don't want to relive as his mother figure in his childhood. It's just plain ridiculous. So I walked out. Now and then, I would ask him, what age they're dealing with now (in the therapy session). The last I heard, it was 10. But he stopped going to therapy. I can't really force him to. I don't even know if it's helping him.
(16) P's dad came to visit on occasions, mostly to see the kids. One time, P hit the kid when they're not doing the homework right. Now his dad told him, he should be kind, he should be gentle to the kid, blah blah blah. I got so upset. I thought, THAT was the kind of things P learnt from him, and now this hypocrit marched into our home, and told us you should do this, you shouldn't that?!?! I almost wanted to kick him out right there and then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of these days, when my kids read my journal here, they would understand all those that were unspoken. Perhaps they could come to appreciate not to repeat what their father has done, although he's powerless to stop what he had gone through in his own childhood.
My childhood has been a happy and memorable one. I hope my kids would share theirs with me in the same light. As to P, I'm still undecided where he would fit into the picture. No, I don't subscribe to divorce, if I can help it. But I know I would not hesitate it, if P goes too far with the kids. And I had walked out, and had him kicked out once. Perhaps that had sough bad seeds between us.
As the ancient Chinese saying goes, Every family has a book that is difficult to read...
On the verdict of vice presidential debate 2008.....
The interest for the vice presidential debate 2008 between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin has been extremely high, versus the fairly low expectation, going in.
Given the stumble of Palin interview with Katie Couric, everybody's expecting her to fall flat on her face. Everyone's also expecting to see some funny gaffe that Biden is so famous for. None of those happens, at least not in a dramatic way.
Both parties, Dem and GOP alike, should be happy and sigh a belief. There's no stumble. It helps to reinforce Biden, but more importantly, it helps to refute the criticism of Palin since the Couric interview. Both of them exhibit the discipline to stick to their own scripts. It's to be expected of Biden since it's an experienced, old hand from Washington. But we see that Palin can do that too, and that counts to her credit.
While Biden is expected, and he did it too, to use the debate to expound on his experience on details, in much the same way McCain had done in the first presidential debate against Obama. Palin sets out to "speak directly to the American public", and she succeeded immensely in that. She lit up in front of the camera, even though she had been evasive in giving straight answers to straightforward questions.
I don't actually see much of a debate between Palin and Biden. While Biden tried hard to draw her out for a fight, she shows the discipline of sticking to her scripts. It's almost like talking a clueless who would answer question 1 with an answer 2. Surprisingly, she did it every time when she looked straight to the camera, and she's like she's having a chat with you (audience), ignoring Biden and the debate altogether. It should have been an outrage, but she did it with shrewd and astuteness. It's funny how she did it more than a few times, when she would say it out loud that, she said she knows she might not be answering the question, BUT she wants to discuss something else that she wants to discuss/tell you (audience). I've never seen anyone who has done it before in public politics and can get away with it. Yet she did it, and people like it too. It's amazing.
In the end, the veep pick supports the nominee, and both Biden and Palin achieved that goal.
What I want to ask is, why isn't anyone doubting why Dem had not put Biden (or better still, Clinton) as the nominee, but instead having the inexperienced (Obama) on top?! Palin had said it well, that GOP has the combination right, in having the experienced on top, and having a feisty young sidekick. And Dem would have it upside-down. It's exactly the same way George W Bush (the inexperienced) was voted in office, propped up by the uber-experienced Dick Cheney. Obviously, we now know how disastrous that has been on setting the country down a wrong path.
Ultimately, if you ask any voters, even if they won't admit it, or if they're doing it subconsciously, voters would vote for someone they like, someone they can identify with, someone whom they would like a beer with. If you ask me, I'd say, Biden passes that test, McCain would pass too, and Palin definitely passes it with flying colors. And no, only those who seep chardonnay would invite Obama to their table. It's perhaps very ironic that this happens to a crossover black guy.
Given the stumble of Palin interview with Katie Couric, everybody's expecting her to fall flat on her face. Everyone's also expecting to see some funny gaffe that Biden is so famous for. None of those happens, at least not in a dramatic way.
Both parties, Dem and GOP alike, should be happy and sigh a belief. There's no stumble. It helps to reinforce Biden, but more importantly, it helps to refute the criticism of Palin since the Couric interview. Both of them exhibit the discipline to stick to their own scripts. It's to be expected of Biden since it's an experienced, old hand from Washington. But we see that Palin can do that too, and that counts to her credit.
While Biden is expected, and he did it too, to use the debate to expound on his experience on details, in much the same way McCain had done in the first presidential debate against Obama. Palin sets out to "speak directly to the American public", and she succeeded immensely in that. She lit up in front of the camera, even though she had been evasive in giving straight answers to straightforward questions.
I don't actually see much of a debate between Palin and Biden. While Biden tried hard to draw her out for a fight, she shows the discipline of sticking to her scripts. It's almost like talking a clueless who would answer question 1 with an answer 2. Surprisingly, she did it every time when she looked straight to the camera, and she's like she's having a chat with you (audience), ignoring Biden and the debate altogether. It should have been an outrage, but she did it with shrewd and astuteness. It's funny how she did it more than a few times, when she would say it out loud that, she said she knows she might not be answering the question, BUT she wants to discuss something else that she wants to discuss/tell you (audience). I've never seen anyone who has done it before in public politics and can get away with it. Yet she did it, and people like it too. It's amazing.
In the end, the veep pick supports the nominee, and both Biden and Palin achieved that goal.
What I want to ask is, why isn't anyone doubting why Dem had not put Biden (or better still, Clinton) as the nominee, but instead having the inexperienced (Obama) on top?! Palin had said it well, that GOP has the combination right, in having the experienced on top, and having a feisty young sidekick. And Dem would have it upside-down. It's exactly the same way George W Bush (the inexperienced) was voted in office, propped up by the uber-experienced Dick Cheney. Obviously, we now know how disastrous that has been on setting the country down a wrong path.
Ultimately, if you ask any voters, even if they won't admit it, or if they're doing it subconsciously, voters would vote for someone they like, someone they can identify with, someone whom they would like a beer with. If you ask me, I'd say, Biden passes that test, McCain would pass too, and Palin definitely passes it with flying colors. And no, only those who seep chardonnay would invite Obama to their table. It's perhaps very ironic that this happens to a crossover black guy.
On unemployment and statistics...
Whenever economy is bad enough, it becomes even more surreal to read reports and statistics on unemployment. Such is the time now, when after inheriting a massive surplus for government and eight years in office, George W Bush will oversee the economy on tail spin not once, but twice. Latest reports show that America has lost one million jobs since December. In other words, for the past nine months of this year, more than 110,000 people lost their jobs EVERY month. This is not to mention those who are under-worked (under-employment, they call it, for not having enough hours to do, but working nonetheless) which is now 11%.
Forget about the high gas price and increasing food price at the moment. Even with low prices, how do these people survive? Most of them are likely to be in low-paying jobs, living pay check to pay check. This is not to say there are no high rollers who lost their jobs too. But at least it's more likely the wealthier bunch has more buffer to weather this economic storm.
These statistics also ignore those who all but give up on looking for work. I know, because my husband is one of them, who gave up three years ago, and has focused on starting his own venture (that's another story on its own).
~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes, economists are like wartime generals. They look at statistics in a clinical manner. Don't they have a name for it - "collateral damage" - in the military battlefield? Yes, it's "damage," no doubt about that. I guess their jobs dictate it that they have to look at these statistics in a detached manner. But that could never blunt the impact on those who were damaged along the side - by the economy or in the battle.
Given globalization, it's a painful redistribution of wealth, for the wealthy Western countries (in Europe and America) to adjust their regular standard of living that comes with higher cost of living, with those in the developing world who are all upwardly mobile (except those in Africa who fall so far behind that they are not likely to benefit from anything). Just in China alone have 1.2 billion people who are going to share the rising wages and living standard with the West.
That macro view does not really have anything wrong. It's bound to happen, with or without globalization. But globalization simply accelerates the pace. In the past, it used to happen after a few generations, measured in decades. We now witness this happening in every 5-year span. Just look at how much the table has turned between Hong Kong and China.
Forget about the high gas price and increasing food price at the moment. Even with low prices, how do these people survive? Most of them are likely to be in low-paying jobs, living pay check to pay check. This is not to say there are no high rollers who lost their jobs too. But at least it's more likely the wealthier bunch has more buffer to weather this economic storm.
These statistics also ignore those who all but give up on looking for work. I know, because my husband is one of them, who gave up three years ago, and has focused on starting his own venture (that's another story on its own).
~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes, economists are like wartime generals. They look at statistics in a clinical manner. Don't they have a name for it - "collateral damage" - in the military battlefield? Yes, it's "damage," no doubt about that. I guess their jobs dictate it that they have to look at these statistics in a detached manner. But that could never blunt the impact on those who were damaged along the side - by the economy or in the battle.
Given globalization, it's a painful redistribution of wealth, for the wealthy Western countries (in Europe and America) to adjust their regular standard of living that comes with higher cost of living, with those in the developing world who are all upwardly mobile (except those in Africa who fall so far behind that they are not likely to benefit from anything). Just in China alone have 1.2 billion people who are going to share the rising wages and living standard with the West.
That macro view does not really have anything wrong. It's bound to happen, with or without globalization. But globalization simply accelerates the pace. In the past, it used to happen after a few generations, measured in decades. We now witness this happening in every 5-year span. Just look at how much the table has turned between Hong Kong and China.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
On the creditibility of official statements from Chinese government...
How creditable is it really, of any official statements from the Chinese government? I always wonder about that.
It's not the first, but when you look at the news in an aggregated view, you would come to some sort of conclusion. Recently, there is the melamine scare in the contamination of milk in China. More worrisome is the alleged cover-up of the incident by the Chinese government, in order not to upset the historical event of Olympics in Beijing in the latter days. So, we have the Chinese officials now, quickly lining up a few arrests, supposedly "resolving" the issue, since the official line has it that it's only those few corrupted citizens who are to blame. And then reports came out that Chinese citizens whose babies were getting sick had been complaining to the companies, and then to the government, but were silenced because Chinese government doesn't want to upset its status as the export king. Foreign companies after companies have been maintaining that their food products are in the clear since the Chinese government agencies clear them. Apparently the "warranty" from Chinese government agencies don't mean squat, and now all these companies have to conduct their OWN tests to see if their products were infected.
And then, there was news of suspicion that the Chinese Olympics medalists in gymnasts are underaged. Westerners might think, well, these girls are Chinese, they probably just look small in size. I don't know about you, but I know how Asian girls should look like, because I'm one. And most of them look like 12-13 to me. Sixteen, you say? No way. Chinese government has been insisting that they are not underaged. They even have proper documents to prove it. Well, if you ask me, that's like asking the wolf to mind the hen house. Who issues those documents? Chinese government. Who's the accused (for sending underaged gymnasts to Olympics)? Chinese government. Even one of suspected gymnast let "slip" that she wasn't born in the year on her document (and she was younger). But then, there is the universal truth that if you get powerful enough, nobody wants to upset. So we have the IOC who claims that they "properly investigated" the incident, but there's no truth in it, because the documents (issued by Chinese government) support the statements (from Chinese government). IOC would not want to upset China after it hosts one of biggest Olympics games so far. Truth, afterall, is in the eyes of the beholder.
So, you'd ask, what's the big deal?
(1) Well, for one, I would "eat local", ie. I eat fresh produce in US, from US. I don't really eat much snacks and sweets, and this is just one more reason why I shouldn't start on it.
(2) I still don't buy those (or any) official lines from Chinese government. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but once a sinner, always a sinner, and Chinese government has not helped itself to dispel that belief by lying time and again.
(3) And I won't buy in those "red chips," as those publicly listed Chinese companies (mostly state run) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. I have no faith whatsoever in the financials that these companies put out. I don't believe in their audit reports. (Check too on how often they change auditors.) Their numbers are just fantasy.
It's not the first, but when you look at the news in an aggregated view, you would come to some sort of conclusion. Recently, there is the melamine scare in the contamination of milk in China. More worrisome is the alleged cover-up of the incident by the Chinese government, in order not to upset the historical event of Olympics in Beijing in the latter days. So, we have the Chinese officials now, quickly lining up a few arrests, supposedly "resolving" the issue, since the official line has it that it's only those few corrupted citizens who are to blame. And then reports came out that Chinese citizens whose babies were getting sick had been complaining to the companies, and then to the government, but were silenced because Chinese government doesn't want to upset its status as the export king. Foreign companies after companies have been maintaining that their food products are in the clear since the Chinese government agencies clear them. Apparently the "warranty" from Chinese government agencies don't mean squat, and now all these companies have to conduct their OWN tests to see if their products were infected.
And then, there was news of suspicion that the Chinese Olympics medalists in gymnasts are underaged. Westerners might think, well, these girls are Chinese, they probably just look small in size. I don't know about you, but I know how Asian girls should look like, because I'm one. And most of them look like 12-13 to me. Sixteen, you say? No way. Chinese government has been insisting that they are not underaged. They even have proper documents to prove it. Well, if you ask me, that's like asking the wolf to mind the hen house. Who issues those documents? Chinese government. Who's the accused (for sending underaged gymnasts to Olympics)? Chinese government. Even one of suspected gymnast let "slip" that she wasn't born in the year on her document (and she was younger). But then, there is the universal truth that if you get powerful enough, nobody wants to upset. So we have the IOC who claims that they "properly investigated" the incident, but there's no truth in it, because the documents (issued by Chinese government) support the statements (from Chinese government). IOC would not want to upset China after it hosts one of biggest Olympics games so far. Truth, afterall, is in the eyes of the beholder.
So, you'd ask, what's the big deal?
(1) Well, for one, I would "eat local", ie. I eat fresh produce in US, from US. I don't really eat much snacks and sweets, and this is just one more reason why I shouldn't start on it.
(2) I still don't buy those (or any) official lines from Chinese government. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but once a sinner, always a sinner, and Chinese government has not helped itself to dispel that belief by lying time and again.
(3) And I won't buy in those "red chips," as those publicly listed Chinese companies (mostly state run) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. I have no faith whatsoever in the financials that these companies put out. I don't believe in their audit reports. (Check too on how often they change auditors.) Their numbers are just fantasy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)