2018: Taking stock, and looking ahead...

What a year - another year - of whiplash in politics and news, with Trump being the stirrer of the pot. The idiot continues to tear down and weaken the civil government structure, with the rapid-fire hiring and firing of his cabinet members. If Trump has an ounce of shame left, if he ever has enough attention span to finish reading even a short news article other than Fox News, if he realizes how POORLY he has been doing the job as compared to past administrations, he should be feeling the full weight of it. Sadly, this is not a man who would ever admit to wrongdoing. So, he marches on, and drags everyone along with it.

And then there was the turmoil in the legislative branch, in the form of 2018 midterms, flipping control of the House to the Democrats, a change that has not been seen for decades. Democrats must be all giddy, touting the Blue Wave banner. While the House flips to Dems more readily, it lost the Senate, though arguably on small margin. To me, the midterms results were really more a rebuff of Trump, rather than an affirmation to Dems policy. Yes, there are some minority (including women) joining the House ranks, these shiny new objects have to prove their worth over time, as McCaskill has rightly pointed out. The jury is still out, and I'm sitting on the fence to see how cheap talks are put into action.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Politics aside, economy is on a roller-coaster ride. There's back-and-forth in the trade war between US and China. There is no doubt that pains will be felt on both sides, though it's more rhetoric from China since it exports more, far more, to US, than the other way around; hence, China has far more to lose. Its market is big, thanks to its huge population, but individual purchasing power of its consumers is still far far lower than those in US. The Chinese can turn on a dime to shrink its consumption, should time get worse, though one would hardly see that reflected in the official China news outlets that churn out only good news.

China does have one upper hand. Its US imports of mostly agricultural products are mainly in Red States, thus a sharp cutback in US imports is going to hurt those core Trump supporters most. How far these agri-states can hold out before suffering permanent damages (and switches allegiance politically), and how readily China can find their agri-supply from some other countries, remain to be seen. 2019 is going to be the year to see that play out.

When the economy (and stock market) got a boost from the unnecessary tax cuts, Trump took full credit for it. When the Fed decides to tamper down inflation potential by steadily raising rates, Trump threatens to fire the Fed Chair, who was installed there by Trump himself. Arguably the only ones right now that are untouchables, is the Supreme Court. Without the power to fire Supreme Court judges, Trump decides to disparage and discredit it instead, weakening the beacon of independence in judiciary that has been holding up, in face of all the turmoil in the executive branch. It's a total disgrace.

~~~~~~~~~~~

With Trump's propensity to deliver high drama, his latest attempt is the government shutdown. As Dems are taking control of the House, come January, it's moment of truth to see if Dems really have the spine to go toe-to-toe with Trump over the funding of the border wall. The thing of interest is, Trump has upended the playbook about the whole hoopla of "government shutdown." In generations past, everyone tried to play nice and avoid being seen as the "bad guy" who brought about a government shutdown or impasse, Trump instead invites that. He wants to be seen as confrontational. If he can't fire Supreme Court, if he can't get rid of main media, he can always bully the Congress.

Personally I don't give a damn about the border wall. The idea of it, is not really an issue; afterall, it's absurd for Dems to play contrarian and insist on open border. But the reality and logistics (including maintenance) of it, is a total nightmare. As technology comes of it, why don't we deploy drones to do more of the work than building a physical wall?

I empathize with those who want to make a better life for themselves and their kids, but if you ask me, I cannot say too much positive things about this migrant caravan. Does a country have right to accept or deny entry into its borders? Yes. Do migrants from other countries have a right to demand entry and same treatment as its own citizens? No. These migrants, under the encouragements of activists, decide that as long as they come in bigger numbers, bring more small children along, then they would be treated preferentially. I'm sorry to say, but that rubs me the wrong way.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Although the execution of Trump's administration in this regard is haphazard, I do not disagree with it on principles. And for Dems to demand White House taking in anyone and everyone who cares to join the migrant caravan, it's just plain stupid. One does not have to look any further than to see what the consequences of that kind of open-border policy would be like, than to see turmoil in Europe, following the migrant crisis. Thanks to that, Angela Merkel is going out of power, after suffering defeats after defeats in ballot box. Big hearts and noble cause notwithstanding, the execution of it, is remarkably poor.

There can be no doubt that whoever comes next after Merkel is going to be far more hardline to refugees. But if Macron thinks he can assume the EU leadership in its void, he's seriously mistaken. France has been treading water economically for decades now. The latest yellow vests riots only serve to highlight how unpopular he really is, and how unwilling the French people would accept any level of "suffering." His idea of having a true European army, in the retreat of US from NATO, will be more rhetoric than anything else. Afterall, where was France's resistance during Hitler's rise and advance in WWII? To me, the French are always a bunch of good time charlies.

As to Brexit, all the Armageddon of economic collapse and chaos predicted after the referendum was passed two years ago never came to pass. As it turned out, it's all just cheap, scary talks. As the UK PM is pushing to finalize the Brexit agreement, the only bullet left to scare the UK voters shitless, is the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Not that it's unimportant, but it's hardly something that should have make-or-break a referendum as crucial as Brexit. Yet, there is talks again proposing re-doing the referendum, or scuttle the deal that the PM has put together (which is lame, yes, but it's not as disastrous as the Labor or EU has labeled it). These anti-Brexiteers should be ashamed of themselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~

With all the domestic flashes, foreign policy issues became almost an afterthought. Important issues like US relocating its embassy to Jerusalem, US withdrawal of troops from Syria thereby handing over the Kurds (the erstwhile ally in the critical fight to beat back ISIS) to Turkey, the on-again-off-again talk with North Korea, the real threat of Russia now that Putin has become Trump's BFF, on and on, they all got pushed almost to the backburner, all thanks to Trump. This is a guy that has no moral, no principle, no ideology, no brain, a summarily petty guy who only seeks to make a point that he's the loudest guy in the room, so long as it keeps the spotlight on himself. Case in point: Trump didn't even realize the major rebuke from Jim Mattis' resignation letter, thus praising him initially, then turning around to firing him two months ahead of schedule when he finally got the meaning of what Mattis' resignation is and how much more attention and praises Mattis garners.

Things like this, give me a chuckle, though it's no laughing matter. If no capable and moral people is willing to work for the government, then all that are left, are scoundrels and con-men like Trump himself. For chrissake, there's still two more years left until 2020. In these past two years, Trump has already wrecked such damages to the country, both domestically and internationally, what would become of it in another two years? It's a scary thought indeed.

But, it is news like that that turn me off so completely that I don't even bother much follow everything so closely. What's news anyways, but more drama, more self-dealings exposed, more fake news identified (and then retweeted some more). Our life has to go on, one way or the other. I refuse to have my life be ruined by the day-to-day high drama.

~~~~~~~~~~~

On a personal front, there are increasingly days when I consider about early retirement. I've planned sufficiently over the years precisely for this occasion. The kids are going to college, and things are taking shape. I don't necessarily have to kill myself for financial gains. Plus, I must be getting older. I'm finding myself increasingly reminiscing the past, rather than looking forward to the future, as I'm getting ready to pass the torch to the next generations. 

What I'm not sure of though, is what to do after retirement from my current career. I need to actively look for a second act, some outside interests that would sustain me and keep my mind active. I still have much energy, but I don't feel like tolling over making my employers wealthier. There must be something more worthwhile in life than that....

Time to seek and find, in 2019.

On "lean in" and the false promise to "have it all"...

There are certain unspoken expectations of women in our society. Women are supposed to be supportive of other women. It's supposed to be a sisterhood. We're not supposed to speak ill of other women. In a male-dominated career, women are particularly expected to stand by each other, no matter what. To do otherwise, to think otherwise, is almost unthinkable.

I don't generally think of my colleagues along gender lines. Maybe I've been incredibly lucky to have colleagues throughout the years who are always professional, courteous, genteel, collegiate...well, except a small handful of unpleasant ones. In general, men and women alike, they have been good co-workers.

I'm forever grateful to have a spouse who is supportive of me, my career choice, a new-age man who takes more than his fair share of household chores and child-rearing duties, thereby allowing me the flexibility and energy to stay on the career path without having ever to consider stepping off to start a family. I never have to even ask, and he'll take his own initiatives.

I've always been the outspoken kind, never shy about expressing opinions. I don't take shit, I don't suffer fools, and can just as easily and readily jab others with jest. When I see an opportunity, I would not hesitate to take it. (Talking about snap judgment.) Over the years, that kind of almost fearlessness has served me well.

As I get older, I'm more aware of other people outside of my own bubbles. I have not realized how incredibly blessed I have been, having a supportive spouse and family, all those around me - particularly the kids - are healthy, even just having someone who is willing to take a chance on me over the years in career. I've taken so much for granted, I have not noticed there are many people who would never have that kind of luck and blessings.

(I mention luck because, let's face it, I can be clever and I'm hardworking, but I don't think I'm super-smart. There are many more people who work much harder than I do. I don't think I would achieve what I have so far, even by the sheer luck of being at the right place, at the right time.)

Why all these introspection? Well, it all started with the Lean In book that came out in 2013. It's much hyped when it came out. At one point, I checked it out to see what all the fuss is about. I find the book so irritating and passive-aggressive, I couldn't make myself finish it. I do have to give it credit that it's not as irritating as that Tiger Mom book which is so freaking off-putting, I couldn't make myself to finish even half of it.

What are some of the choice words for these books by these women? Condescending, patronizing, passive-aggressive, narcissistic.

What's the purpose of the Tiger Mom book but for the author to self-congratulate herself to have succeeded in squeezing her daughter into Harvard, having gone through constant fights and struggles to hover - well, this is a huge understatement - over kids. To hear her tell it, it's childrearing, sprinkled with references to her fine lineage (even a fine nose, no less!) to reminder readers that she herself is a good-looking woman.

And then there is Lean In. The supposed self-help book to "teach" other women how to improve themselves in order to move ahead in career. Hey, it's not hard, all you have to do, is to lean in. What the author conveniently leaves out from the pages, is the money she has in the bank, and already high-paying jobs that both she and her then-husband have had, that she can have all the hired hands she needs in order to continue pursuing her career, and of course the luck of men giving her a break (Larry Summers, Mark Zuckerberg, to name the most notable ones).

These bone-headed female (I won't call it feminist) advice is not unlike the almost bragging of Marissa Mayer who talked of her going back to work shortly after childbirth (as if any women who consider not doing that, is self-sabotaging their own career or is not committed enough as the next guy over the cubicle).

What they have not realized, is the pampered bubble that they have created for themselves. By instructing other (young) women to lean in more, the message from Sheryl Sandberg is, "you are not leaning in enough as I do."  If you're not as successful or rich as she is now, it must be that you're not doing enough, or rather, not doing as well as I do, or worse yet, you're simply not good enough. The real message is really "look at how successful I am, and how well I'm doing."

Which is why Michelle Obama's new book and interviews are such a breath of fresh air. Instead of "look at my success" (as Sandberg and Chua and Mayer did), Obama empathizes with others by sharing her struggles. By simply acknowledging “It’s not always enough to lean in because that shit doesn’t work all the time,” that's exactly how all other women feel, me included.

And to hear Michelle Obama shatters that myth that women can have it all, that's really priceless. Why? Because we first have to acknowledge a problem before we can try to fix something. Women like Sandberg think they have it all figured out, is clueless without even realizing it. If a system is stacked up against you, your chance of success is infinitesimally small.

In a way, even if my life so far has had an almost mirrored shadow of Lean In, I refuse to pigeon myself as such. I would never in a million years lecture other women that my way is the shiny path to glory and success.

On Brexit, Theresa May, et al...

I have a lot of respect of Brits, traditionally. They have been a resilient and disciplined bunch, well, traditionally. (There are some peoples who have the similar traits. The Japanese, Germans, Israelis, for example.) Colonial era notwithstanding, they were the ones left standing between Hitler and the rest of the free world during WWII. Albeit small in size geographically, its influence and impacts on world stage is indeed outsize, through guile, cunning, and politicking.

Winston Churchill had come to personify the best of what the Brits have come to identify themselves with. Whether one likes Margaret Thatcher or not, she had some of the spine that Churchill had exemplified. I can't say the same from its leadership in recent decades.

With all that said, I have to say, the Britis have not been doing so well since maybe the 1980s. Brexit has become one of its latest that shows how far and how low Britain has fallen.

A little disclaimer is in order. I'm not necessarily for or against Brexit. I'm not a Brit afterall, and I don't vote in their elections or the referendum, so it's really its peoples who made their voices heard. The Brexit referendum ended in tight margin, but ultimately Brexiteers won the day and they decided to leave the EU union.

Much arguments have been made against Brexit, including how Britain cannot survive without close alignment with the much larger single EU markets on the continent, and that Britain is better off retaining an influential seat at the table when it comes to consequential decision-making in Brussels. There were descriptions of Amageddon and collapse of British economy and cautionary tales of messy chaos as a result of dropping out of Euro that supposedly would lead to mass exodus of financial institutions to quit UK and move their HQ to Europe.

A year and a half later, after the Brexit referendum was passed in March 2017, none of the Armageddon tales had come to pass.

So now, what's left to scare the Brits shitless, is the thorny issue of the border (or lack thereof) between Ireland (which chooses to remain with EU) and Northern Ireland (which will leave EU, as part of UK).

Anti-Brexit supporters are corporates (who want the flexibility to move capital and labor around with less regulations to worry about), younger crowds who are educated enough to take a job or travel anywhere. For all that I've heard and read, I don't hear much of what these crowds care much about UK, so long as they can continue to have their freedom to make money and convenience to move around. Anyone who stands in their way, will be labeled outdated, xenophobic, racist, and not fit for the 21st century. 

What were the motivations of Brexit and who its supporters are? There are those who don't want Europeans to move to UK and be treated as the same (welfare, benefits, rights to work, among others). There are those who don't want to see the billions that Britain contribute to EU when the money can be reinvested locally. There are yet others who don't want to see decision-making on EU regulations happened in Brussels by some faceless and nameless "officials" that Britain has to abide by.

To be sure, what both sides describe are all too real. I have little doubts on numbers from economists that show Britain to have reaped more gains (tangible and intangible alike) by staying in EU. This has since become the rallying cry to shout down the Brexiteers as irrational, and xenophobic.

Britain has been on its march to closer alignment and integration with EU for more than 40 years now. Regulations and decision making have been changed so drastically in recent years. Why is it that things are only blowing up so many decades later? In a way, this is really just red-herring.

I see these to be main Brexit motivations:

• EU in the bygone era was more like integration of the equals in Western Europe. Although there are poorer cousins (hello, Greece), the economic gains from being able to use Euro (the single currency which, in truth, is largely underwritten by the powerful and growing economic engine in Germany and to some extent, Britain). Hence, there have not been much reports of abuses of the systems. There had not been mass exodus of poorer EU countries to the richer ones, as their economies had been benefactors of Euro. In short, they mostly stay put in their own home countries.
• With the expansion of EU to include much less developed (and much poorer) countries in Eastern Europe, that calculus no longer holds. Suddenly, citizens from newly integrated Eastern European countries are free to move to Western Europe, free to find jobs and even claim benefits. Better yet, it's all legal.
• With much less skills and the inherent language barriers, these transplants compete mostly with the low-/no-skilled workers in Western Europe, thus forcing wages to stay stagnant or go down. This is all while jobs are getting harder to come by since manufacturing sectors, among others, are migrating offshore for even lower-cost labor.
• Why Britain, specifically? Thanks to English being the universal language, and UK has one of the most dynamic economies in EU, it's only natural that these low-skilled labor will make UK as their destination.

(Although France is the second largest economy in EU, it's been in doldrums for years now. Much like Italy, France has been treading waters as far as memory serves. Macron can say all he wants, and with Angela Merkel on her way out, I can never quite see France being the leader of EU. In truth, I don't see the French, as a people, have the kind of spine and grit as the Brits in the Churchill era had.)

Could EU have done anything to avert this disaster from happening (given that the breakaway of UK from EU would set the precedent and blueprint on how a EU country can leave the union)? Perhaps not. EU would have to embrace Eastern Europe sooner or later (much as West Germany absorbing East Germany into a single country, thereby paying for the enormous costs for decades; then again, they were one and the same country before it was broken up, but not so, for the disparate EU member countries); otherwise, Russia would expand to re-absorb Eastern Europe back into its fold (thereby recreating a new USSR). 

We know for a fact though, that these Eastern European countries have unique cultures and needs, and they don't necessarily play by the rules, if the rules don't fit into their own narratives. Case in point: They refuse to take in additional refugees or asylum seekers, albeit clear directives from Germany (Angela Merkel), in the refugee crisis. These countries are currently benefactors after joining EU. It's almost certain that when there comes a time that they are told to contribute to EU in other forms (eg. financially), they'll just say no again. 

Could UK have done differently with its EU integration? Back in the days, Thatcher's views on this - and her subsequent anti-EU stance - was prescient. It's Groundhog Day when it comes to arguments against further integration, or to have a clean break from EU. It's as if nothing has changed much in the 40+ years since.

Ultimately the argument rests on this: Could UK survive on its own, having its own borders and control, negotiate its own trade agreements, decide on its own rules and regulations? Does sovereignty count for something - anything - in the face of economic benefits? Should a country just trade away its crown jewel because someone can pay a higher price for it? Are the Brits in this generation just a good-time charlie, or do they want to be master of their own universe?

Given the resiliency of its people, I'm quite certain that the Brits will survive Brexit and thrive. But that conclusion relies on the past history/behavior and how its past generations had survived wars and adversity with stride. I'm less certain on the current crop of Brits (much like their peers around the world) who prize leisure and comfort more than anything else. Indeed, it won't be business as usual after Brexit, and yes, there might be less business to be had, but is it really so bad when you can call your own shot? The churchills and thatchers, those with a spine, would have opted for Brexit, there can be no doubt. I'm thus quite peeved to see how Theresa May tries to do the same, and gets thrashed in the media, even though I'm not a fan of hers.

If a people cannot survive a day with a little belt-tightening, what chances does their country have in worse calamity? Have the Brits, as a people, become so weak in will and spine to stand up for themselves, for a change? I sure hope not, and I wish them well, anti-Brexiteers be damn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are parallels, and comparisons, of Brexiteers with Trump supporters (for their affinity with nationalism). Much is said about their views being racist and xenophobic. To me, it's more economics than anything else.

I do believe that should the economic benefits of recovery since the Great Recession had been more evenly distributed, these lower strata of society would not have guarded their territory so jealously. Afterall, no one had any problems with immigrants (legal and illegal alike) during the go-go days of the 1990s under Bill Clinton. Why? Because the economy was good, and it wasn't hard to find a decent-paying job ("rising tide lifts all boats" was true to form back then), even for the low-/no-skilled labor. Those were the days before the full force of NAFTA (and the adverse social costs) was felt, manufacturing sectors had only just started migrating overseas (to China), and high-paying IT jobs had just started going offshore (to India). Thirty years on, all those events have come to its head, and we realize the manufacturing sector is no more, and even many well-paying jobs (like IT) are not coming back either. 

The destructive path that we have seen since NAFTA, much like EU expansion for UK, is clear. And yet, politicians (Dems and GOP alike) and economists would have us believed that this is the ONLY path that we, as voters, can take. Voters are told there is no other way, that this path was taken, and we can't turn back. That's exactly the same song that EU leadership told the Brits. That's precisely what anti-Brexiteers told the public, that there is no other way, maybe because they were born under the EU flag and simply cannot imagine it any other way. And that breaking away from EU will be so painful, and cost of this divorce will be so high, that the Brits would back off. Honestly if the EU integration had been a marriage of convenience, this breakup and how EU strong-arm UK into submission certainly feel like spousal abuse.

The same argument to stay the course with NAFTA, among other trade agreements, had been propositioned, again and again, by GOP and Dems like (including Hillary Clinton). If the 2016 election was any guide, it shows that voters are finally waking up to the fact that they had been sold a bill of goods that is not what it's sold for. Not that Trump has any clue how to fix it or what other alternative path to change to, but at least it's a different path that we've been marching down for the past 30 years.

Is there any wonder why Trump won (even with his idiotic policy, total lack of moral and principles, and erratic behavior)? Is there any wonder why Brexit referendum passed?

This has little to do with xenophobia or racism, but rather, a repudiation of the ruling class (aka. the establishment from mainstream political parties) that they are either clueless, or that they do not have the interest of the mass in mind. In Europe, that "ruling class" takes the form of abstract bureaucracy in Brussels, whatever the hell that means to average UK voters. It's true that extreme right-wing parties and white supremacists have exploited such sentiments, but I'm certain that if main-stream parties have even acknowledged the public anger simmering beneath the surface sooner, these right-wing groups would not have been able to fester. It's only now, two years after her loss, that Hillary Clinton finally comes to terms with this. For her at least, it's too little, too late. 

Perhaps some would say this is social regression, with a clueless mass deciding to march down the cliff, all in the name of democracy. At the same time, there is no longer any wise men dispensing words of wisdom. It's true, an illiterate and ill-informed mass can kill democracy. Into this void, Russia steps in with its fake news campaign in western world.

Since the end of WWII, the coming down of Berlin Wall and the breakup of USSR, western-styled democracy and free-for-all capitalism have become the last man standing, as the only pillar of validated ideology, the forms of political system that everyone aspires to. The mass disillusionment of western voters has given rise to autocracy (hello, China), granting legitimacy to its form of government. Afterall, what is the main use of a government but to serve its people. If the Chinese government is able - and willing - to continuously improve the well-being and livelihood of its people, hundreds of millions of them, in return for their forfeiting some basic human rights, is that a fair enough deal? Judged from how many Chinese are singing praises of how well their country is doing economically, even in the face of Xi's attempt to be leader-for-life (akin to emperor), it's safe to say that many people are willing to make that faustian deal. Looking at it another way, the 1.3+ billion of people in China (well, most of them anyways) now prefer to have Xi as the wise man to lead them. They don't mind an emperor who would take care of them. They are, afterall, willing to be just ants, as the Chinese idiom so aptly describes the mass.

That said, I rather doubt the Chinese economy can continue its current pace of economic development forever, mostly funded by debt and leverage. (It's already been slowing down substantially since its heady days just a decade ago.) When one day, its mass can no longer equate its form of government with a decent economy, they'll revolt as well.

Bottomline is, if a government does not take care of its people, sooner or later, the people will wake up to that fact. Whether it's democracy, or autocracy, or some other form of government and ideology, the result will end up the same. Let's see if this day of reckoning will come first, or if some climate change calamity renders all of us irrelevant in the end.

On the 2018 midterms, bloodbath, ad nauseam...

The much anticipated 2018 midterm elections have come and gone (mostly). Although there are still a few races yet to be called, recounted, yada yada, it's a foregone conclusion that Dems have retaken the House, finally. Along the way though, Dems lost the Senate.

For all the hoopla of Blue Wave, I have yet to see it. Has there been one, Dems would (and should) have taken both the House and the Senate by wide margin. And while there are flips, the toss-up key races were almost evenly taken by either parties, with Dems holding court in their favored races, and GOP largely did the same in their own stronghold. With all campaigning and money going in to races in Florida and Texas and Georgia, for example, the Blue Wave was certainly loud but felt more like a ripple than a wave.

All these point to another wobble of the Dems as it marches toward 2020. Elizabeth Warren (D) garners less votes than Charlie Baker (R), a far less impressive feat even in her own backyard. I'm thus seriously doubtful she could even win much of the rest of nation at all, should she choose to run for the higher office in 2020. What Dems need, is a southerner (as Bill Clinton was) to run. It is thus not surprising at all to see the call for Beto O'Rouke (whose resemblance to Bobby Kennedy in appearance is almost uncanny) to run in 2020.

In the aftermath, the most immediate and consequential event, is the Mueller Investigation (into the Russian connections of the 2016 Trump campaign) of course. Trump wastes no time to wait for the last bit of dust to settle before he fires Jeff Session, one day after the midterm election closed when it's confirmed that Dems has control of the House. Trump knows he needs to act fast, in the attempt to show down Robert Mueller's investigation. With Sessions' refusal to shut it down for him, and the worries that any rash move in the Justice Department might jeopardize the midterms, Trump held back (as far as his OCD/ADHD habit would allow it). But, would that be enough for Trump?

Trump could shut down the Mueller Investigation, but the House could just as easily start other investigations (eg. conflict of interests of his family business; his campaign finance; his sexual misconduct; etc). With the new Acting AG publicly announcing his intentions in the past, it almost certainly mandates his own recusal to overseeing the Mueller Investigation. My suspicion is, this new guy might recuse himself, but he'll find fault to fire the Deputy AG (who has been shielding and protecting the Investigation from being shut down), so that someone more "loyal" to Trump will take over, then officially terminate it.

This is indeed a constitutional crisis for the nation. How could anyone expect letting the fox guarding the hen house when the fox has been taking eggs whenever it likes? How could anyone (that's you, GOP'ers) consider it ok for Trump to terminate an investigation that investigate him? How could Dems consider it ok to let Trump and GOP call the shot like this?

With the House majority firmly in Dems' hands, I fully expect Dems to be more forceful and act less impotently than it had been in the past. There is no more excuses.

Trump has been hiding behind the cloak of the White House, bulldozing everyone to bend over for him. I full expect that day when Trump could no longer hide behind the protection that the US presidency affords him - and that day will come soon enough - he'll find himself all alone in the cold, with no one standing by him. (Afterall he never stands by anyone, with his readiness to throw anyone under the bus to save his own skin.)

On FOMO, early retirement, et al...

The other day I have a sit-down with a financial adviser. Not that I need it, but I'd like a second pair of eyeballs to assess my state of affairs, financially speaking. I've always handled my own financial matters, and it's been going quite well, I have to say. Perhaps I just want to show someone and have it validated that, "yes sir, you're doing well and have nothing to worry about." Well, I did get that; as a matter of fact, I seem to know more about financial matters in different areas (thanks to years of self-research) than this experienced financial adviser. I don't mean to come across as gloating about it, but yes, I'd rather handle my own affairs than to pay someone to handle things for me (that I could have handled it better myself).

There is actually another reason for my reticence in opening up my affairs to others. I'm an extremely private person, and I hate having to disclose anything to anyone, if I can help it. In fact, if it is not that I don't want to handle the hassle of filing tax returns, I wouldn't even have used tax accountant to do that for me, for a fee. (I could never understand those self-professed gurus who write self-help books or go on speakers circuit to help others gaining financial independence. Afterall if they are doing really so well, they wouldn't be working for a fees.) I know too how easy it is for private personal details to be compromised when they are stored on some servers in a single location, and I would not want to find myself in a compromising position.

The funny thing is, as I recount to this financial adviser my financial details, income streams, expenses, portfolio structure, estate planning, tax matters, insurance coverage etc, I've come to one realization: Why am I still working? Good question...

I have a rather decent portfolio that spreads across real estates, stocks+bonds, and some commodities (for good measures), mixed between long term obligations (mostly in the form of mortgages) and short term liquid buffers, all of which can comfortably fund themselves, and I can live off of the proceeds, allowing the portfolio to continue growing. For most people out there, such state of affairs would have been a milestone for early retirement. Why am I not retired yet?

And then I realize this: I'm quite a basket case of FOMO. No, I don't mean FOMO in the sense of social media. (And nay, I don't do social media, I hate social media, what with all the white noise and chafe, and mostly a waste of time.) It is that I want to stay in the workforce, I want to be still in this growing field in technology where new things and wonders can still happen. I want a front-row seat to that. Of course, it helps that there is also inherent job security (with the generous healthcare coverage, ESPP and stock options, continuing IRA matching contributions from employers and my adding to the IRA too, and the paychecks that sometimes feel like playing a game of monopoly).

While my financial situation looks secure, I'm not in the league of VC's or angels investors that allows most of these clueless dicks their front-row seats in funding startups without knowing much, if at all, of the underlying technology. (That's why you're seeing so many me-too copycats, wannabes that get ample funding for no obvious good reasons, other than that these VC's are chasing after the same thing. In a few words: herd mentality.) So, I continue to stay on the other side of the table, being the ones who are working the technology, rather than funding someone else to get their hands dirty.

I know if I retire and quit the workforce, I would never be able to get back in. Such is the nature of stepping off the radar, particularly in the tech field. It has more to do with the psychology of FOMO than financial needs. I know that some day when I stop having the need to get my hands dirty (in codes), I'll quit for good. I'm not even sure if I'll be content with just being the one providing fundings to some startups (even if it turns out to be wild success). Money, to me, is not the main motivation.

There is another aspect of it. If I stop working, I'll need to find some other gainful activities to make productive use of my time. The trouble is, I don't have much time for any hobby or passion outside of work yet. Hence, my first order of business, is to find something that I'd like to do, if I am to stop working and truly retire early. Passion, you see, is not something that is easily nurtured. I don't like cruise, I've lost interests in travel, I don't need to hover over my kids' every needs. I do want to do charity work but I'm not a social-worker type. I do want to go back to painting and watercolors someday, my backyard is still patiently waiting for me to give it the much deserved facelift and green thumb. I alternate every other day from I-need-to-do-something-about-it to I-don't-want-to-hear-any-more-of it when I hear news of stupid politics. I'm not sure how sustainable that level of interest would be. Maybe I'm over-analyzing what my passion should be.

And so, I continue to toll the job. Some days I derive enjoyment from the work, some days it just feels like a grind particularly when there are unpleasantness from some colleagues who act like a dick. Days like those, I would tell myself, I can walk away from it all without looking back, and I'll be fine. I don't have to chain myself to this bullshit.

I'm still waiting for that day to happen. When I get pissed off enough one day, or maybe I feel mentally exhausted, I would just walk away. That would be a milestone for me when I enjoy saying adios to it all.

On migrant caravan et al...

In the closing days before the midterm elections in November, when Democrats are expecting blue wave, set in by general disgust of the idiocy of Trump since 2016, God seems to looking down on Trump (and GOP by proxy) with another providential act. In 2016, it was the flip-flop of the FBI investigations of Hillary Clinton. This time, it's in the form of migrant caravan.

As an Independent voter, I'm generally on the fence. I don't give a damn about endorsements. Who cares what so-and-so might think of this-and-that candidate? If a candidate has the credentials and the agenda that appeal to me, I vote for that. I can't care less what party affiliation of the candidate.

And so, I look at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, two candidates from the then presidential election in 2016 with almost equal dismay. (Well, truth be told, more dismay about Trump than HRC, but you get my drift.) I don't agree completely either of the candidates or their respective party's proposition. Of course Trump's roundly idiotic worship of half-truth and outright lies is something that I despise and am totally disgusted, but I have thought general voters should be more intelligent than being duped by this con-man. Apparently I was wrong, and almost half of the country voted for this idiot. On the other side of the aisle, we have HRC the experienced hand, the one with voluminous credentials and resume behind her. While it's a laudable goal to be compassionate and empathetic, I'm not sure why I should vote for someone who seems to care more about refugees rights and transgender issues than regular voters' concerns. Afterall she's running for American presidency, not some foreign countries.

In the current climate when political correctness rules the day, I know I would sound anything but. Yet, I have to say, I am of two minds about this migrant caravan in the news.

On the one hand, these are real people with real concerns. But there are rules and regulations. Can anyone jump the queue, ahead of someone dutifully apply for migration into US and wait for their turns for years, by rushing the shore? How does US assess the claim of someone who says they are in fear for their lives without any proof? (Afterall they are not going to bring with them the gangs who threaten to kill them.) How can US possibly separate the claims of economic migrants (who are not allowed in) from genuine asylum seeks for humanitarian reasons (who could be allowed to stay)? Can and should someone get preferential treatments simply because they are bringing in minors with them? The answers, from the outset, look to be, no, no, no, and no.

Put it another way, if these thousands of people in the migrant caravan are allowed to come in, the argument goes, that by proxy US should be allowing the millions from those countries to come in too. Who is to say who is poorer or more fearful for their lives than others? Fact of the matter is, one simply can't discern one from another.

More importantly, if US is to open the border for economic migrants from South America (which would translate into millions who will become eligible to come since all of them are poor and are in search for a better life - well, who isn't, really?), anyone from any other countries can make the same economic claim. Afterall there are hundreds of millions more in Africa and South Asia and beyond who are far, far, far poorer than those from South America. Why isn't US taking them in too?

Ultimately, there is the question of sustainability. Can US become the country to be, to take in everyone and anyone who wants in for a better life? If US can't even take care of its own citizens (and one doesn't need to look further than to look at the millions of working poor and worsening issues of homelessness in this country), where would we find the wherewithal to feed hundreds of millions more? Dems have the arguments for using millionaire tax to fund initiatives, without pointing out how fleeting these millionaires and billionaires are and how easily they can change their abode and move their arse elsewhere (and in some cases, even buy their own islands to settle in for good).

And so, the pragmatic side of me wins over, to the point where everytime I hear HRC (and other Dems or progressive liberals) chants about refugees rights, I can only shake my head, with that little voice ringing in my ears, saying, don't go there. But, go, they did, and so Dems lost, not only in presidential elections, but I'm afraid to say, GOP could likely keep the majority in Congress, come November, even if it's by the slimmest margin.

In a way, the idiocy of Trump has already reduced him (and the presidency) to nothing but a laughing stock. Even if someone agrees with what he says, they are not going to be with him (unless for those who are as idiotic as he is). But just because voters are against Trump, that doesn't mean they are for Dems, which is exactly where I stand currently.

I have long believed that US has the use and needs of migrant workers, and they could make a decent living if they come in legally and orderly. There should have been immigration reforms in the form of H1B for unskilled labor for them to come in and do, say, farm and field jobs that local Americans don't seem to want to do anymore. That would have been a win-win. That would also allow these migrants a chance to reinvest in their home country, that would have been the long term goal to improve their own home country to a point where they would not feel the need to leave anymore.

It sucks to have such imbecile leadership in those countries in South America (and beyond). How many years, and how many billions US has spent over the years to try to help them improve their countries and systems? Yet nothing seems to work. In contrast, look at what the Chinese have accomplished in China. Authoritarianism notwithstanding, their country and system have improved so markedly that a lot of educated Chinese are now moving back to their own country for work. Can South America ever be able to achieve that kind of success? I really don't know.

And so, all these frustrations, all these entitlement claims (that as long as they come in large enough numbers, as long as they bring kids and minors with them, as long as they set foot in US, then they are entitled to anything and everything that the locals enjoy) really rubs me the wrong way. I do empathize their plight, but what happens to paying their dues?

I was once an immigrant myself. I know how it feels like. It's never easy. It's a lot of hard work. In a way, you have to work twice as hard - oftentimes, far more - as the locals in order to excel. It's bad form for newcomers (by jove, these illegal migrants haven't even reached US yet!) to claim their "rights" and protections in US without even setting foot in her soil yet, and for those who came illegally to demand legal protection, benefits and welfare. While Trump is xenophobic, he is not wrong in calling that out. In a civil society, there are rules and regulations that all encumbers need to observe. We can't be simply tending to only those who scream the loudest or have the biggest sob story.

We all do hold the belief that the next generations will get a better shot in life than their forebear. I should hope that I'm not alone as an anecdote, to show that meritocracy does still work in America. I do hope others would have the chance for that, and to do so legally (rather than rushing the shore). Am I too naive in that thought? I sure hope not.

On the complicated legacy of Hillary Clinton...

I'm a news junkie. Generally I can have my radio tuned to NPR all day. The past couple of years since Trump took the White House in 2016 has me set in fatigue. All the idiotic policy and the rapid-fire about-face, all the dangerous maneuvering in foreign policy, all the embracing of autocratic foreign powers thereby pushing all the noble ideals that America has stood for, all the crass and juvenile name-calling that belittles the presidency. Worst yet, no one seems to have a counter-punch to this idiot. That has been in the news, one form or another, for the past two years. I'm just getting very tired of it all. Some days, I don't even want to hear it at all.

One thing I'm sure to be doing, is to get out and vote. This is the only way to ensure something is done about this whole mess.

Needless to say, this has very little to do with Hillary Clinton, the one female candidate who has achieved the highest honor so far in US history to becoming a presidential candidate as a woman in her own right, the one who can supposedly galvanize the support of all those that oppose everything that Trump stands for. She has star power, the credentials, the works.Yet she lost the election.

Much has been analyzed, all stones turned over (many times over), of what happened, why, and the what-ifs. Let's see if bullet points might have it easier to discern:

• Young voters don't like her. Some find her too old (but hey, Bernie Sanders is even older, for chrissake). More importantly, they don't find her progressive enough.
• Unions and working class feel abandoned by the Democratic Party, and HRC has come to symbolized all the wrongs from liberal economic policies like NAFTA (thanks to her husband, Bill Clinton) and the nascent (and now dead) TPP (courtesy of Obama). 
• Even some female voters were turned off. It's still a puzzle of how women in the conservative ranks would rather vote for a guy like Trump who would gladly and readily call them names if they cross his path, than someone whom they can reason with civilly. 

It is unfair how women have to bear the wrongs done by their husbands, as HRC did with Bill Clinton's transgression in the Monica Lewinsky affair. It might have been even noble to forgive her husband and stand by him (rather than divorcing him). What she could have done, is to stay silent (to maintain privacy) on this affair, rather than lashing out against Lewinsky as if there is no power play at work. In the revisionist history, Lewinsky would have us believed that she's cowered into having sex with Bill Clinton. In the midst of #MeToo movement, it's easy to take in that version of the story. But I do believe in the other version, the version that Lewinsky flirted furiously with Bill, even flashing her thongs to him. She is no Rose McGowan, she was not coerced into compromising position, she aggressively sought after it due to the lure of power of the White House office. For all those, I would have gladly sided with HRC. There really is no need for HRC to lash out against media and even Lewinsky, she could have risen above the fray. But HRC didn't.

As to the unloseable election in 2016, Bill Clinton had advocated HRC to focus on jobs, economy, and working class votes, as did Joe Biden. They were right. Sadly to say, HRC would rather focus on more progressive issues like refugees' rights and the transgenders fight. (Ironic enough, even those positions of hers are not progressive and far-left enough for most young supporters in the Sanders crowd.) Perhaps HRC and her army of advisers were under the impression that the economy was on the mend (thanks to the steady hands of Obama's administration for the preceding eight years in office). What she did not realize was that, a lot of folks who were hurting from the demise of manufacturing sectors have fallen off of the radar (and unemployment roll) for the longest time. She has come to symbolize all the wrongs of NAFTA. Instead of revisiting the issue, she doubled down on it in advocating TPP. All these liberal trade policies have been great for corporates, with lots of people losing their livelihood in its wake and no means to turnaround.

In a way, Dems have become so similar to GOP when it comes to fundraising and big money influence. This has been the sticky point raised by the late John McCain, that was partly reversed-course during the first Obama campaign when he was able to lure in scores of new voters, young voters, all willing to make small donations to his campaign. But the success of the Obama campaign turns out to be a fluke. Since then, no one has been able to replicate his success with small-time donations; in fact, Obama hasn't even been able to rub off his popularity to candidates that he supports. That's where HRC comes in. She was THE fundraiser of the Dems for the longest time, raising money for both her campaign and those candidates the party supports. In US, money oftentimes equates to winning. In the 2016 season, HRC and the war chest of super PAC was huge, but she still lost. That goes to show the limits that big money could play.

There is the argument that even though HRC lost the 2016 election, she won the popular vote; hence, she still has her appeal. No matter. When it comes to playing the system of electoral college, it's all about swing states, popular vote be damned.

For all the strong deck of cards that HRC has had in 2016, she lost. She was bitter. She blamed sexism. Her staffers blamed Bernie Sanders and his supporters (much as Al Gore's supporters blamed Ralph Nader) for not toeing the line. Bottomline is, it's always someone else's fault. Put it another way, if she had run again, she would run essentially the same campaign all over again. Which she did once before, against Obama, and lost in the primaries.

Given all those, there's little wonder why she refuses to go away. She's only in her 60s, she still has energy, she believes she still has the votes of her support base, and she can still raise money handily. Better yet, she has stature and respect aboard, even though it's less so in US. Could she have done more good by taking the Jimmy Carter route, rather than the Bill Clinton route? Would she be better off elevating herself as elder statesman, rather than over-staying her welcome mat by staying in the trench a tad bit too long? Perhaps if HRC is ready to wrap up her legacy, she would have taken the high road. By rolling herself in the mud and continue fighting it out in the gutter, it's quite clear that she still believes that she has a few more chapters to write before her legacy is done. Messy, it sure is, but then, we won't expect less of that from HRC who has always been a fighter all her life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More to the point of the legacy of HRC, is the future of female candidates. It's hard enough to come up through the ranks. It's almost inconceivable for US to have a female leader, as Margaret Thatcher once did in UK once upon a time and Angela Merkel now in Germany. Why? Because for all the progressive talks in US, most (even the women) still prefer to see a man in the leadership position. Don't tell my word for it. Just take a look at what happens in Massachusetts, the solidly blue state that has yet to see a female governor.

Afterthoughts...

Speaking of Massachusetts, if Dems put Elizabeth Warren on the 2020 ticket, Dems will surely lose since GOP will have their field day with the pocahontas name-calling.

It's all well and good to be progressive and liberal-minded. But let's face it, most (if not all) people will not give a damn about refugees rights or trans rights or human rights of workers in some other countries if they can't even put food on their own table. In short, liberal progressiveness is a high ideal that's great when one's station is safely secured. And in US these days, more than half of the country (hello, white working class) is not.

It's time for Bill Clinton to sunset his campaigning days. Folks from the last generations might look back on the Clinton years longingly, given how the internet boom has spurred one bubble after another. Surely rising tide lifts all boats, but as we can see it now, the Clinton way was not the only way to go about it, but Clinton has effectively traded away the house jewels, dismantling safeguards and regulations to let the markets run wild. It's no surprise that the GOP hates Bill Clinton so much, since he effectively co-opted almost all of their favorites policy talking points, including tax cuts (eg. capital gains tax cuts), welfare cuts (eg. forcing those on welfare roll to work for it), deregulations (eg. dismantling Glass-Steagall Act), and more. For that count alone, anyone with the Clinton last name, including HRC, will not be forgiven.

On remembering 9/11, Lehman Brothers, and 2008...

It's time for reflection, 17 years ago this day when 09/11 happened, and 10 years ago when the collapse of Lehman Brothers brought about the subprime crisis, global meltdown, and the Great Recession. So much has changed since then, it's hard not to look back without sounding too wistful.

Remembering 9/11

My office wasn't in downtown when 9/11 happened. It was a normal day. And then some colleagues called out to the rest of us to go to the conference room where there was a big-screen TV. We marched in leisurely, chitchatting, without knowing what the purpose of the meeting was, mistakenly thinking it might just be some impromptu management all-hands meeting. It wasn't. We went in the room, TV was already on. One of the two World Trade Center towers was already billowing black smoke. No one provided any context for what this was all about. I still recalled quite vividly how surreal that picture was, a smoking tower against a perfectly blue sky, with nary a cloud in sight. 

And then someone said, it might have been hit by a plane. We could only surmise that this was an accident. Terrorist attacks were quite low on the radar - well, on our radar - that no one even thought of that possibility. There wasn't much details from the news. Perfect visage notwithstanding, it got old after staring at the screen for 10-15 minutes. We all thought, Oh what a horrible accident, and we went back to our desks. Afterall we still had a job to do, and work beckoned. What was on TV felt like a very boring Hollywood movie.

Later that day, folks were calling out for others to go back to the conference room. There, on the TV, the second tower was smoking too, and the first tower was really smoking badly. By then, there were news that this might not have been accidents. FAA had grounded all flights. The country seemed to be in total panic mode. But real-world news didn't happen that fast, not in the pre-Twitter world anyways. We stayed for a bit longer, maybe 30 minutes this time. We went back to our desks once more, feeling more apprehended and helpless this time.

It wasn't until a day or two later when the real impacts were out, with confirmed reports of terrorist attacks, George W Bush went into hiding, all flights grounded, World Trade Center had collapsed, Pentagon plane attack was detailed, with yet another plane went down presumably stopping another attack, that it hit home. We went to the conference room quite often in those succeeding days. It was one of the news report on what happened on the surrounding grounds of World Trade Center, of people covering in ash after the towers collapsed, and footage of people (tiny dots on screen, but real people) jumping from the towers trying to escape, that I couldn't stop my tears that came spontaneously. What could that have been like, to be high up on the towers, to be on the ground, all rendered totally helpless. Who could have done these horrific acts?

The country responded with full force. In the years that follow, George W Bush started two wars - one presumably necessary, another one totally unnecessary. The weight of law enforcement, and hunt for terrorists, intensified. There were some feel-good stories. But, by and large, it's all like fighting ghosts, shape shifting, moving goalposts, and no measurable benchmarks to call it a success (or failure). The joke was really on us, when George W Bush declared it with a big banner, Mission Accomplished. How ironic.

The two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) have since brought on more angst against Americans, rendering perfect propaganda for terrorist recruitment. Various splinter groups like AQAP, ISIS have risen up to take the place of Taliban. While some of those responsible for 9/11 (notably, Osama bin Laden) had come to pass, the outlook going forward looks grim. Afterall, bin Laden was not Hitler, the stateless terrorist groups don't fight conventional wars. Their wars are far more dirtier. It's hard to identify good guys from bad guys, when so many of them simply don't have allegiance except to their own clans. How do you win a "war" like this?

Worse yet, additional American meddling (or tacit encouragement from idealists like Obama) have spawned off even more unrest in that godforsaken region in the Middle East. There was Arab Spring, there was uprising in Yemen, and then there was war in Syria. With so many clans fighting against each other, with no aim except the end-goal of taking larger share from an existing pie, it's nothing but a hornets nest.

I've come to realize a few things. The more that Americans try to do, however good-intentioned, the more that other countries are going to label USA as the neo-colonial power. There was much wisdom in the surgical strike that Bush Senior did in the First Gulf War, but George W was far from the wisdom of his father. He idiotically followed the lead of the neo-cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld, marching the country into multiple war fronts with no clear goals or plans. It's a gigantic mistaken. What we should have done is to let them be, it's not our country, it's not our fight, Americans shouldn't even have taken side with autocrats like the House of Saud. (I do give credits to the Kurds who have been the last-men-standing in so many worthy fights, including those against ISIS, Taliban, and Syrian government army. Nobody, not the Americans, not even the Russians, has the guts to fight the good fight against the Taliban, and then ISIS.)

As to the refugee crisis, that's a different story for another day...

Remembering Lehman

9/11 feels like a long time ago. In the succeeding years, the US economy went up crazily, then crashed spectacularly, and came back in full force now.

Unlike the terrorist attacks, the financial crisis unleashed by the Lehman collapse hit far closer to home.

No doubt it has impacted on the psyche for many a generations. For those who lost everything (stock portfolios in 2008/09, their mortgage and piece of roof, jobs and livelihood), if they had stayed the course (or had the ability to do so) without doing fire-sale, they would have done well. For those who couldn't (eg. those in retirement already, or those starting out in a depressing job market, or those who lost their jobs and livelihood through no fault of their own), it won't feel so good.

It is thus that I feel for the millennials generation. On top of all these, this is the generation that also sees a ballooning student debt in the trillion-dollar territory. For a generation that did all things asked of them, going to college (even if that means borrowing to the kilt to get a bullshit degree with no marketable skills), what are these young people to do?

No one should profess to have the acumen to time the market. By providence, I was from the generation in the right place at the right time, and was able to stay the course with a decent career, hence scooping up from those who had to do fire-sale. We might not want to admit it, but in those dark days of 2008/09 when all hopes seemed to have lost, one man's gain is indeed another man's loss. I certainly feel that, the more I think of it.

The wealth inequality has worsened, now more than ever. Although it's not a recent phenomenon (since it's started from the go-go days in the 1980s at the height of junk bond), it's become almost a norm. CEO pay has gone through the roof, but no one seems to care much (except the far-left activitsts) anymore. These days, the motto of our society seems to be To Each, His Own. For much the same reason, homelessness is more a nuisance that should be pushed to the next city to handle, as long as it's Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I alternate between optimist and pessimist. There are days I feel hopeful (particularly since I have kids), there are days when things just don't feel right at all (and the idiotic Trump is not helping). What is most worrisome to me, is not necessarily Trump. He is but a symptom, a product of what the American voters want. I used to be a news junkie and can hear/read news all days, but there are days I want to tune out completely.

Is this voters' fatigue? Is this a "thing"? 

On green envy to other's financial success...

It's only recently that I came across a relatively old news (2016) about a young couple in Toronto (Canada) who became self-professed millionnaire, with their worst sin being their preaching about their methods, resulting in online hate comments. 

While I'm never a fan of self-promoters, I don't generally take too kindly to green envy either.

Being frugal alone is not enough.

For a start, why would this couple even opens themselves up for public scrutiny (thereby, ridicule) that way? Call me old-schooled, but I simply find that distasteful. Not too many folks, age notwithstanding, have the blessing in life to find well-paying jobs right after college. No doubt that they consider themselves smart and wise in being frugal, or to disregard elders' conventional wisdom to toll for a mortgage in an overpriced property market. Those alone are not the major factor in their ability to amass their first $500k to seed their stock/bond portfolio. 

Where's the revenue source?

More importantly, the main reason they have the ability to save, is because both their jobs (in the IT field) still pay relatively well. And because they have the good fortune to have co-op jobs during college already, they are not burdened with students debts. Put it another way, if they were both in minimum-wage jobs, would they have been able to frugal their way to their $1m goal, simply by bootstrapping? I don't think so.

The arguments for/against a pricey mortgage.

According to this couple, one of their "wisdom" is to not bog themselves down by a pricey mortgage in an overpriced property market. The argument sounds almost intuitive, except that it's not. In retrospect, if they have bought a house property back in 2010, what would the property value and capital gains have been like in 2016 or 2018? A lot, I'd say. In the crazy market in Toronto, if it has been in one of the hottest spots, they could easily have doubled the value. In fact, I would even argue that they could probably have made far more than the $500k, had they bought their own piece of roof. In the end, it could all be just a wash.

That said, they did do one thing right, which is that they do not stretch their finance beyond their means to go for a mortgage that they couldn't afford. God forbids, if they lose their jobs (and they both work in the same field), they could instantly lose their ability to pay for the mortgage. Then again, the same is true even if they are renters. All of which goes back to the earlier point about the more important factor of having the revenue source. 

How far can $1m last?

And then there is this assertion that when one gets to the $1m mark, it's safe enough for one to consider (early) retirement. As conventional wisdom goes, all they have to do, is to care-take the portfolio to ensure the yield exceeds their expenses. But, would that always be possible? I highly doubt that.

Bear in mind too that this couple is still young. They are in early 30s, and don't even have kids yet. Should they consider starting a family and having kids, that changes the equation completely. Kids need good schooling (private school is pricey, and moving into nice neighborhood for good public schools by either buying or renting isn't cheap either). God help them, they'd better pray for good health and healthy genes. Maybe that's not a big worry in Canada, but if they were in US and have no healthcare coverage, one medical emergency could be more than sufficient to blow their $500k portfolio out of the window.

Living large, or just being lazy?

I have decided long time ago that I cannot quite foresee myself to truly retire. I like work, I like the daily rhythm and being productive. Certain level of stress (and the adrenaline that comes with it) can actually be fun. Traveling is great, but that's not a vocation to me. Let's say, in 10 years' time when this couple trod around the world a few times over, what would they be doing then? Going back into their field (IT) after checking-out for years would likely not be an option, and even if they do, would they be willing to toll a developer job when all of their peers have moved up the ladder while they go back to competing with other 20-somethings? It's highly doubtful. To me, retirement cannot be simply about the leisure pursuit. 

What of the green envy?

Surely this couple loves the attention, their 15-minute of fame, being self-promoters as they are (even if they deny it), but do they warrant such hateful vitriol? Perhaps they are more clueless than they refuse to see themselves to be. By fashioning themselves as self-help guru and promoting the "We can do it; you can do it too (you've GOT to be!)" motto, it has the unspoken undertone of rubbing it in, adding salt to injury to those who could never be able to make it, however frugal they might be. The question of get-a-mortgage-or-rent is not even on the table since a lot of people simply cannot afford the option to buy (even if they want it). To hear them saying, we can buy but we won't because it's smarter to rent, and see how smart we are and how much money we've made as a result! To me, it's just bad form, hence I can fully understand why they are thrashed online, even if it's not called for. Ultimately if you put yourself out there, with all good intentions, you are inviting others to pass judgment on you, and oft for very good reasons.

To each, his own.

I would never profess to tell others what the best or smartest way is to live one's life. I would not even try to make it sound like how smart I might be than the next guy. Everyone's circumstances are different. While each of us has agency, a lot of things in life are still at the mercy of chance. There are plenty of people who are sensible, do all the right things in life, and still can't make ends meet. This couple's message to those people is simply that, if they can't make it, they must be losers, or doing something wrong. And that is uncalled for. 

Some things in life should stay private, and finances is one of those. Just because it's easier these days to self-publish and cheaper to do self-promotion on channels like youtube, it doesn't mean we should. I can only hope that self-promoters like this couple, and all those preaching FIRE, would just shut he hell up. If they need public ridicule to get that message (to shut their trap), it might as well.

On hot summer...and starting of school...

This summer is hot, hot and humid. I've been trying to avoid having A/C at home due to its environmental impacts. On most days, even in summer time, it's fine with a fan. There are days though, when temperature is well into high 90s and humidity is over 85%, it can get so muggy and at times hard to breathe. Perhaps I'm getting older too, thus feeling the heat a bit more intensely.

Thank good summer is almost over. Sometimes it's good to have four distinct seasons, so that when it gets too hot, I can long for cooler, even cold air. But when winter gets too harsh and my feet feel cold, no matter how high I turn the heat up, I dream of warm summer days. The silver lining is, at least there's something I can look forward to.

I must be getting a bit wistful. End of summer, with the forthcoming Labor Day, then start of school, always means some kind of rush. Getting school supplies, kids needing need clothing, maybe squeezing in one or two activities before school actual starts. Those rituals are fading away as the kids get bigger. There are things they can take care of themselves; hence, they don't need parents for it anymore. There are also things that we no longer do, things like family outings of mini-golf or apple picking.

More importantly, my eldest is going to college. How time flies. I still remember quite vividly all those stress and joy before during pregnancy and after he's born. Part of me feels relieved. Alas, the kid won't be forever tethered to us. He can have his own life independently. But part of me is getting nostalgic. I would miss driving him to soccer practice and games. I would not see him at the end of each day to see how he's doing. His room is looking very empty and clean, for a change.

I'm glad I still have work to keep me busy. I cannot fathom how that would have been like for stay-home parents whose lives revolve around the kids, and what they are going to do with their free time on hand once the kids are off to college or out of the door. I wouldn't think that would be a very healthy thing to build one's life around someone else's. No, I wouldn't want a life like that.

Home is getting much more quieter. In another year, our last kid will be off to college too. Then it'll be reeeeally quiet.

I do feel that my mentality toward work has morphed somewhat. No longer am I as ambitious. Maybe I don't feel like I have to prove anything, if only to myself or anyone else. Or that, I feel like I've accomplished all that I could, hence quite content with what I have so far, rather than regret what I might have missed. I don't like doing what-ifs in my head.

What I need now, is a hobby. I've always been so busy at work all these years that I suddenly realize that I've given up so many would-be hobbies and interests. I used to like drawing and am quite good at it too, but I have given up on the more artsy side of me some years ago.

Or, maybe I'll get a dog. I used to have a dog when I was young, but didn't feel like getting one while we were busy childrearing. I'm having more time now, maybe I can finally do it again.

It's probably time for a change. And I don't mean a change of jobs or careers, although that has certainly crossed my mind. Food for thoughts indeed...