On the milestone of 7 billion world population...

Oct 31 came and went. Yes, it's mostly symbolic, for it marks the date when the world population was established to have reached seven billion. It's a rather scary thought, seven billion mouths to feed.

It's taken humans millennia to reach the first-billion mark. But with the advance in technology and medicine, population growth has accelerated at a much faster clip. Still, we're always told, there is more than enough food on earth to feed 8 or even 9 billion population. With the current growth projectile, it won't take too long before the earth reaches the mark of 9 billion population, and oil would probably run out by then, together with the extinct species. What are we do to? Even if we don't have to deal with that today, somewhere down the road, our future generations will have to face the music. I can't say I relish the thought of kicking the can down the road for our future generations to deal with.

Population growth is a sensitive issue. It's a good thing afterall...or is it? One measure to measure how well a country is doing, is infant mortality rate. The lower, the better, for obvious reason. Modern medicine prolongs the lives of many elderly too, some even against their own will, all in the name of humanity. Natural disasters have to be dealt with. Wars are to be avoided. Human lives are to be saved at all costs, again for obvious reasons.

Sometimes, though, in the dead of night when sleep would not come, I would look up and wonder if those are really such good ideas. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a nazi or anything close to that. Of course we need to save lives, even though it runs counter to nature. There are people who would have died of strokes. There are harsh weather and elements like drought that would have naturally prevented population growth from going out of control (eg. Africa). But no one wants to see anyone dying. I can resolutely say, I don't. So, we save as many lives as we can, rather than seeing innocent children dying in front of our eyes due to preventable illnesses or lack of food. It's all for good causes.

And then, we have seven billions...

Perhaps I'm just one helpless lowly individual who don't deal pressing world issues. On a personal level, population growth sounds like a good thing to me. It sounds good on a macro-economic level too. But it doesn't sound right from an environmental perspective. There is one Chinese saying that goes something like this: If China continues to rise, the Chinese would one day eat all the exotic animals and seafood to extinction. While you might find that saying racist or discriminatory, except that it's not. The Chinese themselves know it, but with 1.3 billion others out there, the extinction threats to species is always someone else's problem. Or so the thinking goes....

I probably won't see the next billion in my lifetime. I certainly hope not.

But then, if we should help one another for the sake of humanity, what are we to do to upkeep our duty as the custodian of Mother Earth? On this, I do know the answer, which is population control.

The Chinese saw it coming, and had it right. While the western countries did all the condemning they want, China implements its one-child policy with gusto. Sure, it's harsh. But then, isn't it better to limit pregnancy and childbirth, rather than to wait for the babies to arrive, only to smother them to death or give them up for adoption, as India would often do? When the general populace is educated enough, they would realize that a controlled population (in numbers) is a much better option that having too many mouths to feed. Just ask the ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong, who decades ago used to have the same mentality as the mainland Chinese in having as big a family as one can have. These days, the Hong Kong Chinese would more than willingly limit their family size to 1-2 children at most, or even no child at all. If the Chinese in rural areas do not see the reasons in that, the the central government will impose its will on them. That sounds harsh, but the Chinese has it right on this: If it has to be done, it has to be done; and it might as well be now.

Along the same reason, I find it maddening for the self-righteous conservative right-wingers like GOP and the Vatican, rejecting the notion of birth control. While I feel uncomfortable about full endorsement of abortion (particularly full-term abortion), I don't see any issues in birth control at all.

If only the rest of the world, like Africa and the Middle East, and even India and China, would see reasons in practicing birth control voluntarily, our future generations might not face as dire a consequence in the depleting and dwindling natural resources that Mother Earth would provide us.

On Greece, and the slo-mo train wreck of the Euro debt crisis...

Quite often, watching what unfolds in Europe and how the Euro bloc deals with the sovereign debt crisis is like the watching an unavoidable train wreck in slo-mo. Every few weeks, Germany and France would present some sort of plans, the markets would get a boost for a day or two and then they'll tank again.

The latest plan is supposed to be a triumph for Merkel and Sarkozy, wrestling a 50 per cent haircut from bondholders. Markets seem to like it. It's announced on a Thursday, with a boost for a day on Friday. And then, the markets tank again the following Monday when the news came out that the Greek prime minister intends to call for a referendum for the public to decide whether they want to accept this latest bailout plan and to stay with Euro as their national currency or not.

Germany and France must be furious, having worked so hard, wrestled so many arms to get to this deal in order to try to save Greece from default, only to have Greece seemingly reneg'ed on it. But I see it a little differently. The call for referendum is such master stroke.

The Greek general public has been staging protests and riots to vote their disapproval of the austerity programs and budget cuts that must be pushed through in order to pay down the sovereign debt. The public generally loves staying with Euro, and Greece in general has benefited greatly from joining Euro, with borrowing rate going down substantially in the past decade. That allows its economy to grow without really addressing the underlying issue of poor productivity and required reforms to make the country more efficient and productive. With the recession in its third year now, Greece can delay the pain no more.

The public blames the government for bringing on the pain from necessary austerity measures, but is the government really the only one to blame? Everyone has been drinking the Euro kool-aid, thinking the money spigot will never run dry. Nobody wants to check the worst-case scenario in which the government can no longer borrow, nor can the private sector. The money has to come from somewhere.

The Greek prime minister must have realized that this latest bailout plan will only last for a short period of time, and then the next batch of sovereign debts are going to come due, and then Greece will have to go begging to Germany, France, and maybe even China, again. Rather than having the ruling party take the blame for all things ill, this referendum is going to put the onus back on the people. Do they really want to be rescued, and with that, tightening their belts drastically? Do they really want to stay with Euro and endure all these pains? If the vote is yes, then they're all in it together. There's no more blaming of the Greek government alone in forcing the austerity measures on its people, because the people have voted 'yes.' There is no more blame of Germany either, for imposing harsh terms on them either, because they have accepted the fate. But if they vote 'no,' then the current Greek government will go down.

In a way, it's probably fitting, that we should see such thermonuclear option. Afterall, it's the ultimate democratic gesture, in a country where all western democracy found its seeds. The people have to decide. The ruling parties are no smarter than the collective wisdom. No one should be imposing anything on the people. If you ask my opinion, I'd say, the move is brilliant.

Obviously, the outcome is likely to be messy, with huge uncertainty and overhang. But, hey, democracy is messy. Nobody expects democracy to be clean and neat. If they do, they would all go to China where the elite Politburo decides everything in the country. Most analysts and governments disagree with the proposed referendum because they want more certainty, and they don't want to hear the possibility that a majority of Greeks would rather risk leaving Euro than to suffer under the austerity measures for years (even decades) to come. As Arab Spring and even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us, sometimes what the people want do not necessarily equate a political palatable solution to foreign governments.

Greece is not alone in the mess. Italy and Spain are scarier and much bigger version of the sovereign debt mess. Germany and France would want (and need) to save Greece and beyond since the banking and financial systems in the countries are so intertwined and connected so tightly with the government debts. If Greece defaults or Euro breaks up (with some of the countries quitting the Euro currency), the ramifications would be huge for the global markets.

I'm not sure how it'd play out, but I don't feel like being in the stock markets right now.

On parenting et al...

I was profoundly moved by the opinion piece in New York Times today about a mother whose child suffers a genetic disorder with no cure and which is certain to see a premature passing. Sometimes, as Steve Jobs had famously noted in his 2005 Stanford commencement speech, as was the Last Lecture Series by the late Randy Pausch, knowing that death is imminent can be the most powerful catalyst to jolt one into focus and set the life priorities straight. As in the case of the mother whose focus is on yo here-and-now on the well-being of the child, without any possibility of hopes, dreams, and future that regular parents would have expected from their children.

In a way, it's almost like committing to a pet like dogs and cats, that you know for certain that you'll outlive the pets. In a finite amount of time (maybe 12-15 years), you'll have to say farewell to the beloved pets, sometimes even having to make the painful decision of putting the animals down in order to lessen the animals' pain. I know, because I used to have a dog when I was little. I love my dog, even though I had not done a good job training him. As a result, he's a wild one, even biting me on numerous occasions; though I never came to blame him. My love for him is irrevocable. Talking about blind puppy love...

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

Incidentally I was talking to a colleague this morning. She was bemoaning how she and her husband spend $40k a year for each child on private school. Given that they have two kids in high school now, it's alot of dough. She's essentially working just so they can pay for the tuition. Don't get me wrong; she's tremendously proud for both kids getting in this private school which is apparently über-competitive, not just in admission, but in staying alive/ahead in school.

When I talked to her a while back, she's glowing about their Ivy League prospect, plus the chance for their kids to start networking - yes, networking! - when they start middle/high school. I thought at the time, Omigod, is this really happening; parents pushing for kids to do that? She makes that Tiger Mom in Amy Chua sounds lame. Having both coming from Asian backgrounds, there must be something in there somewhere.

This time around, things sound a shade different. Sure, there's still the glowing remarks of difficult schoolwork and assignments, critical thinking, and what-not. But in an arms race when every other kid in the school would look for some competitive edge, any competitive edge, it's not enough to just let people know your kids getting admitted to the school. The kids used to be straight A's in regular classes; they now suddenly realize that they are B+, at best, when they get in advance placements. Sure, they play some sport; but every kid in school play sports. Same goes with playing musical instruments. The kids feel bummed-out in the advanced classes because the other kids obviously are either super-smart, or they have had outside tutorials that have already taught them all the materials in the advanced classes.

These days, how do you stand out in a crowded, highly competitive field for Ivy League when straight A's + sports + music + community service + working on school newspaper, are no longer enough. And now, they can't even guarantee their straight A's anymore. The kids are stressed out; as is her husband. But she perseveres. Afterall, they have sunk so much money and time in this private school, they can't possibly quit at this point. Last but not least, her argument (more to herself) is that, it's such a tough school to get admitted, they can't possibly just give it up.

She cited some anecdotal evidence that some Ivy League schools might be within reach. Afterall, there was one kid who was in an Intel finalist, that got early admission to every schools that he applied, except Harvard. (He flunked the interview.) He ended up going to MIT. But how many Intel finalists did this school ever have? (She didn't say.)

And then there is the networking aspect which was considered valuable to her. Here, she cited one of the snobbish kids who, on prompt of where he lives, emphasized that he lives in a specific part of town that is most exclusive part, in case anyone hasn't already noticed. Such snobs are the ones that her kids are to network with. Surely there are nicely and more civil ones, but to think of a school populated by rich, entitled kids, it's not very inspiring.

Long story short, she and her husband will just have to stick with it for the long haul, and so will their kids (I truly feel sorry for them). As she has rightly noted, if the kids have not gone to this expensive private schools, she can probably retire by now. That might be so; but such was a path and journey that she embarks on, just as Amy Chua has noted in her stupid Tiger Mom book. She can't possibly expect much sympathetic words. (I can't come up with any.)

Oh, by the way, she has already whitelisted some of the professions that she doesn't want her kids to take on. Just thinking of the mental list that she has to keep score with is already too exhausting for me.

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

Looking at the juxtaposition of the conversation with my colleague's parenting decisions and woes, and the New York Times article of a mother mentally and physically preparing for the eventual death of her child, the effect is chilling to me.

While regular parents like us can't be letting the kids do whatever, with abandonment, I'm always mindful of not imposing too much of my hopes and dreams on my kids. They have their lives to live. I remember there're times when they ask me what I would like them to be. I told them, it matters not what I want, and I turn the table and ask them what they want to do instead. While basic life skills and discipline have to be imposed upon them, if they are independent and mature enough to make wise choices, and to pursue their dreams with conviction, I would have considered my job as a parent complete.

On the passing of Steve Jobs...

I was saddened today when I got in to my computer this evening, and saw the news that Steve Jobs, the Apple co-founder and former CEO, has passed away. His rise and fall, and rise again in his personal history was truly phenomenal, which coincided with bursts of innovations in more industry than one. Most people feel a personal connection to Jobs since he had come to personified all the Apple products that he brought to users and consumers. From Apple II, to the Mac, iPod and iTune, iPhone, iPad, to Pixar, even the spartan concept of retail Apple store, his reach and influence has reached not only the computing industry, but music industry, telcos and communications industry, the entertainment industry, and breath fresh air to the retail space as well.

Although there were anecdotal stories of his mercurial temper and micromanagement style, his vision is equally remarkable. While he might not have been true pioneer in each of the industry, he was able to turn around existing industry norms and gadgets that users have come to know, and deliver something that is so new, easy to use, yet so very elegant in product design, that his products have all become must-haves. With his ability to integrate everything in his head, from the kind of user experience that he wanted, to product design (what features to be in, and what not), to execution and marketing, he's the one linchpin that holds everything together. Jobs was, in short, Apple.

I have been immensely moved by his 2005 Stanford commencement speech which is truly inspirational. (Actually, reading it in text feels even more powerful.) Jobs had defined a generation of pioneers and leaders that came out of Silicon Valley, along the tradition of the greats in the past, like David Packard and Bill Hewlett, the co-founders of HP.

To reminisce the passing of Jobs, I was watching some of the videos, including the 2007 on-stage interview of Steve Jobs and his contemporary Bill Gates. (I just wish that the female interviewer in that video had been ejected from stage. She's so clueless that she reflects so poorly on all female peers. Stupid woman.)

RIP, Steve.

On the fate of USPS...

Changes can be hard to swallow sometimes, in the face of technological and cultural shifts. It's particular so, for long-standing services and habits. Examples abound, and we need to look no further than LP albums, to cassette tapes and walkman, to CD, then mp3 players, and now tunes in the cloud (hello, iTune) that renders all predecessors obsolete.

Not everyone listens to music, but most everyone gets mails. Even with overwhelmingly junk mails, there is certain comfort in seeing something as regular as daily mail delivery in the mailbox. Alas, at least something stays constant in life...but not for long. Judging from the way that USPS is hemorrhaging, I'm not sure how long it can stay afloat.

Sometimes I find it rather bizarre, looking at the way that public/private services are in US. Much like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the USPS provides a very public civic service. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, they pretty much underwrite the secondary mortgage market with a quasi-government backing, even though they are "private entity" in name. I've always found that disingenuous, if only so that Americans (particularly the GOP cohorts) want no government in life or business enterprise. Yet, those markets and everyone who has a mortgage or a hand in the financial markets all have a hand in seeing to it that Uncle Sam's hidden role (as the guy backing Fannie and Freddie) stays hidden but is kept alive.

The same is true with USPS which is turned into a private entity, yet its finance and operations are largely hamstrung by public policy. Without change in regulations, they can't raise prices, they can't cut service, they can't even cut much staff, not to mention those generous pension. That's a terrible way to run a business.

I can't fathom a country without a postal service. Even though there are alternatives (eg. FedEx, UPS), postal service would and should remain public entity. On the other hand, regardless of whether it's public or not, one can't simply run it as if resources and funding are unlimited; to do otherwise is unconscionable.

I don't USPS that much these days. For my incoming mails, almost all the bills that I receive, I've ordered electronic bills and statements; so, there goes 80% of my mails in thin air. There are a few other billers who still can't do e-bills (eg. property taxes from county), but it's just a matter of time before they do. I still have only one journal (namely, Fortune magazine) that I still like it in print form. Everything else I get from the web and online subscription. The rest is all junk mail that goes to recycle bin. As to my outgoing mails, I pay all bills online. (How many billers can't receive online bill-pay these days anyways?!) So, I hardly need to send any mails at all. Those first-class stamps are gathering dust on my desk.

If my case is any indication of the impact to the USPS mail volume, it'll indeed be a very worrisome sign. And if USPS is to rely solely on the revenue on mail volume, then sooner or later it's going to go bankrupt. There's simply no other way.

Truth be told, USPS has had some innovations in recent years, including partnering with vendors like eBay to make it easier for merchants to ship packages, and stamps.com. They are not sufficient to ramp up revenue fast enough to compensate for the rapid decline of the physical mail volume.

I buy stuffs quite often on the web, and those packages are probably the times when USPS comes in most handily. I hope USPS will live on, but I don't think its current course is sustainable, with Congress behind its back (for whipping, not for much financial backing).

On remembering 9/11, ten years on...

Whenever it comes to memorable events, time seems to stand still. Most everyone has a story to tell, or remember where they were when it happened.

I'm one of those ordinary citizenry who is not even remotely connected to what happened to 9/11. I don't know anyone who died in the plan attacks to the sites. I don't know anyone connected to the illness from the rescue in the World Trade Center. I'm only affected by it only as a result of all the rules and regulations changes in the aftermath of 9/11; mostly in the airport checks, long lines of waiting, and delays. That's about it. I'm pretty much a spectator in the whole chains of events.

But I remember it well on that day.

I was working in office in a suburban office building. I went about it like any other regular mornings. And then my colleagues called out to me, saying we need to go to the conference room. We thought it's some ad-hoc all-hands meeting. Since there was a few rounds of layoffs already (as a result of the 2000 tech bubble burst), we thought the most that could come of it was another round of layoff announcement. We were walking in there, along the corridor in single file. We were even chitchatting, joking and had a few laughs. The big conference room had a very large TV, and it's on when we walked in. It's tuned to CNN news live, but at the time, I didn't realize it's news. The first picture I saw was the first World Trade Center tower in smoke. I remember asking one of my colleagues, "what is this?" And then, one of them realized what's going on, and said the WTC was burning. No one even knew that it's hit by a plane. The newscast was somewhat confusing, and none of us was watching the TV before we filed in to the conference room. That picture on the TV was so picture-perfect, we couldn't believe it's real. Another colleague commented that, it looked like a perfect Hollywood movie, with the perfectly clear blue sky in the background, all the details of the bellowing black smoke from the building came out so starkly clear on the high-def TV. Some of us were talking about factual details of WTC, like one of them talking about how many floors WTC had; that one of the brothers of her best friend worked there; etc etc. So, the some twenty of us, standing around the room, watching the TV for maybe 30 minutes or so, with not much details from the news, decided that we've watched enough; and we went back to our cube.

It's never occurred to me at the time the enormity of the event. A little while later, someone yelled out, the second tower was hit. This time, we rushed back to conference room, and saw smoke AND fire coming from the WTC towers. And then, we realized, "oh my God, it's real." We stayed on for some more time. This time, our boss came in, and said, we can't be standing here watching this. So, we went back to our cube one more time.

Even though we knew it's real, it's so surreal that our senses and emotions did not kick in. It's only until the next day, when the news of events of that day had settled in, that I realize how bad it was. A few days later, we filed back to the same conference room for the third and the last time, for the sake of 9/11 during lunch (and our boss didn't say anything this time - it's just lunch time afterall). The images from CNN were those from the ground. The towers were coming down and collapsing; people on the street were yelling, screaming and running away from it; huge clouds of dark dust and smoke in their wake. It's when I saw those images, that for some reason, my tears started coming down. People were dying; this was not a Hollywood movie afterall; and there's nothing I could do about it.

That's what I remember of 9/11.

In the aftermath, I learn from some colleagues, who learnt from their customers, that anyone in the IT field who had the first inkling of someone amiss is the hot link of backups between the financial firms (those with offices in the World Trade Center) and a major IT tech firm (who manages their hot backup) started having red lights flashing everywhere. That's when the original site's system is down, and hot backup is requested/required. It's more than coincidental that all the firms are having problems at the same time. The staff was thinking it must have been power grid failure or something. No one would even remotely think that the whole buildings were gone.

Sometimes, I try to empathize and re-imagine how it's like on the other side of the terrorist's jihad. The muslims were angry at the west for bombing and killing their own people. Even to this day, in the name of the war on terror, soldiers from the west were bombing and raiding different middle eastern countries like Afghanistan. Their people are sometimes taken or kidnapped for questioning and subject to torture practice, with no recourse. Sometimes I imagine myself in their shoes; I have to say, I'll probably get very angry too. Those are the times when militant groups and extremists like Osama bin Laden are able to exploit the underdogs' emotions, to recruits people to join their jihad against the west.

To that end, even though bin Laden was now killed, he had largely succeeded in dividing the muslim public (and their public opinion), and the western world. He had also succeeded in terrorizing the western world, making it looking its shoulders at every turn. And he had succeeded in making his name a legend for evading capture for so long; and a legacy (almost a blueprint) for future jihadist to model after. It's tremendously sad that this would be what 9/11 has amounted to.

I'm not too well-versed in the long history of Israel and Muslim. Perhaps this would be the time, post 9/11, for the Israelis to tell us all, that this is exactly what they've been living with, the constant worry and fear of bombs and destruction, and the forever vigilance that they mount against the muslim countries around Israel.

It's taken decades for the terrorist activities in plane hijacks back back in the 1970s to recede. Sometimes I wonder if the current sentiment ever comes to pass.

On another Plan B on housing from Obama...

Sometimes, you can see nonsense right when it shows up. The latest proposal from the Obama administration, on providing government-backed help to homeowners to refinance their homes, is one of those.

There are appealing aspects to that, to be sure. It won't need Congress approval. It won't have immediate impact on the budget deficit shit-hole that this country is already in. It prevents more homes falling into foreclosures. It allows homeowners to unlock additional cash from their homes, so that they can use the new cash to continue their buying habits funded on debts, and more debts. At the proposed low rate of 4%, everyone would love it.

It gets me really peeved when I sees proposals like that. The main reason for the subprime crisis that started in late 2008, triggered by the collapse of Lehman, was due to unchecked mortgage lending to those who should never be qualified for a mortgage. When the economy goes down, when the prices start its free fall, these folks can no longer count on periodically refinancing the properties to take money out of this pseudo-piggybank. The market - the Invisible Hand, if anyone still believes in free market - is supposed to check this kind of reckless behavior. The credit is supposed to get tightened - as it is happening now - and these low-quality borrowers are supposed to get squeezed out of the system, allowing the system to slowly grow back to life again. For those who have diligently play by the system, who save up religiously hoping to get a chance to buy into the market, they are supposed to get rewarded by lower properties and lower mortgage rate.

All those are out of the window, when 2012 election is coming into focus, and Obama needs to do something fast, to fix the economy. The fix is supposed to be jobs - yes, job growth - so that unemployment can go down. When regular people start having regular, steady income again, they are supposed to be able to buy again. Naturally, that is much harder to do, given the intense competition (particularly in manufacturing) from other countries like China. Given its inability to grow jobs, Obama instead looks at housing...again.

For what it's worth, the proposal is essentially guaranteeing those low-quality borrowers, once again, that they would be underwritten. All they need to do, is to stop paying their mortgage, and wait for Obama to refinance their mortgage at 4%. It does not matter anymore, whether these folks can even pay for mortgages for 4% or not. Obama (and Congress) just wants to stop these properties from showing up on foreclosure statistics. In other words, it's government-funded private housing. In Asia, there's a term for that - it's called, public housing. No matter, Americans won't call it that because it's politically incorrect. They want government out of their life and off of their backs when it comes to taxes, but they want government help when it comes to financial difficulties.

Those in Obama administration know full well that, two years into this recession, those who can afford to (and qualified for doing so) refinance, have already done so. Those, like me, who never bought into the buying frenzy in properties before property market started crashing in late 2008. Those, like me, who refinancing in the succeeding two years, given the historical low rate. To put it another way, those who can't refinance now are the one who should not have qualified for it. However way you look at it, it's effectively free money and handouts from government to these folks. And that makes me quite angry.

And then there're talks, and more talks, of supporting the property market. I've ranted before in my journal, that there's no point in supporting the market, because when folks have jobs and money, when they need a place to stay and it becomes cheaper to buy than to rent, they will buy properties again. Obviously, we're not there yet - quite far from it, in fact. While property prices have come down alot (some as much as 50-60%, in some regions), there are other places where prices never crash, per se, and where they have gone back up again already. I'm one of those too, who bought a new place for investment.

In short, I'm slowly saving up, and investing in a limited scale, while ensuring that I have sufficient buffer to cover an extended period if things turn south (eg. job loss, rental units not renting out, etc). Sure, if Obama wants to help, I'm all for getting some free money. But all the government policies and regulations I see so far have been about protecting and even extending the reckless behavior that should not have happened in the first place. (That reckless behavior includes the much screwed-up compensation structure on Wall St, by the way.)

I don't think I'll vote for Dem or GOP in 2012 at all. Tea Party is too loony for me. For a change and to make a statement, if Ron Paul is in, I'll probably vote for him.