People fail to enjoy momentary pleasures, such as eating their favourite food or sleeping an extra hour, in the pursuit of a “better future”. Do you think this is a right way to pursue happiness?

Not necessarily. Happiness that we receive in the short run is subject to the law of diminishing returns. As we consume more and more momentary pleasures, the marginal benefit (happiness) of doing so decreases. A parallel example would be that we enjoy more happiness from eating a snack once in a while than eating one additional snack after having ate five snacks in a row.

On the flip side, if we impose draconian controls on our consumption of momentary pleasures, we will find that in the end we will be devoid of happiness as potential benefits from consumption are not materialized.

Therefore as the time costs of momentary pleasures are fixed, as long as we are able to strike a balance between consuming too many and too few momentary pleasures, we will able to strike the optimum balance between short term and long term happiness.

If you are asked to send a ‘joke’ to a prisoner, that will be read to him just before his execution, what would it be?

“One day char siew pao and mantou went to the cinema. Char siew pao cried, but   mantao didnt. Why?

Because mantao had no ‘fillings’.

After that char siew pao and kaya pao went to the cinema too. Char siew pao again cried, but kaya pao laughed. Why?

Because kaya pao has different ‘fillings’.

Finally, char siew pao decided to go the the cinema with big pao. Char siew pao cried, but big pao wept endlessly. Why?

Because big pao had big feelings.”

One may point out that the joke neither contains a specific meaning nor appeals to the context of which it is being told. But the joke aptly demonstrates that the creation of happiness need not be bounded by rational considerations, and that in the instant before divorce between man and life, the ‘absurd walls’ of life become all more apparent; thus human life’s meaninglessness is laid bare, and death is but just a simple step into the absurd.

Why do you feel happy when your favourite team wins a game/series?

The happiness comes from a visceral feeling of pride and exuberance in regards to what the team has done. A feeling of belonging towards the team is felt, and one will attempt to identify oneself with the team.

Supporting a team is like playing the lottery without having to pay anything! If the team wins, one feels much happier, if the team loses, any sadness is momentary and fleeting. It’s a win-no lose situation.

 

I got selected, but now the school doesnt allow me to go. =(

Trade barriers are government-induced restrictions on international trade that come in the form of tariffs, embargoes, or local subsidies.

One of the major culprits of the recessions of the 1930s and the World War II is none other than the trade barriers that countries enacted among each other. Douglas A. Irwin succinctly describes the situation of the 30s as:

“The proliferation of higher tariffs, import quotas, and foreign exchange controls all contributed to the collapse of international trade. These import restrictions, combined with preferential trade blocs, destroyed the open, non-discriminatory world trading system. Once imposed, the trade barriers took root and proved difficult to remove, stifling world trade and hindering economic recovery for years to come.”

Entering the 21st century, we have seen the mutual reduction of trade barriers in most countries thanks to the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and WTO. In a nutshell, the gradual removal of trade barriers has been viewed as largely beneficial, and has been accredited as being a major factor in promoting global economic growth.

Trade barriers represent a vibrant interplay among countries. Countries are fully aware that unilateral approach towards barriers will not positively impact their exports, while flooding the local economy with imported goods, resulting in a current account imbalance. Therefore, reductions in trade barriers are carried out through international commitments to multilaterally abolish protectionism or through regional trading agreements.

Similarly, the issue of protectionism applies to interactions of us as individuals in society. A society filled with highly kiasu (protectionists) individuals is headed towards a situation of unhealthy competition. Imagine a school where students are unwilling to share information or knowledge among one another out of fear of losing out; there would be no much point in communal education then. In a same fashion to the situation of countries previously mentioned, students that share information do not lose out – one doesn’t become stupid by sharing knowledge, but comparatively speaking, these students become comparatively less knowledgeable than their peers. It follows that there exists an incentive for students to keep their erudition under wraps.

The extent to which students will keep up this form of ‘protectionism’ depends on their character that acts as to multiply or deflate the incentive to ‘protect’. A student with a competitive edge would find the incentive to shroud his/her talents in secrecy very tempting, whereas a laid back student would barely feel such a need.

So how do students respond to these barriers? An informal mechanism based on mutual openness and trust is initiated among willing participants. Students congregate into groups that they are willing to trust, and the sharing of information then occurs. Individuals that break the compact of trust (by withholding of say, tips for an important exam) are subsequently ostracised and expulsed from the group. Again, this is a reflection of the dynamics between countries.

Thus, there’s a lesson or two that we as individuals can learn from countries: protectionism presents a lose-lose situation to society. However, a unilateral reduction of barriers is not a winning one too.

High heels. The bane of feet?

Ricardian Equivalence states that when the Government increases its spending, the people will reduce their consumption in preparation for higher taxes in the future. Therefore, any increase in G will be matched by an equal or similar reduction in C, resulting in government spending being unable to improve aggregate demand.

The basis of such a theory lies upon the belief that all humans are bound by strict rationality. In the above case, rationality dictates that the increase in current government spending will necessitate an increase in future tax receipts to pay off the deficit. Such rationality demonstrates human ability to make allowances for temporary changes.

Applying the same case of rationality to high heels, rational human beings will realise that the height of those high hell wearers are merely temporary, and there will a mental deduction of the height in accordance to their perceived normal heel height, thus resulting in no gain in the height impression of the wearer.

Therefore, in order to gain a distinct illusion of height gain, one will have to wear heels that are taller than common social norms. And as this becomes a prevailing mindset, there will be continued upward pressure to wear even taller heels until the limits of the human body are tested.

However, for those who eschew the wearing of heels, imperfect information will result in them being subjected to the identical mental reduction of height as others, therefore leading them to appear even shorter than they are in reality.

Does the utility of wearing heels outweigh the costs? Probably not. There is without doubt a gain in absolute height, but any gain in height impression (the main point of wearing heels), is suspect. One can contend that an absolute height gain proffers a feeling of command or authority. However contrasted against the costs (to health, zum Beispiel), it is dubious whehter the utility gained even approaches the costs incurred.

Prom was, erm, interesting.

Moroseness. A bitter cup of moroseness.

Update 18 May: Ricardian Equivalence: through (bond sales) … (Any form of government spending, be it funded through tax increments or bond sales)

Ahh the joy of miss-usage of theory as anecdotes.

Ticking of the clock,
striking thuds,
metronome-like.

Sketching the visage of time,
lenghthening the shadows.

Gently sweeping the patina as it moves,
incessant.

Ah, the pathos of summer.

I admit there’s multiple ways to read this.

Petroleum (and many other resources) are short term-finite and long term-infinite resources. Why so?

In the short term, (assuming that production of petroleum decreases sharply, but does not drop to zero), the market forces of supply and demand will ensure that those who are willing to pay higher prices will obtain the resources that they want. Thus as the supply curve shifts upwards, demand will be cut as a new equilibrium is established. People will reduce usage of personal vehicles, while industries will reduce reliance by cutting production or turning to alternative fuels. Unless a price cap is imposed, thereby distorting the market, prices for petroleum will increase, but there will be no acute shortages.

It is also worth pointing out that since the 60s, there have been eerie doomsday predictions of Earth’s petroleum supply running out in a ten-twenty years’ time. Activists have harped upon this issue since, encouraging resource prudence, and concomitantly falling into Malthusian traps. However, these predictions have been largely been proven wrong due to: improvements in alternative fuels, more efficient resource usage, and constant discovery of new petroleum fields.

In overall, its safe to conclude that petroleum will have an infinite supply for humankind in the short to medium time length. In the long run, it is still invariably a finite resource.

But some things are simply infinite in the short run. Infinite.

Screw this. I should have used Word wth. =.=

A Brief Note On Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech is not absolute. The only true place you have full Freedom of Speech is in a public place, when it does not conflict with the values or rights of others, and when you are the only speaker. Within an open forum, the rights of others must be observed. Every place has its own rules. It would be rude to walk into a library and begin shouting at the top of your lungs. Freedom of Speech (or Freedom of Expression) must not infringe on the rights of others.

A basis for a ‘Rights’ argument. However what constitutes an infringement upon the rights of others? In this sense, only a single mad man howling and brawling within a sound proof room would be able to exercise absolute ‘freedom of speech’.

Update:

‘We have freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech’ -RPK

I havent watched the context of the video in which these words were uttered (so I am making myself sound like an idiot right now), but this statement is largely true, and not only Malaysia, but also in any part of the world. Drawing back from the ‘screaming in a library’ example above, one can indeed do anything that he wants to, but in a society where freedom and law order occupy equal cornerstones, we still have to take responsibility for our actions. Whether the government is liberal or authoritarian in nature is largely irrelevant to the issue of the freedom of speech.

But, wait, what if an authoritarian government decides to met out inordinately heavy repurcussions upon those who speak out of line? The crackdown in turn causes speakers to be wary/unwilling to speak. Hence, what has happened here is that freedom of speech has been lost; freedom after speech hasnt. Practically, unless if we live in a lawless society, there is no such thing as ‘freedom after speech’.

Thus, what I which to espouse here is that although the RPK quote makes sense, it is spurious, and effectively a logical fallacy.

On another 2nd thought, something tells me that my arguments might be abit off. And this post needs some restructuring. Updates are like filling walls with white plaster- they are ugly and they stand out like eyesores.

Was walking home around 8pm.

There she was, sitting in that old metal rocker, unmoving. Replete, in those instruments of yesterday, the worn sarong, the faded blouse, the streaked white hair tied up in a bun.

Up until Form 2, I used to pass by her house a lot. I would call her “Ah Po”, and she would get up, hobble closer and ask about school. I can still remember how her face lighted up when I talked to her, the many taut lines of her face arranging themselves into a crooked smile. Happy, for the company that I brought to her, for she lived alone, her children long gone, appearing only from time to time.

Maybe it was because I had a chemistry paper on the next day, maybe it was because I was plain tired, or maybe I just had a reason, but I walked past her house without breaking stride. I saw her, and she saw me, but the gravel continued to crunch under my feet.

I do not know if she recognised me; most probably I was just yet another face, another passerby in her life where few people were willing to enter anymore.

in·sou·ci·ance/inˈso͞osēəns/
Noun: Casual lack of concern; indifference.

In that moment I failed to recognise myself too.

Google “define: supermarket”: a large self-service grocery store selling groceries and dairy products and household goods

I love supermarkets over malls or hyperstores. Those rows after rows of products packed quaintly into tangible lines contrast sharply with the sharp, indifferent feel of the shopping mall.

Indeed the supermarket is a simple epitome of what’s left of our lives. Just take a look at your nearby supermarket, and you can find, in chronological order:

• The bumbling student, a quizzical look on his face, looking at wares with a distracted air.
• The affectionate young couple, tenderly holding hands.
• The newly formed family with little kids running circles around their exhausted parents.
• The frowning couple with teenagers that look so bored they might just walk into a pillar for the sake of getting some fun out of it.
• The grumpy white-haired couple, wife in front, nagging, husband behind, lagging. They frown at you because they think you are staring at them. Hmph.

One day we will pass from each stage to another, moving slowly down the line. (Yes, I am assuming that the majority of humankind remains hetrosexual) And one more day, we will be looking at death in the eye and accepting his outreached hand.

Life delineated and macro-ed appears minuscule and meaningless. We delude ourselves by setting small goals: to do well in the next exam, to graduate with a degree, to learn a musical instrument, etc, but what is the point of these goals? What point is there if death is predetermined, and we are destined to die at one point of our lives?

In accordance to this line of reasoning, why would anyone take the time to plant flowers, knowing very well they will whither within days? Why would anyone attempt to ‘love’ another person, knowing very well that the choking grip of time will fall upon him, wrenching the person away in a single instant?

Life would become meaningless because everything we create will eventually be destroyed, and we ourselves will eventually disappear too; thus why should we deign to care about what we do with our lives?

The book of Ecclesiastes states:  “A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted.”

Although the conclusions to our lives may be well beyond our hands, yet it is the process and the events within it that are much more important. It is our onus to create and enjoy, to create goals, and enjoy the sweetness of accomplishing them, and this itself is truly life.

In existentialist terms, considering that our lives is pointless as death cannot be avoided would be putting essence before existence, while having the freedom to determine one’s course in life would be seen as being vice versa.

The worst punishment available to mankind would not be the quick ending through death, nor the smoking purgatory of being tortured, but rather life imprisonment. One is left with nothing to sow, nothing to pluck. It is not about freedom, because no matter how oppressive a prison is, the constraints placed on the inmates eventually mould themselves into part of the inmate’s life. It is not about a brand new set of rules, but rather a redefinement, a paradigm shift of regularities, for we, as free people are bound to the rules and norms of society too. The inmate is shoved into a meaningless existence, waking every morning to the tacit acknowledgement that there’s is nothing to do in his life, and that only death waits, as patiently as ever.

Analogically, life is like a being on boat sucked down a huge waterfall. The end result is fixed, but you can let the boat run over floating planks, jolting you with pain, or manoeuvre it so that it sails smoothly.