Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 11

Of Mountains and Molehills

Halfway through typing an article for this week, I realized that I wanted to refer to an article that I had previously written, but then I realized that it was not published on Economics @ Home. Then I found it in my personal blog, which I have not been updating of late, I must admit. So, I have decided to officially welcome that special entry into Economics @ Home, and continue with my intended article in the next issue. Some of the information is outdated, but I decided to keep the full article for completeness.

Here it goes:

After hunting high and low to find a decently interesting topic to talk about, I have decided to settle on the juicy topic of women. Believe me, I tried to look for something else. Ideas that crossed my mind were:

1. Cars

I wanted to do a comparison between a BMW 7-series vs a Mercedes S-class but then I realized that my knowledge was not only very limited, but I haven't even been in any one of those cars. All I can tell you is that the BMW looks cooler than an S-class. The S-class has a more mature feel to it. Basically, it's meant for old men in their midlife crises. One good analogy that comes to mind is the Mac advertisement. It is obvious that the Mac guy is the BMW while the geeky, serious looking dude who dresses smartly is the S-class. I shall leave this discussion at that, and perhaps continue it another day.

2. Politics

What can I say that hasn't already been said? In today's newspaper, an MP passed away while another quit his position. The past few weeks have seen frogging like nobody's business and everyone has said their piece. Those people who have not kept quiet about are still telling the same stories about things that other people pretend they want to hear. The first step to solving all problems is to admit there is a problem. Everyone knows that. Everyone wants to blame someone. Once again, this discussion is simply overheated and probably a no-brainer for me. By talking about it, one can pretend to feel good about being superior to the party that he/she is blaming but we all know nothing can come out of it, not just by bitching.

3. Economics

Doom and gloom is around every corner. Keep badgering the US banks. It's all their fault. The Americans. They want to pump in another what? How many zeroes is that? Yeah, yeah, once again, everyone has had their chance to speak. We should feel a sense of relief that the new president has first world thinking. He acknowledges the problem. Step 1 complete! So now you buggers out there who are still pointing fingers and bitching about how the money should be spent and how it should not be spent, or how silly the financial allocation is, or how they are wasting it to banks that no one in the world can trust, well, please give your solutions. I would like to hear something that no one can refute. In bad times, every step you take is going to look bad. Every one wants a piece of the blaming finger.

On that note, I proudly say that I have no viable perfect solution. Reform is necessary, but I don't think I know enough to claim in what areas should the reform be in. So, maybe on another day, we can continue this discussion upon hindsight and you can hope that you were right and you can say "I told you so" in my face. But for now, let's just hope for the sake of the citizens of the world that you are wrong.

4. Sports

So I've pretty much gone through all the current issues that most people can talk about. Among other things such as the sacking of Scolari and the Steelers winning the Superbowl and the Spurs pwning the Celtics, sports will always be sports. Somebody always beats somebody else and the winner is remembered, the loser is forgotten.

5. Women

Well, women are number 5 on my list of important things to talk about? I remember when I was much younger (half my age!!), my classmates and I used to productively utilize our schooling time (in between classes, of course!) to chatter about what was deemed the most important things of our lives at that time, girls!

Fortunately for you and for me, this will not be idle chatter. Let us hope that at the end of the day, one of us leaves this site with at least some sense of awareness of what I am about to share with you.

Please be advised that I do not write this as a closet pervert, not that you should have any reason to believe I am one, but I write this with the intention of banding the men with similar experiences against the evil clutches of women-kind!

What is so evil about women? This question reminds me of a mathematical proof once showed to me by a classmate. At that point, I thought it was clever but it has been completely overused and underappreciated since then. That said, let us be clear about one thing, it is impossible to understand women (as men).

I have never attempted (never is a strong word, but I say it WLOG (Yeah, yeah, bet you can't use WLOG in a regular sentence like I can)) to understand women. Things women do that drive most men nuts:

OK, I had actually prepared a long list of silly things women do, like taking long showers, spending ridiculous amounts of cash on vanity products etc. but I decided to discard it for the simple reason that who hasn't heard it already?

I'd like to share a fictional story about Adam and Eve (forgive the biblical reference)

Eve texts Adam at 11.03 am one Saturday morning,

"Hey Adam, how are you doing? Just wanted to wish you good morning! I love you!"

2 hours and a few minutes later, at 1.08 pm, Adam finally struggles to get out of bed, no thanks to his Dota buddies who insisted on "One more last game" for the 6th time at 4 am. Adam drags himself to the bathroom, brushes his teeth, shaves (and do all the hygienic things that most men do :P) and then jacks off while he takes a shower, steps out, puts on a pair of shorts and a t-shirt, grabs his cell phone, parks his butt on that magical sofa, flips the TV on with his well-trained clicking finger or thumb, looks down on his phone and then finally sees the message that Eve sent him about 3 hours ago (It's 1.59 pm now). So Adam opens the message and thinks to himself, "Aww, that's sweet..." (Adam is a nice guy by the way, he is just nocturnal).

"Hey baby, I just woke up not long ago. I'm starving. You've had your lunch, right? I think I'll just stop by the cafe outside to pick up some food", Adam unsuspectingly replies.

Adam heads out the door, gets a call from his good friend, Chuck, who invites him to go for a movie. Having no prior plans, Adam accepts, grabs a quick lunch, heads out with Chuck and the guys to catch Saw V. Little did Adam know that 30 seconds after he replied and slid his cell into his pocket, Eve had replied:

"Hey you! I was thinking maybe we could catch a movie later. Maybe some dinner afterwards. What do you think?"

If only Adam's cell was not in "Silent" mode. He had classes on Friday and forgot to switch the modes. One knows too well how the vibration doesn't really feel like anything when you are walking with the cell in your pocket. Girls, if the cell is in your handbag, you wouldn't notice a vibrate right? Especially with that arsenal of "goodies" in your bag.

Unknowingly, Adam sits through the 2 hour movie that started at 3 pm, and ended at 5,36 pm because of advertising. Guys being guys, went on to get a few good rounds of Dota going at the nearest LAN shop and before they know it, it's 7 pm, and time for dinner. Now, hold your horses, you bet that Adam didn't check his cell and went to dinner with his buddies, right? Wrong! Every guy checks his cell phone after walking out of a LAN shop. After all, they have to check if their girlfriend texted them. To his surprise and panic, Adam sees 2 unreplied messages and 1 miss call and replies immediately:

"Hey, I am so sorry. I didn't see your message earlier. I was out with my friends. We went to watch Saw V. I know you're not really a big fan of horror movies. It's kinda late to pick you up for dinner now, but I will make it up to you another time. I'm really sorry".

Perfectly honest mistake by a perfectly honest guy who really cares about his girlfriend. While some girls may understand that and accept his apology, but it is all too common that some girls may start giving a guy like Adam a cold shoulder. Reason?

Well, at 11.03 am after Eve texted Adam, Eve goes to freshen up, gets all dressed up (which by then is already 12.30 pm), hoping that Adam would have replied by then and he could swing by, pick her up for lunch and catch a movie (She was planning to watch Saw V with him because she knew how he loves horror). Thinking that she might appear too desperate or being too clingy towards Adam, Eve decides not to call Adam and bug him. "He's probably taking a shower". At 1.30 pm, Eve begins to think, "He's taking an awfully long time to reply. I wonder what he is up to." Another 29 minutes of see-sawing goes by, not knowing if she should or should not call Adam, thankfully Adam replies. "Phew". Eve jumps in shock of her ringtone, opens the message immediately and smiles. "Finally, he replied". She quickly replies his message, hoping to at least catch a movie with him later.

The rest as we deem to be history happened. Now, in between the hours of 2.00 pm to 5.30 pm, she texted Adam:

"Hey, are you back from lunch yet? I haven't heard from you. What are you doing? Did you get my message?"

Another 40 minutes goes by. Eve calls Adam. But his cell was on silent mode. Apparently the vibration wasn't that great either. Perhaps it was off because he was in the cinema. Who knows...

Now Eve is beginning to get really frustrated. "What is Adam really doing? Why hasn't he replied my message? Why didn't he pick up my call? He must be playing computer games with his friends again. Is he out with another girl? I guess that's quite unlikely. He's not the cheating type. If only I could see him. I made sure I left my schedule open this weekend just to see him. I even decided not to go to Jenny's birthday party because it was the premier weekend for Saw V. What is he doing? Where could he be? Maybe he is watching the movie with his friends. Why didn't he invite me along? Is he embarassed about me? Does he think I am too clingy? Am I too clingy? Should I give him more space? Why am I so frustrated? He probably just didn't see my message. But why would someone own a cellphone and not be reachable? Might as well not own a cellphone".

As you can see, this thought process can go on and on and on. This is called "dwelling". To the unsuspecting guy (I guess he may or may not be innocent, but he would in no way suspect he was doing something very wrong), he will wonder what he really did wrong. All he did was just being late in replying an sms. Besides, his girlfriend has been late in replying his messages before too.

On the other end of things, Eve is all worked up, decides to give Adam a cold shoulder and demands to herself that she deserves to be treated better. So now, what is seemingly a small situation had been blown out of proportions because of an innocent mistake. Eve continues to give Adam the cold shoulder for a few days. Adam still wonders why can't Eve forgive him for replying an sms late. Eve has replied more texts late than he has, as far as he remembers. But of course Eve's reasons were "completely valid".

Now, boys and girls, at some point in our relationships with our significant other, we would have encountered a situation similar to this. So it is my hope that we ponder about this story with an open mind and stay aware that some mistakes can be innocent. The best way to avoid a cold war like this one would be to communicate. Talk to your partners. Be clear and honest.

All this could have been avoided if Eve had said in the first message that she wanted to watch Saw V with Adam. She wanted to "act cool" by not being the clingy girlfriend, or so she thinks and thus played a small role in building this mountain out of a molehill. Adam on the other hand, piled on the dirt by not checking his cellphone every 15 minutes, but can he really be blamed? Maybe... If he was the kind of guy who puts his girlfriend ahead of everything he does, he might have checked his phone sooner.

So, once again, communication is key. I guess I take back my point about women being evil. Nonetheless, the mathematical proof is concrete. Hope you liked the story.

Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 10

When I Get Older

When my boss talked about his mode of operation yesterday, it made me realized many things. The first of which, if I don't take my work seriously, no one else will. I was late with posting Volume 2 Issue 10 (this week's issue) and my excuse was the lack of time. But when I was writing Economics @ Home on a weekly basis, I reduced the regularity to once a fortnight, and I still failed to meet the deadline. Before you jump to the conclusion that I am about to write only once a month, I would like to stop you right there.

The problem was not the lack of time. The problem was in my priorities. i Capital has NOT failed to be published on a Friday for 21 years. Just within this year alone, I have failed in meeting my deadline at least twice. I can only express my total embarrassment. 

My priority should be to ensure that Economics @ Home is published on time every week, even if it means I do not sleep throughout the night. This is what my boss termed as "professionalism". 

If I ever want Economics @ Home to be taken seriously, I have to be professional. But of course, being professional is far from being sufficient. Meeting a deadline with a junk article is not going to cut it. I have to at least maintain the quality of my content WHILE meeting the deadline. The sustainability of my business depends on the quality of service from the front end right all the way to the "after-sales" service. 

In dedication to the invaluable lessons that I learnt this week and also in conjunction with the coming World Cup, I present the following video. Just absorb the meaning of the song. I hope you enjoy it. 

Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 9

The Power of a Critic

I begin this week's issue with one of my favorite quotes from the movie, "Ratatouille":

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more.

Anton Ego

Those of you who have seen the movie will remember the hunchback egotistical critic (appropriately named "Anton Ego") with near impossible expectations that could make or break one's cooking career. While many may have seen Ego's role as the villain in this movie, there is most certainly more to Ego that meets the eye.

The quote above clearly underlines the ease with which a critic can pass upon a judgement with repercussions that extend well beyond one's imaginations. While ego is a professional critic, his observation can also be applied to everyone and anyone who has ever criticized something. Just to show how important this concept is, I repeat here the first point that I am trying to get across:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.

We criticize just about anything and we criticize often. Ego highlights it in the second part of his quote as well, but in a more positive tone:

But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends.

Every time we meet with something new, the sceptic inside us cannot wait to jump out and dismiss its prospects. That urge is developed from our desire to succeed, which given the wrong circumstances, transforms into jealousy. Jealousy is a strong word to use here, but anybody who aspires to be somebody should at least have a strong sense of ambition. It is this sense of ambition that creates the need to be better than others. So, when a novel idea appears, one can't help but ask, "Why didn't I think of that?".

Of course, jealousy is not the only reason we criticize something. As Ego rightly points out, we thrive on negative criticism, and it is fun to write and read. It could just be as simple as that.

The second point that I am trying to make, is a much more important, yet subtle one. Earlier, I mentioned that Ego has more than what meets the eye. Here is why. Personally, I find Ego's strength of character exemplary. One could easily imagine Ego to retaliate after being humiliated by a rat who served him a peasant dish but he didn't. In fact, Ego wasn't even angry. While it is easy to admit that we are wrong to ourselves, especially in private, how often do we admit to the world that our preconceptions about something were flawed? Anton Ego discarded his ego  when he proclaimed to the world about the sheer brilliance of the genius behind Gusteau's success.

This is not a proclamation that it is not OK to criticize. What I am trying to point out is that while it is in good fun to criticize something, we should keep in mind to formally and deliberately praise something that is brilliant when we face it. It is not enough to admit it to ourselves in the privacy of our own room. The importance of giving the appropriate credit where it is due is highly underrated. May all your successes be given their true recognition.

Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 8

Pot Calling Kettle... Do you copy?

Such a cliched saying that is... well... cliched and perhaps outdated. Or is it? We hate people who act like pots that label kettles black, especially when it sounds as if it could be a racist comment. In fact, we love to hate people who are self-righteous and act like they are in the "right" while everything and everyone against them is in the "wrong".

This issue attempts to understand the behavior that allows us to poison our surroundings. Why do we like to label kettles black?

I propose that the only reason is simply our ego and self-righteousness. The simple belief that everything we do and believe in is the right thing to do, and everything to the contrary is inferior. Because of that, when someone acts in a particular way that does not coincide with our standards of convention, we tend to develop a feeling of dissent towards that person, especially when we are unable to understand that person's motives.

Let us consider some simple examples. First, any driver in KL should know about the typical rudeness of KL drivers who have blatant disregard for the safety of other drivers as well as their own. They switch lanes back and forth on the highway without using their indicators in order to get to their destinations a few paltry minutes faster that they normally would. They weave in and out, pretending to be F1 drivers, not realizing that F1 drivers are not even supposed to weave, while gaining in time whatever they lose in petrol in the process of breaking and accelerating sharply. What's worse about these drivers is that, they feel it is OK when they cut into your lanes, but when you try to cut into their lanes, they speed up so that you have insufficient space to cut into their lane. The nerve of a pot.

The second example is somewhat longer. In the beginning, what started out as an affair for Jesse and Jenny appeared to be doomed when Jesse could not find the "heart" to dump his then girlfriend, Diana. Of course, Jesse and Jenny had been going out behind Diana's back and it was also inevitable that Jesse and Diana's relationship turned sour quickly. Despite the loss of feelings between them, Jesse and Diana did not break up. It was obvious that Diana still had strong feelings for Jesse while Jesse tried to be the noble one by insisting on providing a soft landing for Diana. While all this is happening, Jenny is fully aware of what is going on and what started out as discomfort gradually grew into anger, which was subsequently taken out on Jesse. In a fit, Jenny threw down an ultimatum, making Jesse choose Diana or herself, which scared Jesse away into giving Diana another shot at their relationship.

Jenny felt betrayed and swore never to associate herself with Jesse ever again. After all, what kind of girl would pine for a  two-timer like Jesse. As time grew by, Jenny drifted further away from Jesse, and continued to seek attention from other suitors. Meanwhile, Jesse is suffering from disillusion after trying to save a relationship that was doomed to fail. Seeing Jenny being pursued by other suitors, Jesse started to feel insecure and in a rash decision, decided to discard his clingy girlfriend to return to Jenny's side.

Jenny was more than pleased to have the security of Jesse's arms again as this time, Diana was no longer in the way, or so she thought. However, in his rashness, and perhaps due to his lack of certain male genitalia, he did not mention the true reason for breaking up with Diana, which consequently gave Diana false hope of getting back together with Jesse. While he tried to enjoy whatever relationship he was rebuilding with Jenny, he kept the safety net up for Diana, or so he says, but it was probably a safety net that he prepared for himself as well, as he knew that Jenny had complete possession of his testicles. After all, he had to promise her something, in order to return to her side.

So, Diana, playing the role of the perfectly clingy girlfriend, pursued the breadcrumb trail provided by Jesse. This then boiled the wrath of Jenny once again, but instead of being angry at Jesse, Jenny was furious at Diana's behavior of not leaving them alone. To Jenny, Jesse was now hers and Diana had no claim to Jesse. The obvious question in Jenny's mind was, "How do you expect to salvage a relationship with a guy who has feelings for another girl? Even if he were to leave that girl to return to you, could you trust him again?" Jenny went on for months, bashing on about the naivete of little Diana, who just couldn't let go.

But the question that pops out in this case is, what happened when Jenny swore never to associate herself with Jesse again? Jesse had left Jenny to be with Diana. Anyone could simply ask the same question to Jenny: "How do you expect to salvage a relationship with a guy who has feelings for another girl? Even if he were to leave that girl to return to you, could you trust him again?"

So of course, if such a question were posed to Jenny, I am most certain that she could give 1001 reasons why her situation was different and how she deserves to be treated "fairly". To return to the purpose of today's issue, we ask again, why do pots call kettles black?

These examples show the power of the mind. Our minds are able to justify every single one of our actions, despite previously condemning someone else for a similar gesture. Our ego serves as a self-reassurance mechanism to reinforce the idea that we are more right than others. Everyone, whether we express it or not, will feel threatened and defensive upon instinct if our ideas or beliefs are attacked. Only invertebrates would instinctively agree with a counterargument.

So this act of what appears to be hypocrisy arises from our insecurity. Our instinct calls upon our desire to be correct in order to feel superior to others. How cynical is that? Despite all that, I am not of the opinion that the pot should not be allowed to call the kettle black. As long as the pot realizes its own lack of chromo-magnificence, the pot can call the kettle and his friends and his neighbors black, and that should still be alright.

Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 7

Blindness

What can I say about physical blindness? I am no particular expert when it comes to biology. But then again, who said that we have to be an expert on something before we can talk about it.

What I hope to talk about today is the blindness that is caused by ignorance, intentional or otherwise. Let us first start with a simple example. More often than not, in Malaysia, we see a sign that says "Jangan membuang sampah. Denda RM500" (Please do not litter. RM500 fine). Then below the sign, we see a whole pile of rubbish. Now, that is the kind of idiocy that we have to deal with in Malaysia. But of course, issues on such inconsiderate behavior have already been beaten to death by many a writer and hence, I will not venture into something as unproductive as beating a dead horse. 

Today, I would like to share a story with you, and perhaps exhibit some of the self-righteousness that I am ever so proud of. 

While Timmy and Lily have been dating for close to five years, they have spent most of their time apart. It was one of those modern long distance relationships. They kept in touch regularly through chat programs. With both of them apart, they are most certain to have their own group of friends. Without the intention to spoil the story, I will go ahead and say that Timmy will only play a small role in this story. The story pretty much revolves around Lily and her little group of friends. Without her beloved boyfriend at her side, Lily has grown accustomed to hanging out with another couple, Jessica and Isaac who have been dating for about a year. They appear to be like any other couple who recently fell in love. Jessica and Isaac publicly show their affections towards each other. They feed each other ice-cream, rub each others' nose with their own in restaurants, etc. For those of you who are already nauseous, don't worry, there will be more to come. Just kidding. For those of you who are jealous, oh please, get a life. 

Now, the three of them (Lily, Jessica and Isaac) frequently spend Saturday evenings together, so naturally, Lily would become close to the both of them. In fact, they are so comfortable with each other that Jessica has no issues with Lily and Isaac going out alone together. Friendships between two people of opposing genders are always beautiful things until one falls for the other. Then all hell breaks loose. In the Economics @ Home Volume 2 Issue 5 (Wanting What We Can't Have), I talked about how men (and women) always want what they can't have. It was no different with Isaac. There was no doubt that Jessica was a great girlfriend to him, but Lily just seemed like a more exciting catch because first of all, she was not his girlfriend, and more importantly, she belonged to someone else (remember Timmy?). 

One fine day, while having coffee together, Isaac  leaned over and kissed Lily on the lips. Being the faithful person that she was, Lily resisted and pulled away. Lily never saw it coming (or did she?). Isaac, having realized his "mistake", pulled away, but never apologized. One only wonders what led him to do what he did. Could it be the "signs" that Lily was throwing at him? Of course, there was no way Lily was going to admit she was flirting with him. Perhaps she is telling the truth. In fact, women pride themselves in reading guys and knowing when they have feelings for a particular girl. Could Lily not have realized that Isaac was becoming more attracted to her? Maybe she knew, but she thought he would never act on it because he was dating Jessica. Or maybe she thought that nothing would ever happen between the both of them because of the nauseous things that Isaac does for Jessica. In short, could Lily have succumbed to unintentional blindness? 

Regardless, that was not the end of the matter. If you thought that I wrote such a long story just to ask a simple question like that, then I assure you that you will be disappointed. 

To continue the story, Lily decided she would forget the matter and let Isaac deal with it with Jessica. How Lily and Timmy dealt with the issue is irrelevant in this case because it was supposedly not Lily's fault and Timmy is a very understanding person. Nonetheless, Isaac has chosen not to say a word to Jessica about kissing Lily to keep his relationship with Jessica intact. While Timmy believes that Lily should let Jessica know about this, especially since Lily considers Jessica a good friend, Lily strongly believes otherwise. She believes that what Jessica does not know cannot hurt her. Lily believes that if her boyfriend were to have an affair with someone else, she would rather not know about it. What she does not know cannot hurt her. Now, is Lily guilty of being intentionally blind? 

Since Isaac has decided not to expose himself with regards to his wrongdoings, and with Lily's cooperation, Isaac has got away scot free and everything in his relationship is apparently hunky dory. While I am an advocate of Lily exposing Isaac's disgusting behavior, I shall pose this question to my readers. Put yourself in Jessica's shoes. Would you prefer to know about Isaac's indiscretions? Or are you one of Lily's acolytes who believe that whatever misfortunes that we are not aware of cannot hurt us. One simply cannot help but imagine the ostrich that digs its head underground in the face of danger. 

How this story plays out eventually, I am not clear. However, all of you know where my stand is. Now, it is your turn to pick a side. Would you prefer to be blind?

Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 6

Where We Belong

The title seems to suggest that every person has a predetermined place in this world. It is as if everything has been determined by fate. No, we will never talk about fate. At least not within the foreseeable future. What I would like to suggest is that, whatever path that we choose to take in life, we will eventually get to where we belong. Well, that doesn't really explain much, does it? What I intend to say is that whatever we do in life, we will get whatever we deserve eventually.

Now, what does that even mean? It is sort of like karma, except I believe karma is a long term concept (really long term, as in, the Keynesian concept of long term). For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Keynesian concept of long term, basically, what Keynes said was, "In the long run, we are all dead". Karma is a system that goes beyond our current lifetime. What I would like to discuss today deals with just our current lifetime, obviously because I have no prior experience with the after life, and most definitely no recollection of the before life.

I also realize that there is really no point in typing a long article, unless I have a really interesting story to share. So, in this case, I will strive to just make my point as clear and concise as possible and leave you to think about the rest. We hear about things like, "Do unto others as you would others do unto you" and all kinds of mumbo jumbo that have a similar tone. I personally believe that life isn't fair. There is no equal reaction to every action. In fact, Newton's  Third Law states that to every action, there is an equal AND OPPOSITE reaction. Sounds like a good deed will be repaid with a bad one if you ask me. So clearly Newton's Law does not apply in the metaphysical.

Nonetheless, what I propose is a system not unlike karma. We accumulate deeds, good or bad, throughout our lifetime, and at the summit of our lives, we are given everything that we truly deserve in that lifetime. Let us consider a few examples. Be warned that these examples can appear radical, and maybe cynical, but hopefully engaging.

First, let us consider a typical middle class white collar worker. He works hard as a child, a teen, and continues to work hard throughout his career and provides sufficiently for his family. He owns a middle class home, loves his wife, and has three beautiful children. Nothing spectacular. His lives a happy life, or at least it appears to be. What I am trying to point out is, he worked hard his whole life, did everything a good man is supposed to do, without venturing into anything extraordinary, and is thus rewarded with a perfectly contented family that cares for him as much as he cares for them. But along the way, I am certain that he would have faced many trials and tribulations just simply because life isn't easy like that. But at the end of the day, as he retires and contemplates his life, he realizes that he may not have accomplished much with regards to saving the world, but his life was meaningful, because he will always be remembered by the people who love him the most. He got exactly what he deserved. He gave his all for the people he loved the most, and in return, he got everything that they could give for him.

Let us now jump to the opposite end of the spectrum. What about a poverty stricken child in Africa? He was born with HIV, raised eating whatever root his mother could harvest that morning, and when he is lucky, he would get to eat some of the leftovers of the aid that whatever rich country provided for the Africans. He most probably did not deserve to be born in such conditions. One could even claim that he is lucky that his life will be a short one. That child would die 3 months after his tenth birthday. From the get-go, he was never given the opportunity to achieve much. For however short the moments that he was living, he was probably more of a burden than anything to his mother. Yet, his mother kept him alive for as long as she could. He would never have done much in his life, but for the 10 years that he was in this world, he returned the gift of his life by providing the kind of happiness that only a mother can understand after giving birth to a child. He deserved a short life, for, if he were to live much longer, only goodness knows how much longer he would have to suffer. Nonetheless, with that said, I sincerely hope that one day, there would be no poverty left in this world. I only wish that some day, children in Africa can live well up to their eighties having contributed meaningfully in making this world a better place.

As for us, we are but a quarter of the way through our lives (probably). What lies ahead for us? Our paths were not determined the day we were born. At least I hope not. Every single day we wake up is a day for us to garner every ounce of what we hope to deserve at the pinnacle of our existence. We can choose to dwell on the vicissitudes of life (Wow, I just wet my pants for using a word like vicissitudes in a sentence), and get stuck with trying to outdo one another in our lives. We can choose to complain and bitch about how life is so unfair to us, and how we deserve so much more. Some people just give up and stop trying. Some people go to the extent of exacting vengeance to those who have offended them. Not in the way that they do it in "Die Hard" movies, but in the subtle way that we are all capable of in the evil part of our minds. But eventually, be warned that this will all catch up to us.

I am not God, or anything close to that. But I have faith, that life balances itself. It may seem that around every corner, life is just waiting to pounce on our fragile existence, testing us with its vicious storms, consuming us with its appetite for disasters. But as we overcome these challenges, or move on from our failures, and sticking it out until we get to the top, I certainly hope that at the end of the dark tunnel, we will all get to the place where we truly belong. In the mean time, think about what you hope to deserve, and perhaps find that path that will lead you towards that place where you belong.

Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 5

Wanting What We Can't Have

Ever wonder why we have desires? A true Buddhist monk who is truly enlightened supposedly has no worldly desires. They leave a peaceful life, and have no cravings of an iPod, or a 100-inch flat screen, or the latest model of Ferarri, or a pair of double-Ds. Wouldn't the world be a better place?

We are not here today to try to convince everyone that the world will be a better place without any desires. If anything, without the wanting more, things like cars, lighting, roads, computers, the Internet and what not would never even have been invented. And I would not even be typing this right now. So naturally, desires can be wonderful things.

However, just recently, I read a comment by a friend, that said:

I think a veiled woman is a wondrous creature. She protects her body. She protects her beauty. She protects her dignity.

Here is my reply to the comment:

While I may or may not agree with the message, I replied to the comment with something that I think people should think about:

Without offense to any religion or culture, just expressing a radical viewpoint which may or may not be mine, do you think it is possible that by intentionally concealing what people want amplifies people's desires? This does not only apply to women or the opposite sex. It is just human nature. 

Even children throw tantrums when their parents hide away their favorite toy, or refuse to buy them ice-cream. Add on another 20 years, the same case still applies. The animal instinct in humans encourages humans to seek what they can't have. While human reason serves as a control and check over their animal instincts, it is merely a denial of one's nature. 

Most people always want more. If you have a bike, you want a car. If you have a Viva, you want a Myvi. If you have a Myvi, you want a BMW and so on and so forth. Unless you truly have a pure soul that is free from life's vices, the desire for more applies. 

Just a point to think about, what makes women's breasts more appealing than men's chests? While we can comment about its shape and size, it is somewhat arbitrary. Who dictated that breasts are private parts? Why is it that men's chests are not private? Maybe it is because of the fact that the concealment of breasts led to the very desire of them which further leads to their concealment and the cycle goes on. If women's chests were exposed all the time, would there still be a desire for them? 

I singled out breasts as an example. I respect the rules of religion, please do not misunderstand me. The same argument applies for the withholding of any object of desire, be it a body part or otherwise. 

Just food for thought. The above statements are not exactly what I truly feel about the issue, but it is just something to think about. For arguments' sake or perhaps academic or philosophical purposes. 

In all fairness, I will also include the reply to my comment and I will add on my reply in parentheses where I deem necessary:

Don't worry. I've been waiting for this kinda comment to pop out. Definitely to quench the unbeknownst mystery among non-Moslem; academic discussion for sure. Human nature flourishes hand-in-hand with lust. Undeniable to be the solace for men. Nonetheless, it should be treated with boundaries. (Like I said, the gift of our minds serve as a control to our instincts. We are not animals and thus have no reason to succumb to fickle desires)

When you said by unveiling the body of women only to eliminate certain enigmatic 'arousal' to the curious and thus to alleviate that, one must not conceal it; that reflects the animal instinct of men. It comes with the nature that men are attracted by curiosity, I agree. BUT, does it really serve the purpose to quench the curiosity? Like you said, MEN WANT MORE. It would never tame the beast inside; only to fire up the flame even more. (I disagree. It is not to quench the curiosity. In fact, the curiosity would never have existed in the first place if the body parts were not concealed at all. The question still remains, why is it that men's chests are nowhere near as mysterious as women's? I do however agree that we will always want more, which is in fact, the title of this week's article. We always want what we can't have. So what I am trying to say is that if we give everyone a free and full viewing of "private" areas, thus it would totally dissipate the desire to view them. As an aside, when I said "Men want more", I am using the term "men" to  refer to both genders, without loss of generality)

Men are aroused by looks whereas women are aroused by thoughts. To say that ' If women's chests were exposed all the time, would there still be a desire for them?' certainly is not the mirror to the reality. Like you said, men want more. Just imagine, if every Malaysian women is to dress up scantily-clad and reveal their boobs; men would start having pervert impression towards women ALL THE TIME whereas when a woman who dress up in ALL BLACK and covers up her body does not trigger sexual aspiration as much as the ones with revealing-boobs. (Therein lies the problem. What I was advocating was the complete removal of all coverage, and not to conceal them with "scantily-clad outfits". The argument above merely supports my own because the partial concealment of certain areas would only serve to further amplify that desire. I am not comparing a woman who covers herself with one that doesn't. I am merely suggesting that if ALL women do not cover up at all without discrimination, there would be no desire for the "private" areas)

One simple test. Imagine there are 2 women in front of you. A she-taliban. And Pamela Anderson. Which one would you go for? :) (Once again, the same argument applies. You midsunderstood me in thinking that I am comparing a woman that covers herself with a woman that doesn't. I am comparing the case that ALL women cover up against the case that ALL women reveal everything)

It's not to feed the 'humanistic' purpose. It's not about to shun men's basic needs. It's not about liberation towards 'girl' power. It's about what God knows the best. Men are aroused by looks and women are aroused by thoughts. :) (How much evidence is there to support such a statement? Without any offence to any religion, I'd like some more concrete scientific evidence of that claim. In fact, a simple counter-argument to that would be all the oogling that goes on in high school about "hot" Korean boybands. Clearly, women are also aroused by looks)

Now that I have replied to all the comments made, I am still open to more feedback on this issue. Clearly the views expressed here are radical, perhaps overly so, but I personally think it is engaging and worth thinking about. Of course, asking everyone to go everywhere without clothes would be absurd. Or is it? But that is an argument for another day.

Economics @ Home © Volume 2 Issue 4

Sitting on the Fence

The first thing that comes to my mind when I read or hear something like sitting on the fence is that it would be a very painful thing to do. In any context, literally or figuratively speaking, sitting on the fence is not a fun thing to do. In this issue of Economics @ Home, we will be discussing the issue of taking sides when handling conflicts and what are the things that we have to think about before making decisions.

First and foremost, we must understand why we have an inclination to take sides. But what is taking sides? What does it mean to support a side? Without getting too distracted with philosophical details, taking sides just means what it intuitively means. We generally support the side that we align our beliefs to. It could even be in the form of supporting a football team. Nonetheless, the repercussions of taking sides are much less serious when it comes to sports.

Today, we will talk about something a bit more serious, which is taking sides when it comes to friendship. In what scenarios do we have to take sides when dealing with friends?

First, when you have two friends who have conflicting interests. To have a more constructive argument, let us consider a more tangible example. Consider the case of two best friends, Rachel and Monica. Let's say that Rachel recently found out that Monica has been dating Rachel's ex-boyfriend, Danny for 2 months. Rachel and Danny broke up six months ago. Ethically speaking, no one cheated on anyone but Rachel is uncomfortable with Monica and Danny dating because of their history and the awkwardness when she has to be around them. Rachel confronts Monica about this but Monica feels that Rachel and Danny are over and is adamant about dating Danny. Rachel and Monica's relationship soured and both of them feel distanced but are too arrogant to admit it. Now, this is where you come in.  Both friends have confessed how they felt about the situation and seek your advice on the matter. Each one feels that they have their own right to feel the way they feel.

If you think the question I am going to ask is "So how do you advise them?", then I hope you are not disappointed. The real question is not what you tell them, but what are the things that we have to think about in situations such as this? Obviously you would want to take care of the feelings of both parties and can abstain from picking a side by simply advising them to talk it out among themselves. This may or may not be the right solution but it is what I classify as sitting on the fence. Because this is an example, it is easy for you to feel detached from the scenario and say that it is not your problem and they should dish it out. Try to engage yourself a little bit and you will realize that sitting on the fence simply entails the feeling of helplessness, resigning to the fact that you can't or won't do anything to help them.

But that's not the real issue yet. Imagine yourself feeling that Rachel should just move on and let Monica have her shot with Danny. I am inclined to feel that way. So the real issue is, do you go out and support Monica and suffer the consequences of being alienated by Rachel or do you sit on the fence as described above? I wonder which is less painful.

Another difficult situation is when one has to choose between a colleague (which inevitably is your friend), and an employer. Let us first establish that conflicts in the workplace are almost always unavoidable. Also, having your own cliques within your workplace is just as natural. Some personalities just gel well together, while some others just don't. Imagine that Sarah has been working at Company A for about two years. In this two years, she has performed her role satisfactorily, nothing extraordinary, but meeting every single expectation. One fine day, because of some personal issues on the home front, Sarah turns up to work in a foul mood and makes a reasonably costly mistake. Approached by her boss, Jim, Sarah becomes defensive and soon, tempers flare up within, but both refused to budge. Nonetheless, the issue was settled by a mere "I hope it doesn't happen again".

Ever since that moment of friction, Sarah and Jim's relationship had been tense. Now, this is where you come in. At lunch or in the break room, when you and Sarah are alone together, she casually brings up several of Jim's habits and makes jokes about them. As innocent as this may seem, it is possible that she may have raised these remarks out of spite, or for whatever reason. While trying to appear supportive and at the same time, fearing that Sarah might label you as being over-sensitive, you did not confess your discomfort about her making fun of your boss. Not that this gossiping and bitching out sessions are very often, but they do occassionally occur and innocently, you let it pass and this goes on for another few months.

Because of the regularity of such sessions, and your closeness with Sarah, naturally, your opinion of Jim begins to change as you start noticing more and more bad things about him, while forgetting the positive qualities that you may or may not once admire. One day, while thinking about it, you realize that Sarah and Jim used to enjoy a productive working relationship. Ever since that moment of conflict, their relationship became cold and one that was strictly over-professional, if such a thing exists. You also realize that Sarah is becoming anxious over her career prospects at the company because of her friction with Jim, especially if Jim is both your immediate superior. At the end of the year, Sarah confessed that her bonus was a little lower than expected. She felt that she was being treated unfairly since her "retaliation" that one time. She said Jim began ignoring her and they no longer enjoyed the fun working relationship they used to have. She contemplates handing in her resignation.

Herein lies the issue. You realize that in part, Sarah, with her pride and sometimes short fuse has in part to be blamed for the crumbling of her working relationship with Jim. Also, in your own experience, Jim is a great person and you felt that your proximity with Sarah has also led you astray from the relationship you enjoyed with Jim. Nonetheless, Sarah is your closest friend at work and you'd hate to lose her as a friend. You have also tried to raise this issue up with Sarah in hopes of her reconciling her working relationship with Jim but Sarah denies having any problems with Jim and believes that it was entirely Jim's fault that she was in that predicament.

What this example intends to illustrate is that it is almost impossible to choose between your boss and your friend. Do you support Sarah's resignation in hopes that you will no longer have to face sitting on the fence, not knowing whether to side with Jim or Sarah? Do you urge Sarah to stay and convince her that she will be making a mistake and she has to wake up while risking your friendship?

These are just two very difficult issues that many people face in their lives and sometimes treat lightly. If you feel disappointed about the lack of a solution or a proper ending to this issue, please note that even I do not have the solution. It could be the case that there are many solutions and it varies from person to person. But that doesn't say much. One can only wish that one was taught how to handle these tough situations in school.