Friday, October 12, 2012

[Post] Losing the Future

The biggest problem facing the global economy is not climate change, trade imbalances, financial regulation, or the eurozone. It is short-term thinking. An epidemic of myopia has swept over the world in the past few decades, and it threatens our living standards like nothing else.
It's an epidemic with more than one cause, and not all of them are obviously sinister. Part of the problem is the growing complexity of the global economy. Life is simply getting harder to handle with the brainpower at our disposal.
To understand why, imagine a chess master. She might be able to think her way through the game about eight moves in advance. Now add more squares to the board, and perhaps a few new pieces. How many moves in advance can she think? Not eight -- maybe not even five. Because of the growing interconnectedness of the global economy, our lives are becoming more complex in much the same way, with many more moving parts; we can no longer worry just about those closest to us. As a result, we can't plan for the long term as easily as we used to. Every corner of the global economy is like a chessboard with an infinite number of squares; there's simply too much uncertainty.
Structural aspects of the global economy are magnifying the problem. For instance, the quarterly-earnings culture of financial markets -- the obsession with meeting analysts' expectations for corporate profits every three months, no matter what financial acrobatics that may imply -- owes its existence in part to arbitrary choices about how often companies have to report their results. Similarly, the money pumped into political campaigns has allowed them to lengthen considerably -- up to 22 months in the case of the 2008 U.S. election -- but legislative cycles have stayed much the same. With only two years between Congresses in the United States, for example, there's hardly time to focus on anything except reelection.
Together with these challenges, there is one truly odious cause of short-term thinking: narcissism. This personality trait has been changing in a measurable way. In surveys taken by psychologists, the level of narcissism -- often defined as a lack of empathy -- among successive cohorts of college students has been rising steadily since the late 1970s. Evidently, the "human potential" movement of the 1960s became transformed into the self-realization movement of the 1970s, the selfishness of the 1980s, the self-affirmation of the 1990s, and finally the self-absorption of the Internet age. Narcissistic people don't only empathize less with others today; they also empathize less with others in the future, including their future selves.
The effects of these changes are manifest in every part of the global economy. Individuals fail to plan adequately for their retirement; they simply don't care about their future selves as much as they ought to. They're also happy to push their debts into the future, in forms ranging from credit cards to government bonds. Essentially, they are stealing from future generations to fund their lifestyles today. In the long term, however, their actions could be disastrous: a rash of debt crises, perhaps, or tax rates high enough to stifle even the fastest-growing economies.
The corporate sector is suffering too. Managers focused on hitting their quarterly targets may ignore profitable long-term investments if the upfront cost is too great. This may be especially true for so-called social investments, whose benefits may not occur until several years have passed. For instance, what executive would spend extra money to help the quality of education in his company's community if the benefits in terms of higher-skilled workers and wealthier consumers might not appear until after he retired?
Governments are also passing up valuable opportunities to help their economies grow. Infrastructure, scientific research, and education cost a lot in the short term, and their benefits can take years or even a generation to accrue. Yet these benefits, in terms of higher wages, enhanced competitiveness, and economic growth, are enormous. The question is: How can you get a politician to focus on these investments, when she may be long gone from office by the time they pay off? For that matter, how could you get her to spend money today to fend off global warming or some other apparently far-off calamity?
The answer in both cases, of course, is for voters -- and shareholders, in the private sector -- to send a strong message that will punish short-term thinking. For this to happen, we need to change our preferences. We have to take responsibility for our own excesses. We have to teach our children to delay their gratification, to work hard even when the results might not come right away, and to use all the tools at their disposal to understand all the complications of an uncertain world.
If we do not, we risk an enormous disappointment of expectations that will be catastrophic in both economic and psychic terms. Already, living standards for the younger generation in wealthy economies are starting to fall short of those their parents enjoyed. The response among the young has been to borrow more, earlier, and the oceans of cheap money supplied by the world's central banks have only served to enable them.
They are just accelerating the catastrophe. The time to stretch out our time horizons at home, in business, and in government is right now, before our future disappears altogether.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

[Quote] With an open heart and an open mind


It might not be warranted, but you won't get far without it. Don't bother going to that meeting or reading that book unless you can momentarily assume the message comes from a place of goodwill and generosity.

Skepticism doesn't help you hear.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

[Reading] The Sage


“Life has a gap in it, it just does.” 

For one thing, as all the great wisdom traditions have taught, learning to be satisfied with little makes us calmer, less anxious and more able to deal with the imperfections of life. Wanting the maximum, in contrast, makes us grasping, constantly aware of what we do not have.


Too much also tends to spoil what you already have, whereas too little at least preserves it. Overeat and the dinner is spoiled by nausea and indigestion. Leave the restaurant a little hungry and at least you haven’t ruined your enjoyment of what you have had.
That does not mean we should be happy for our life gardens to contain large, uncultivated areas, of course, or that we should not put in something extra that will flourish if we see the opportunity. Making the most of your limited life need not mean hankering after a different or bigger one. But it does suggest that if you spy a gap, as Margot’s friend says: “Don’t go crazy trying to fill it.”
The Shrink
An entertaining and potentially revelatory self-development exercise is to imagine alternative lives. The idea is that this may lead you to neglected aspects of yourself that could do with some attention. What do you fancy being? An opera singer? A monk? A foreign correspondent?
It can be tantalising, a bit like walking up a lovely mountain path and noticing trails going off in all sorts of intriguing directions. With the best stamina in the world you can’t explore all of them, but you can’t help wondering what breathtaking panoramas you might be missing. Similarly, even if you are happy with your life, there will always be alternative paths – desires, potentials and capacities that you could develop – but you can’t know where they might lead.
Sometimes responding to the lure of such dormant potentials is easy: we can just choose to cultivate a certain quality a bit more. You may not be able to go for a complete life change, but perhaps you could still join a choir, make room for contemplation, do some travelling – or even read more travel books.
At other times it’s trickier: you’ve become aware of nurturing an inner sculptor, say, but sculpture doesn’t quite fit into your already overcommitted life. It’s even harder when it comes to relationships, since rarely do we get everything we need from one person, and it could be unwise to keep chasing perfection when good enough is ... well, good enough.
There are times when accommodating an undeveloped potential requires radical life shifts, but how do we know when such a big adjustment is in order? Of course there are no off-the-shelf answers, but you could ask yourself a few questions. One is how urgent the need to change direction is, how important it is to have this missing ingredient in your life. Another is to what extent you are genuinely dissatisfied with your life rather than just responding to a fleeting curiosity or passing cloud of boredom.
Gaps are part of the human condition, so we can never fill them all. The point is deciding which ones we can live with.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

[Newspaper 20120704] Eurozone ESM



Eurozone's rescue funds to recapitalise undercapitalised banks directly, rather than provide money via vulnerable governments (of particular benefit to Spain and potentially enormous benefit to Ireland) and to buy sovereign bonds in the market (of apparent benefit to Italy and Spain).
It was also agreed that loans from rescue funds would not be senior to existing loans, which should reduce the risk of panics by lenders. Leaders also agreed a €120bn ($151bn) package of measures to promote growth. On the principle that support should coincide with control, the European Central Bank is to be given responsibility for a new system of European banking supervision, as a step towards what protagonists hope will be a true banking union.

Yet what was not agreed is even more important. The list includes any increase in the funds available for the European Stability Mechanism (capped at €500bn); eurozone bonds, in any form; and a eurozone-wide deposit guarantee or bank resolution regime. 
Meanwhile, it needs to be stressed, the ECB has no intention of being buyer of last resort of sovereign bonds.

Thus the most important positive element is the movement towards breaking the mutually destructive links between banks and sovereigns. This is a step towards the eurozone equivalent of the US troubled asset relief programme, or Tarp. A consequence must be to take the responsibility for supervision out of the hands of national governments. The result is also going to be a huge further increase in the powers of the ECB. At the same time, this is only a small step towards a full banking union, which would require a bigger fiscal back-up than anything now available. 

The decision to let the rescue funds buy government debt in the market is even less meaningful and could prove destructive, as the Belgian economist, Paul de Grauwe, now at the London School of Economics, argues in a recent article.* The outstanding debt of Italy and Spain is close to €2.8tn, or a little less than six times the size of the ESM. It is well known from the work on currency crises of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate, that speculators can bet safely against a fund known to be too small to stabilise a market. The only credible stabiliser is an entity with infinite firepower. In the case of sovereign finance inside the eurozone, the only entity able to protect a country against selffulfilling runs on its sovereign debt is the ECB. Since the ECB is unwilling to act in this role and leaders are unwilling to give the ESM the powers to force it to do so, these proposals amount to spitting in the financial winds. Markets may have worked this out: while bond spreads have fallen, they remain dangerously elevated (see chart).

In substance, then, these are small steps, incapable of achieving the three necessary conditions for an end to the crisis: a definitive separation of banks from sovereigns; financing of weak sovereigns on manageable terms during the lengthy period of economic adjustment and retrenchment; and, above all, a return to healthy economic growth.

Let us not be too grudging: the decision to allow the ESM to recapitalise banks directly is possibly very important, both in itself and for what it portends. It might transform Ireland's position. Nevertheless, the biggest danger is that the economics of the eurozone are deteriorating fast. Joblessness reached 11.1 per cent in May, the highest on record for the zone. Worse, apart from its refusal to intervene in sovereign debt markets on the needed scale, the ECB is hopelessly late in taking necessary monetary action. With austerity biting in vulnerable countries, everybody is feeling the pinch: even Germany is not immune to downturns in big trading partners. It is conceivable that the eurozone will struggle through this economic trench warfare over the next several years. However, the costs - not just economic but also political - are likely to be enormous.

Yes, the eurozone does need a new constitution. But the priority is to get economies moving. Until then, the risks of further crises remain.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

[Quote]Fallacies

A few tricks that might be handy to keep up your sleeves.
- Accidents:
Suppose a freak incident to reject a general rule, the freak feature helps overturn general rule. Vice veresa, when it is claimed that you are breaking the rules, dig up the freakiest case: if the rule doesn't apply in this case, why should it to yours?

- Affirming the consequent:
Mix up the antecedents and consequents. In an 'if... then...' construction, it is not correct to affirm the consequent in order to prove the antecedent! This is extremely useful when you wish to impute base motives to someone. E.g. If I drop an egg, it breaks. This egg is broken, so I must have dropped it.

- Antiquitam, argumentum ad:
This supposes that something is good or right simply because it is old. (But after all, human progress is made by replacing the old with new) A belief or action being old does not make it right, any more than it makes it wrong. E.g. You are not having a car, I never had a car, my father never had one; nor did his father before him.

- Apriorism:
Usually, observation of facts test our principles. To start out with principle and use them to accept/reject facts is the wrong way round. Relationship between principle and fact is complicated: we need some kind of principle, otherwise nothing presents itself as fact in the first place. E.g. In patent medicine, principle governs the interpretation of facts, such that recovery approves the medicine; while lack of recovery was proof that more is needed.

- Bifurcation:
The presentation of only 2 alternatives where others exist. E.g. If you are not with us, you are against us.

- Blinding with science:
Use of technical jargon to deceive audience, blinding them to the true merits of what is being said.

- Bogus dilemma:
Presenting false consequences or false choices. E.g. If you become a politician, you tell the truth, men will hate you; you tell lies, god will hate you. Since you must tell either truth or lies, you will be hated.

- Circus in probando:
Using as evidence a fact, which is authenticated by the very conclusion it supports. E.g.'I have the diamond, so I shall be the leader.' 'Why should you get to keep the diamond?' 'Because I'm the leader, stupid!'

- Complex question:
A question that conceals an assumption. The answer is basically assumed before it is given. E.g. Did the pollution you caused increase or decrease your profits? E.g. Would you prefer to go to bed now, or after you've finished your cocoa?

Saturday, April 14, 2012

[Travel] Madrid - Apr 2012

Plaza Santa Ana
Puerta del Sol
Plaza Mayor
Palacio Real de Madrid
Parque del Retiro
Museo del Prado
Gran Via

Sunday, January 22, 2012

[Thoughts] Making Impression

People acting differently than what they normally would act.
We speak not of what we think, but for the response that we expect.
We tell outrageous stories to others.
We make sure our opinions are heard.
We argue.
We lie.

And all we have in common to a certain degree, in the world of free information, is our strive to be recognised, by everybody and especially the ones who we want to impress.