Doing the Economics of Love...

Since everyone's been huffing and puffing so much about my recent posts, here's something to help y'all chill...:-)


July 13, 2008

Everybody’s Business

Lessons in Love, by Way of Economics By BEN STEIN

AS my fine professor of economics at Columbia, C. Lowell Harriss (who just celebrated his 96th birthday) used to tell us, economics is the study of the allocation of scarce goods and services. What could be scarcer or more precious than love? It is rare, hard to come by and often fragile.
My primary life study has been about love. Second comes economics, so here, in the form of a few rules, is a little amalgam of the two fields: the economics of love. (I last wrote about this subject 20 years or so ago, and it’s time to update it.)

•
In general, and with rare exceptions, the returns in love situations are roughly proportional to the amount of time and devotion invested. The amount of love you get from an investment in love is correlated, if only roughly, to the amount of yourself you invest in the relationship.

If you invest caring, patience and unselfishness, you get those things back. (This assumes, of course, that you are having a relationship with someone who loves you, and not a one-sided love affair with someone who isn’t interested.)

•

High-quality bonds consistently yield more return than junk, and so it is with high-quality love. As for the returns on bonds, I know that my comment will come as a surprise to people who have been brainwashed into thinking that junk bonds are free money. They aren’t. The data from the maven of bond research, W. Braddock Hickman, shows that junk debt outperforms high quality only in rare situations, because of the default risk.

In love, the data is even clearer. Stay with high-quality human beings. And once you find that you are in a junk relationship, sell immediately. Junk situations can look appealing and seductive, but junk is junk. Be wary of it unless you control the market.

(Or, as I like to tell college students, the absolutely surest way to ruin your life is to have a relationship with someone with many serious problems, and to think that you can change this person.)

•

Research pays off. The most appealing and seductive (that word again) exterior can hide the most danger and chance of loss. For most of us, diversification in love, at least beyond a very small number, is impossible, so it’s necessary to do a lot of research on the choice you make. It is a rare man or woman who can resist the outward and the surface. But exteriors can hide far too much.
•
In every long-term romantic situation, returns are greater when there is a monopoly. If you have to share your love with others, if you have to compete even after a brief while with others, forget the whole thing. You want to have monopoly bonds with your long-term lover. At least most situations work out better this way. ( I am too old to consider short-term romantic events. Those were my life when Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were in the White House.)

•
The returns on your investment should at least equal the cost of the investment. If you are getting less back than you put in over a considerable period of time, back off.

•
Long-term investment pays off. The impatient day player will fare poorly without inside information or market-controlling power. He or she will have a few good days but years of agony in the world of love.

To coin a phrase: Fall in love in haste, repent at leisure.

•
Realistic expectations are everything. If you have unrealistic expectations, they will rarely be met. If you think that you can go from nowhere to having someone wonderful in love with you, you are probably wrong.

You need expectations that match reality before you can make some progress. There may be exceptions, but they are rare.

•
When you have a winner, stick with your winner. Whether in love or in the stock market, winners are to be prized.

•

Have a dog or many dogs or cats in your life. These are your anchors to windward and your unfailing source of love.

Ben Franklin summed it up well. In times of stress, the three best things to have are an old dog, an old wife and ready money. How right he was.

THERE is more that could be said about the economics of love, but these thoughts may divert you while you are thinking about your future.

And let me close with another thought. I am far from glib about the economy. It has a lot of pitfalls facing it. As workers and investors, we know that many dangers lurk in our paths.

But so far, these things have always worked themselves out and this one will, too. In the meantime, they say that falling in love is wonderful, and that the best is falling in love with what you have.

Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meantime folks, I am going offline for about 10 days (no, no, not on strike again, just investing in time with the kids). If I get near a computer, may be tempted to post something. Otherwise see you again in early August!

And the others will be exclusively for men?

Friday July 18, 2008

Waterfall site solely for women in Terengganu

By R.S.N. MURALI

HULU TERENGGANU: The state government is now in the midst of earmarking a waterfall site and gazetting it exclusively for women.

Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Said noted that the state is blessed with abundance of natural wonder and allotting one waterfall site for women would not be a problem.

“We are still looking for the appropriate site. Only women can patronise that area, no men would be allowed.

“Tourists from certain West Asian countries are also keen for us to establish an exclusive picnic site for women,” he said after touring Kenyir Lake here yesterday.

Ahmad said the state government also plans to employ only women to manage the site and female security guards.

On Kenyir Lake, he said it would be developed into a tourist hub for people from all walks of life, including senior citizens.

“The manmade lake is a majestic site and has existed for three decades. Now, we have to enhance its features to lure more tourists,” he said, noting that 72,000 visitors holidayed at the lake in the first six months of this year.

Ahmad said he had cautioned contractors to adhere to environmental parameters when working on development projects at Kenyir.

“We want these contractors to avoid felling any trees and works should strictly conform to the guidelines set by the relevant agencies,” he said.

Ahmad also announced that the state government was considering absorbing the airport tax to lure more tourists to the state.

“This system has been implemented in Taiwan and we are looking into the possibility of introducing it here,” he added.

___________________________________________________________________

But women can still go to the other sites if they want, right?

I like the idea of the state government absorbing the airport tax though.

The Debate: A Review

It's been a long time since I reviewed anything, whether a book or a movie. But having watched The Debate tonight, I was rather moved to write one. Now this is not going to be a review about substance, because I'm not sure I really understood what little substance there was. This is really going to be a review of the debaters, rather than the debate.

First of all, in many ways they were well matched, Anwar and Shabery. They're both guys, one smooth-skinned and one who used to be smooth-skinned. (OKlah, Anwar's been having some troubles lately so very understandable that he looked a bit worse for wear.) They're of the same height and both have that air of the natty dresser, even if someone must have decided that ties are not de rigeur tonight, perhaps to make it seem more casual.

I thought Anwar started off shakily but soon warmed up. While Shabery started off smooth and then got shaky. Both had facts to throw at the other but you could see who was the more experienced politician and who knows how to appeal to people. After a while, Shabery started to look, well, shifty. I wound up being more fascinated by the body language of these two rather than actually listening to what they said.

Not that there was much to what they said. I didn't find either very convincing. But people are often convinced by demeanour, by what looks like sincerity and conviction. They look at what expressions you pull your face into and whether they are deliberate or not. Both debaters smile and neither smile is the sort that warms the cockles of your heart. But Shabery's bottom lip has an unnerving wobbliness that betrays....what, nervousness?

The audience naturally comprised supporters of both sides but they were very subdued, compared to the usual raucousness you'd expect from devotees. They clapped when their respective heroes made a point they liked (though each time they sounded as if they were cue'd). The curious thing was that Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah seemed disinclined to applaud her husband at all. (I wish I knew which one was Shabery's wife. All the women in the audience seemed to be Anwar fans except maybe Halimah Sadique.)

I rather liked the format of the debate though where each had a chance to say their bit,then answered questions put to them by the moderator Datuk Johan Jaafar, then handpicked questioners from both sides. Then they got to ask each other questions! But I suppose it's in the nature of politicians to be unable to ask a question without preceding it with a speech, nor to answer anything directly or to stick to the point. But by wandering into the realm of the personal, I think Shabery lost major points.

Anyway, all in all I think these debates are a good thing. Let's have more match-ups. How about Nik Aziz against Zahid Hamidi? Yen Yen against Shahrizat? Azalina against Rafidah? Nazri against Guan Eng? Harussani against Asri? Yummy, makes for great TV!

Is This For Real?

Saturday July 12, 2008 MYT 8:30:06 PM

Repeat of 2004 election results possible, says PM

By V.P. SUJATA

PUTRAJAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has confidence that Malaysians can help Barisan Nasional win big in the next general election similar to the 2004 historical victory.

He also stated that the disastrous results of the March election was a blessing in disguise, adding that there was a lesson to be learnt from it all.

He suggested that if Malaysians could change their attitude and refuse to be beaten, repeating the historical 2004 general elections results was possible.

"I'm used to making history that leaders before me had not achieved.

"The 2004 general election was the best but the 2008 result was the worst which no leader before me had achieved," he said.

Together with positive thinking, he said, the implementation of objectives should also be in order to succeed.

"There are always challenges and lessons. Losing does not matter; there is a blessing behind all these.

"Don't poison our minds with ideas that kill initiatives and make us lose confidence in ourselves; think that we can do it and we will succeed," he said Saturday when addressing thousands of people from over 80 non-governmental organisations who came in droves to show support for Abdullah here.

He received a memorandum from the NGOs promising support for his leadership as well as a compact disc of a song dedicated to him sung by Jamaludin Elias better known as Nash who is also a member of the event's organising committee.

Abdullah also suggested that Malaysians upgrade their standard of living, adding that there were many opportunities to develop and progress. (how to change our lifestyles and also upgrade our standard of living???)

He believed that he could help Malaysians, particularly the Malays, adopt a change of attitude and work towards progress.

He said three or four years before former Umno president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad retired, the latter had apologised in a party meeting stating that he could make many changes but not change the attitude of his race.

"Deep down I had told myself that if I am destined to be the next leader, I would work towards that," he said.

He told the people that one had to change and want to succeed while emulating the struggles of the disabled to live. (sorry??)

Abdullah reiterated the importance of rural youngsters to remain in villages and implement agriculture projects instead of going to big cities in search of wealth but had ended up living in squatters and becoming "Mat Rempit". (So they should all become farmers? I thought there are children of farmers who went to the cities and became successful as well?)

"Lots of people have questioned why I gave importance to agriculture at a time when the world was thinking of technology but today the food issue has become serious," he said.

Abdullah ended his speech with three shouts of "Hidup Malaysia" and the people replied with "Hidup Pak Lah."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, I've heard of people in denial but this is ridiculous!

Another 'Important' thing to talk about...

Thursday July 10, 2008 MYT 3:30:47 PM

Skirt length becomes an issue in Parliament

By NG CHENG YEE

KUALA LUMPUR: The uproar among female journalists over the length of skirts was finally put to rest after Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abd Aziz gave the assurance that those who are decently dressed would be allowed in.

The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, who is in charge of Parliament affairs, also said security guards at the Parliament building had no right to decide on its visitors' dress code.

"As long as one does not wear their undergarments inside out, that's fine. Just don't come in in your underwear," he said Thursday at a press conference at the Parliament lobby. (That rules out Superman then...)

The dress code for press members became a controversy when several female reporters were warned by security personnel at the media entrance for being indecently dressed.

All these journalists were wearing skirts long enough to cover their knees, thereby complying with the rule set by the Parliament administration.

Mohamed Nazri said whether a person was decently dressed or not was determined by one's value and no one could impose their own values on others. (Right on Nazri...hope this is true of other issues as well...)

"MPs can write in their complaint to me in black and white if they see someone they think is indecently dressed and we will take action," he said.

However, he said, sometimes even MPs wear skirts which were not knee length.

"But if they (security guards) cannot control (MPs), then don't practise double standards. I don't allow double standards in the House," he said. (Waahhhh.....)

He said he would also inform security personnel at the Parliament building to focus on their job, which was to ensure safety in the House and not enforcing dress code on visitors. (Yep...)

Women, Family and Development Minister Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen said skirts that were knee length was considered decent.

"You (reporters) definitely know what is decent dressing and what is not.

"The guards are not supposed to take up the role of jaga pintu (door keepers) of decent dressing.

"Security guards should make sure no one brings in bombs or guns," she said.

For guys with long hair, she said, they could tie up their hair and ensure that they looked tidy and clean.

"I believe those who come to Parliament will know how to respect Parliament.

"I have trust in the rakyat and those who come to Parliament will not dress indecently just to challenge the dress code," she said.

Earlier, both M. Kulasegaran (DAP - Ipoh Barat) and Teresa Kok (DAP - Seputeh) had tried to raise the issue of dresscode in the House but it was dismissed by Deputy Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee.

"This is a matter that is taking place outside of the Dewan," he said and called on Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Seri Lajim Ukin to continue with his reply despite protests from both MPs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I've never seen reporters better dressed than at Parliament. But it's quite interesting seeing the other people there. Some look like they're dressed to attend a party. Which maybe they are...

Night of The Stars at Blog House

(Me, Nuraina and Izzah chatting about trees and children.)

She walked up the steps, greeted people on every side and then saw me. For a moment, there was a glimmer of recognition mixed with confusion as if she was unsure what to do. Then good manners took over and she put out her hand to shake mine. And that was how, for the first time ever, Nurul Izzah Anwar and I met. (Most people did not notice our meeting hence nobody got any photos except for Mr Cheah who very kindly sent these.)

The occasion was the AllBlogs 100 Days gathering at Blog House last night. As Rocky said in his report, it was a fun event. It's always nice to get together with fellow bloggers and also blogreaders, just for the sake of putting faces to names you often read. And the atmosphere was convivial and friendly.

So what did Nurul Izzah and I talk about? I told her she was my MP since I live in her constituency. Raja Petra asked me if I voted for her and I said no because I am registered in a different constituency. But still she's in charge of my area's drains and trees among other things. So we talked a bit about how the Bangsar trees were being threatened and how my 9-year old ShaSha is so incensed about the cutting of the trees that she wants to stage a demo. (She's a bit afraid of being teargassed so I had to assure her that they are unlikely to deploy the FRU against the eight little girls she hopes to rally.)

(Skinny Jeff flanked by two 'healthy' ladies trying to look slimmer in black!)

Ronnie Liu, looking very YBish in his orang batik shirt, turned up with some of his yellow t-shirted constituents who had gone with him to support RPK at the police station. Jeff Ooi had lost lots of weight since before the elections which makes him look very good. He said he never thought he would be THIS busy after becoming an MP. I was surprised to find that Loh Gwo Burne speaks very well although he had to fight the typical Malaysian short attention span. He had someone with him who bore such a strong resemblance to him despite being shorter and smaller that I had to ask if they were brothers and it turned out they were. And my brother Mukhriz turned up although he was unsure if he might have to rush off since his wife is expecting their fourth child any minute.

(RPK and Mukhriz trying to convince the other fellow that being bald is in.)

And just to add some glamour, Erra Fazira and her hubby Engku Emran showed up in a Harley-Davidson roar.

(Me giving Erra tips on how to put on weight)

I think I'll Just Go On Strike

I don't know about you guys but I really can't keep up anymore with what's happening. With all these endless statutory declarations, police report after police report, statements hither and thither, I can't get any of it straight anymore. Who did what to whom? Who has been plotting to do what to whom? Who hates who, who loves who? Sorry, I don't know anymore. I'd rather watch CSI frankly (or rather, right now, Wimbledon, which has just as much drama. Go Zheng Jie! )

While everyone bickers, admits, gossips, analyses, rumourmongers (the latest I heard today was that I was the last to hear that my Dad had had a heart attack...), I have a life to lead. I have a daughter who's turning 9 tomorrow and who has very set ideas about how she intends to celebrate it. I have columns and papers to write, a conference and a fundraiser to organise, people I need to talk to and decisions to make. At the same time, I have a home to run, kids whose studies I need to keep a watchful eye over, a husband who also needs attention and a small circle of friends I run to for support. I am just busy. With a capital B.

So I don't have time to keep up with all these shenanigans. The other day I went to fill up my car's petrol tank and thought there was something wrong with the counter showing the price at the petrol pump because it kept going on and on and didn't stop until it got to a ridiculous sum. Even the petrol pump attendant looked apologetic but it wasn't his fault. That is the price of petrol these days.

At home I find myself doling out money more frequently for my cook to buy groceries. Are we eating more or do things just cost more? I find myself rushing by the windows of boutiques so that I won't be tempted to go in and buy anything unnecessary. The only indulgence I allowed myself recently was lip gloss which somehow cheers me up.

I have to buy air tickets often because we are a two-country family and I also have to travel for work. These days what you pay for the surcharges and taxes would have bought you a seat on a pretty long flight not too long ago. I feel guilty about my carbon footprint but unfortunately I can neither sail nor bicycle to where I need to go. What to do?

So I think I will just go on strike. From reading the news. From being interested in what politicians are up to. From the so-called analyses of what's happening by people who don't really know anything. From the unceasing speculation. I don't know anything at all and I'm quite happy to admit that. And I don't care to offer an opinion either. I just have more important things to do in my life. And I will blog about things that I hope will make us smarter, not stupider.

Today the one thing that made me feel good was this: I went to eat at a restaurant in the basement of one of our big malls. The waiter asked me if I was who he thought I was. I admitted tis was me. And he said, "I know you because my cousin has HIV."

I'm not happy because his cousin has HIV but because he felt he could tell me that. And also because, as hubby pointed out, him acknowledging his cousin must mean he hasn't rejected him. One small victory against stigma and discrimination. I count these little blessings in our bleak landscape.

So They Don't Really Mean It...

July 1, 2008


Deep Down, We Can’t Fool Even Ourselves
By JOHN TIERNEY, New York Times

In voting against the Bush tax cut in 2001, Senator John McCain said he “cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate.” Today he campaigns in favor of extending that same tax cut beyond its expiration date.

Senator Barack Obama last year called himself a “longtime advocate” of public financing of election campaigns. This month, he reiterated his “support” for such financing while becoming the first major party presidential nominee ever to reject it for his own campaign.

Do you think either of these men is a hypocrite?

If so, does this hypocrite really believe, in his heart, what he is saying?

Fortunately, we don’t need to get into the fine points of taxes or campaign finances to take a stab at these questions. We can probably get further by looking at some experiments in what psychologists call moral hypocrisy.

This is a more devious form of hypocrisy than what was exhibited by, say, the governor of New York when he got caught patronizing a prostitute. It was obviously hypocritical behavior for a public official who had formerly prosecuted prostitutes and increased penalties for their customers, but at least Eliot Spitzer acknowledged his actions were wrong by anyone’s standards.

The moral hypocrite, by contrast, has convinced himself that he is acting virtuously even when he does something he would condemn in others. You can understand this “self-halo” effect — and perhaps discover it in someone very close to you — by considering what happened when two psychologists, Piercarlo Valdesolo and David DeSteno, tested people’s reactions to the following situation.

You show up for an experiment and are told that you and a person arriving later will each have to do a different task on a computer. One job involves a fairly easy hunt through photos that will take just 10 minutes. The other task is a more tedious exercise in mental geometry that takes 45 minutes.

You get to decide how to divvy up the chores: either let a computer assign the tasks randomly, or make the assignments yourself. Either way, the other person will not know you had anything to do with the assignments.

Now, what is the fair way to divvy up the chores?

When the researchers posed this question in the abstract to people who were not involved in the tasks, everyone gave the same answer: It would be unfair to give yourself the easy job.

But when the researchers actually put another group of people in this situation, more than three-quarters of them took the easy job. Then, under subsequent questioning, they gave themselves high marks for acting fairly. The researchers call this moral hypocrisy because the people were absolving themselves of violating a widely held standard of fairness (even though they themselves hadn’t explicitly endorsed that standard beforehand).

A double standard of morality also emerged when other people were arbitrarily divided in two groups and given differently colored wristbands. They watched as one person, either from their group or from the other group, went through the exercise and assigned himself the easy job.

Even though the observers had no personal stake in the outcome — they knew they would not be stuck with the boring job — they were still biased. On average, they judged it to be unfair for someone in the other group to give himself the easy job, but they considered it fair when someone in their own group did the same thing.

“Anyone who is on ‘our team’ is excused for moral transgressions,” said Dr. DeSteno, a psychologist at Northeastern University. “The importance of group cohesion, of any type, simply extends our moral radius for lenience. Basically, it’s a form of one person’s patriot is another’s terrorist.”

If a colored wristband is enough to skew your moral judgment, imagine how you are affected by the “D” or the “R” label on your voting registration. If you are a Democrat, you are more likely to think Mr. McCain hypocritically switched tax policies to pick up conservative votes, but Mr. Obama’s decision to abandon public financing probably looks more complicated. If you’re a Republican you’re likelier to figure Mr. Obama did it just so he could raise more money on his own, but you’re more willing to consider Mr. McCain’s economic rationales.

The more interesting question is how presidential candidates, and their supporters, turn into hypocrites. It has been demonstrated repeatedly in experiments that humans are remarkably sensitive to unfairness. We’ve survived as social animals because we are so good at spotting selfishness and punishing antisocial behavior.

So how we do violate our own moral code? Does our gut instinct for self-preservation override our moral reasoning? Do we use our powers of rationality to override our moral instinct?

“The question here,” Dr. DeSteno said, “is whether we’re designed at heart to be fair or selfish.”

To find out, he and Dr. Valdesolo brought more people into the lab and watched them selfishly assign themselves the easy task. Then, at the start of the subsequent questioning, some of these people were asked to memorize a list of numbers and retain it in their heads as they answered questions about the experiment and their actions.

That little bit of extra mental exertion was enough to eliminate hypocrisy. These people judged their own actions just as harshly as others did. Their brains were apparently too busy to rationalize their selfishness, so they fell back on their intuitive feelings about fairness.

“Hypocrisy is driven by mental processes over which we have volitional control,” said Dr. Valdesolo, a psychologist at Amherst College. “Our gut seems to be equally sensitive to our own and others’ transgressions, suggesting that we just need to find ways to better translate our moral feelings into moral actions.”

That is easier said than done, especially in an election year. Even if the presidential candidates know in their guts that they are being hypocritical, they cannot very well be kept busy the whole campaign doing mental arithmetic. Besides, they are surrounded by advisers with plenty of spare mental power to rationalize whatever it takes to win.

Politicians are hypocritical for the same reason the rest of us are: to gain the social benefits of appearing virtuous without incurring the personal costs of virtuous behavior. If you can deceive even yourself into believing that you’re acting for the common good, you’ll have more energy and confidence to further your own interests — and your self-halo can persuade others to help you along.

But as useful as hypocrisy can be, it’s apparently not quite as basic as the human instinct to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Your mind can justify double standards, it seems, but in your heart you know you’re wrong.