Gifts and begging

From a very early age on children are taught not to beg. Yet when I was little, this rule went largely unnoticed. The person who happened to have a bag of treats was of course the center of attention with others hanging around begging and pleading to get their share of the candy. Adults were of course doing there best to teach some basic manners to us and get us to understand that a constant process of begging and moaning is very irritating and degrading and that it is something that should not be engaged in.

Fast-forward a decade or two and the lessons have been learned. Accepting money is not as clear cut as one would assume. I'm still a student and during the first two years of my studies I didn't work during the semesters, so much budget was quite limited. In part things were helped by the occasional subsidy of 50 euros from my parents, which allowed me to get the soy sauce for the rice, so to say. But accepting the money does dig into oneself. In a way, at least according to how I interpret it, it is a way of someone to enforce their authority over you. You take the money and regardless of the terms (be it a gift or whatever), you're still indebted to the other person. In a way you are no longer on the same level.

This might in fact also explain why students in Finland typically stear clear of student loans, even though they are state-backed and fairly cheap loans. But you tie yourself to a bank and agree to give away some of your freedoms in order to attempt to pay back the loan at some point. With inter-person money transfers, things get even more tedious. Some people may initially seem to be giving you gifts, but may implicitly assume that when a certain moment comes along that you know what to do.

According to traditional etiquette, men should treat women to dinners. Contemporary feminism will have its views and I would venture a guess that they are against this practice as it is yet another ancient relic which men use to demonstrate their authority over women. But quite many women still do expect the man to pick up the bill. This in turn translates to an interesting phenomenon concerning the transfer of wealth between the genders, especially during weekends.

So amidst the rise of feminism and the attempt for gender equality (I know, they are not synonyms...) it is quite interesting to see that women are partly becoming more aggressive in attempting to utilize the lax monetary policies followed by many men. The more interesting practice was one which I encountered last weekend in Turku. While waiting at a bar counter, I was rapidly approached by two girls. One started snuggling up to me and it was pretty obvious that she was trying to get a drink for herself and her friend. Or maybe I'm just so drop-dead handsome that it was that instead. Anyway, to see what would happen, I decided to play dumb and move myself a bit further. And lo-and-behold, the girl followed, still initiating slight physical contact. Finally I couldn't help myself anymore but decided to ask what it is that she wanted. And I was shocked to hear that they wanted drinks (well, ok, I wasn't shocked). So being me, I of course complied and ordered myself a beer and two glasses of ice water for the girls and walked away with my beer.

But this begs the question of where the line between normal behavior and whoring goes. I would in fact considering the actions of this specific girl to be borderline whoring as it was quite clear that leveraging the assets afforded to the more beautiful gender in a fashion like this was so blatant that it cannot be interpreted in any other way. The question becomes more difficult during e.g. dinners. My own personal policy is that during dates, I typically tend to offer to pay for small things if I was the one inviting the other party, but I reserve the right to go Dutch if I feel like it. It is a lot rarer that I let the girl pay everything, but it has also happened. But she has to insist upon it strongly before I give up this pleasure.

However, as is the policy that is suggested by different PUAs (pick-up artists), I do not buy drinks for strange women who I just met in nightclubs. Period. That is not only to save my hard earned cash but also to offer the chance to keep the field level. If I'd buy the drink, then a gift would already have been given and this would imply that I may demand something in return. And that sort of starting position is already becoming biased and slanted and offers too many angles for both sides to try to play. And as much fun as playing is, a distorted field spoils it for everyone involved.

Risks

As part of a project at work, we had a discussion about risks quite a while back. Risks are inherently interesting as intuitively everyone is continuously evaluating their probabilities and impacts, whether or not they recognize it. Do I cross the street now? Do I quit my job? Do I enter this relationship?

Risks are also interesting in the way that the ones that you can sort of attempt to foresee and prepare for are seldom the ones that are really the ones to look out for. Nassim Taleb wrote a very fascinating book on the improbable and he brings up a case of casinos. Casinos are in a sense the pinnacle of probability-related studies; everything is calculated and risks analyzed. The house always wins. And recently they've been very heavily investing on technology to catch cheaters. And they're very good at it. But according to Taleb, the top four individual losses that were accumulated by an unnamed casino were not because of cheaters or amazing streaks of luck, but in fact they were caused by the very improbable; risks that nobody had even thought about. These incidents ranged from a disgruntled builder threating to blow up the building to an employee forgetting to file some forms to the tax authorities to the head of the casino dipping into the casino's funds to pay the ransom to release his daughter, and so on.

Similarily Taleb suggests that instead of spending too much effort on catching cheaters in your life, you should focus on minimizing the downside and subjecting yourself to risky situations that have unlimited upsides. Rich people become rich by inheriting their riches or if they don't, then by being lucky. If rich people became rich by being talented and intelligent, then the world is very broken, since I know very many very intelligent people who are not rich.

What about implications to relationships? Well, if one understands risk to be the combination of probabilities of events and the impacts of the same events, then one should, again, focus on managing the downside by minimizing exposure to risks with negative outcomes. Minimize probabilities and impacts. But herein lies another interesting conflict. Relationships are based on trust. I trust that you will not harm me. But if you effectively manage risks and downsides, what might in fact happen is that trust will not grow. If I tell you that I trust you, but am all the time covering my rear and making sure that exits are close by, would you really believe me? And therein lies the pickle.

But in fact, as contradicting as it is, I guess it's just a question of decision making. On one hand by minimizing the downside you also restrict the upside. But by aiming for infinite bliss and happiness and the unrestricted upside, you also, by definition, subject yourself to an ever increasing amount of negative risks as well. The question is where one decides to draw the line. If the meteor hits and the negative risks materialize, will it kill you? Or send you back into the stone age emotionally, physically, mentally, financially, and so on?

So... T-bills, stock, or derivatives?

Evenings

Antti may have gotten his Alfa Romeo, but we've shared a common passion before too: Italy. I still have to thank him for getting me interested in Italian cuisine, and even though I still can't cook to save my life, I'm at least interested in taking small steps to learn. And today, after finally washing my dishes last night, I decided that it was time to cook some tortellinis and have some white wine.

Earlier this evening I finally met R's fiance and was able to give them the hot air balloon trip as an engagement/house warming present. And, it was worth it. I think they were very surprised and even happier about the present.

Anyway, fast forward and I'm back at home and what's a better way to spend a Tuesday evening than to have tortellinis, white wine, enjoy the company of Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's and plan a trip to Germany. Perfect. Oh, and I had to put an end to the watch fever I've been having, since yesterday I nearly bought an IWC, and that would've been quite a bit too expensive. So I bought a Tag Heuer Carrera instead. Oh well. At least I "saved" a couple of thousand euros...

Rhetorics

I recently started reading Naomi Klein's newest piece of work, The Shock Doctrine. However, I won't delve into the actual substance of the book as I haven't finished it yet, but an interesting point came to my mind about it already. Her work revolves heavily around economics, which is traditionally a quite tedious subject in school and which consists of endless hours of staring at diagrams and trying to understand how things work. But her book doesn't remind me of the course books in economics that I've read. Instead it reads more like The Da Vinci Code, and that isn't necessarily meant to be a complement.

Klein has, however, mastered the art of rhetorics. Her style of writing is very provocative and if one is not careful in understanding what she is saying, she can be very persuasive. However, it is clear that being such a, shall we say, shocking book, it has to cut some corners and go to extreme interpretations in order to achieve the sensational nature and aura. And for me it is always a warning sign when any sort of "serious" book reads like the tabloids. Needless to say, Klein's book is full of fairly far fetched interpretations and even some oddities.

At the start of the book Klein goes to use neoconservatism and neoliberalism rather interchangeably. She then suggests that Friedman is a neoconservatist. And at this point alarm bells should be ringing. Granted, this is very much a nitpicking issue about terminology, but according to my limited understanding of things, neoconservatism is more or less what the Bush administration is about, neoliberalism is closer to libertarianism, which in turn holds pretty much the opposite views as the neocon crowd when the discussion turns to governmental issues. Neolibertarianism in turn is a strange combination of neoconservatism and libertarianism, but I personally just don't understand this school of thought as it seems sort of inconsistent with itself. And out of these, I would understand Friedman to have been a libertarian. And libertarianism itself can, according to Friedman, be defined in two different ways. But maybe I'll just stop with this word play as I'm not even trained in political philosophy.

But, if this should start sounding the alarm bells, one will soon notice that Klein does present a vast amount of all sorts of trivia statistics. And naturally most of her evidence does appear to support her case. But the zeal with which she presents these bits of information begs the question regarding where the figures are from and whether or not she has just picked the bits and pieces of the puzzle that support her conspiracy theory. Granted, I am very biased, but I have this feeling that free trade and free markets as such have increased the overall wealth and that in the grand scheme of things poverty has decreased in the world. Maybe some places have gone in the opposite direction, but at large things are going in the better direction, and I am fairly certain that if one digs around, one will find a lot of numbers to support this.

I promised that I wouldn't go into details, but I do agree with Klein that there is something fishy going on these days. But I have a gut feeling that the real relevant issue isn't about whether or not free trade and free markets are enforced upon people by use of violence and coersion. I think the fishy business revolves more around the corporatism and the dealing out of e.g. rebuilding contracts in Iraq in a very nepotistic fashion, etc. The bad apples seem to be the people in charge of the big companies and the big governments. To my understanding the libertarian point of view is that the influence of goverments should be made as minimal as possible, but not any more minimal than that. One might argue that by forbidding the goverment from engaging in interventionism in the scale that it can according to the neocons that the end result is undoubtedly a winner-takes-all situation where a single company will eventually gain a monopoly. Granted, that is a fair point and I would imagine that, besides the ultra hard liners of laissez-faire, many libertarians would agree that a monopoly may not serve the interests of very many people and that healthy competition would be a better option. This is by no means an easy discussion, but the point I'm trying to make is that where Klein has some decent points, she's in fact succumbing to her own trap and indeed using the "shock" from Iraq and natural catastrophies and so on to sell people her own thoughts and ideas, and that is precisely what she is speaking out against.

So to sum it up, saying that Milton Friedman is the devil behind all the suffering today is in my opinion quite a harsh statement. If one reads Klein's complaints very carefully, one will notice that she and Friedman are not in fact very similar, at least according to how she portrays Friedman. Reality, again, might be even more different. But hey, at least she does know the noble art of rhetorics.

Speaking of Porsches...

A friend of mine recently picked up an Alfa Romeo 147. Among the core arguments for the car were things like "It says benzina next to the fuel gage!" and that "It will be broken all the time since it's an Italian car, but it won't matter as it is so beautiful!" This sort of mindset is driven by the view that passion is enough. I contest this point by arguing the exact opposite point: passion, while needed to some extent, typically just gets you in trouble. That is not to say that passion is bad, but it cannot be the only thing. An analogy would be a relationship. While passion is crucial from the outset, if there is no other substance, no respect, no kinship, the relationship will be a short and painful one.

Porsche has been criticized by some people for being too engineered a car. They say that it lacks soul, it lacks the aforementioned passion. That it is cold and sterile. That it is too rationale. Maybe so. But there is beauty in engineering. It is backed by numbers and hard facts. But it has its own spirit, its own soul, and its pride. The engine is at the back, as it has just about always been. It is up for debate whether or not this is a good or a bad thing, but they've kept their head and have not changed their minds about it. Some may call this stubborn, but it need not be seen in such negative light: it may be also seen to be consistency and strong will, both considered to be good traits.

But in fact the discussion around passion versus engineering comes again to the question of balance. When doing analysis work on strategic questions, taking a purely quantitative approach will always result in incorrect results, because the initial numbers are always wrong and the models always lacking. But a purely qualitative approach is not any better either, as it just hangs high in the air and lacks firm numbers to back feelings with. No one will make a multi-million dollar decision based solely on gut feeling. But because mathematics is considered by many to be tedious and boring, it is often overlooked or not utilized properly. Waving hands around with qualitative analysis is a lot easier and a lot more fun than analyzing numbers, so that is too often what gets done instead.

In relationships, passion ignites the chain of events. But too often the boring things are overlooked and it is assumed that strong enough passion will conquer all. In a number of years, however, reality will hit and gravity will kick in. And at that point it would be nice to know that the ground work has been done properly and that effort need not be spent on fought on things that are not at the core: fire fighting by attempting to kill the smoke while the fire is elsewhere seldom helps with anything. Same thing with cars; the first year or two with a car might be nice and everything works. The design of the body might be nice, but when you come up between a rock and a hard place, you do want to know that the engineers have done the mathematics and that the airbags will deploy and the body will stay intact, protecting you and your significant other so that you two can continue having a passionate relationship.

And with that, I'll leave you with a two-part video about the new Porsche 911 Turbo (977), which is not only engineered, but it is engineered with passion. And it is pretty damn sexy as well... And Antti, good luck with the Alfa. And I'm sure it'll be a fun and nice car.

Perfect moments

Sometimes you get this image of a perfect moment in your mind. I personally find that these sorts of pictures that you can vision act as good guides for evaluating where you're going and what you want. They tell quite a bit about you and what you're going through as well as where you want to be. It's up for debate whether or not they need to be realistic; the realistic pictures may help you set your more concrete plans, but unrealistic images act sort of in the same way as brand building and communication; they convey values and tell about things like what one perceives as aesthetic and pleasing, amongst other things. So here's one of the latest:

New England. A road running through a deciduous forest. Autumn time. The leaves are turning brown and a brief and light rain has just passed, leaving the brand new, black tarmac slightly wet. It's morning, but the sun is already out and shining through the clouds. A Porsche 911 Turbo. An International Watch Company Il Destriero Scafusiae. Shifting the manual gearbox, the satisfying feeling it provides. Slight smile. A short, brown leather jacket. Leaves gradually falling from the trees, but are then shifted aside by the air stream of the car. The end of the golf season and a course that is still 40 kilometers away. Perfect greens. The car's player is playing Learn to Fly by the Foo Fighters. A new page in life, ready for new complications. The Porsche just flies through the roads. The watch and its 750 pieces advance slowly, in a perfect and harmonious motion. Elegance. A European on American soil.

I guess one could go on, but the point is undoubtedly clear. It is doubtfel that I'll ever own a Porsche. Or an IWC, let alone an Il Destriero Scafusiae. This is worrisomely signals a materialistic view of life, but it doesn't matter. Both are fine pieces of engineering, the peaks of their respective fields. They are products that are near perfection and provide pleasure by merely existing. One can enjoy everything they represent. Drive the car and enjoy it without anyone ever seeing it. Enjoy the watch without anyone else ever understanding the complexity of it or what it represents.

Slipping

Well, looks like my discipline in regards to keeping my blog has been slipping slightly again. But in my defence, the weather has been a bit too warm for my taste, as I'm not really a summer person. In my opinion the perfect temperature is between five and ten degrees. Mainly because those temperatures aren't too cold, but you can still wear an overcoat.

It also appears that the golf club has laid off pretty much all the course workers. Proof of this surfaced earlier this morning when I kept losing my golf balls into the rough, which had been allowed to grow quite long. I can sort of understand the decision as it increases the difficulty of the course, but it still feels very artificial and increasing the difficulty of a pseudo-links course that's been built into the middle of a field is, well, difficult. Sufficient to say, I ended up playing 9 holes before getting fed up and marching to the club and applying Napoleon's age old adage: "In victory, you deserve champagne. In defeat, you need champagne." This spawned some questions as to whether or not I had scored a hole-in-one, but I was able to get some understanding looks after explaining that I was merely following the guidance of Napoleon--after all, one should never question the teachings of great military leaders. Too bad Sun Tzu wasn't French, or we would undoubtedly be allowed to drink a lot more champagne.

As for work, things are getting interesting again. On Friday I received quite a thorough kick in the head which quickly made me realize that I am not in control of the situation anymore and I should seriously start acting in a more decisive manner and demonstrating more concrete leadership with our portfolio planning work, lest we be in grave trouble again. Fortunately this humiliation occured at this point and not in a few months time, as now I still have time to actually work out proper schedules and plans for how to execute everything. And who knows, maybe for 2H08 I'll actually be able to earn my bonuses...